PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1] · R–SC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 24, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10447 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10447 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10447 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10447 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-16 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed American Citizenship Integrity Act would criminalize specified help bringing noncitizens other than lawful permanent residents into the United States with the intent of obtaining citizenship for their children through birth here. It would also make noncitizens ineligible for admission to the United States if officials determine they seek or previously sought admission for that purpose, and create grounds for revoking naturalized citizenship following specified convictions or admissions. A federal task force and designated prosecutors would coordinate enforcement. These are proposed changes; the supplied history records introduction and committee referral.
This Act may be cited as the American Citizenship Integrity Act.
recruits, transports, or harbors by any means any covered alien for the purpose of entering into the United States
with the intent to obtain United States citizenship for the child of such alien through the birth of such child in the United States
The term covered alien means any alien except for an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States.
Any alien who a consular officer or the Secretary of Homeland Security determines is seeking, or has previously sought, admission to the United States for the purpose of obtaining United States citizenship for a child through birth in the United States, is inadmissible.
If a naturalized citizen is convicted of, admits to having committed, or admits to committing acts constituting the essential elements of, an offense under section 1430 of title 18, United States Code, or section 1546 of such title (related to a false claim or statement related to section 212(a)(11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(11))) such conviction or admission shall be considered prima facie and sufficient evidence
shall be revoked and set aside, along with the cancellation of his or her certificate of naturalization
coordinate the identification, investigation, and referral for
shall appoint, in each judicial district, an assistant United States attorney to coordinate and supervise any
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-24T15:25:39Z. 2026-09-16: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-09-16: Introduced in House
Section 2 would create a federal crime covering knowing recruitment, transportation, or harboring of a covered noncitizen for entry into the United States, facilitating those acts, or attempting them, with the intent to obtain citizenship for that person's child through birth in the United States. The conduct must involve or affect interstate or foreign commerce, or occur within the specified federal maritime or territorial jurisdiction. The ordinary maximum penalty would be 15 years in prison, a fine, or both.
Whoever knowingly, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States— (1) recruits, transports, or harbors by any means any covered alien for the purpose of entering into the United States; (2) facilitates the recruitment, transportation, or harboring of such alien for such purpose; or (3) attempts to commit an offense described in paragraphs (1) or (2); with the intent to obtain United States citizenship for the child of such alien through the birth of such child in the United States, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.
For the new criminal offense, covered noncitizens would include anyone within the statutory term “alien” except lawful permanent residents—people lawfully admitted to live permanently in the United States. The definition is not limited to people without lawful immigration status.
The term covered alien means any alien except for an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States.
An offense involving at least three covered noncitizens as part of a scheme or enterprise consisting of at least three people would carry a maximum of 30 years in prison, a fine, or both. It would also subject the offender to criminal and civil forfeiture under the cited statutes. Those statutes are not supplied, so the scope of property subject to forfeiture cannot be established from this bundle.
Whoever commits an offense described under subsection (a) involving 3 or more covered aliens as part of a scheme or enterprise consisting of 3 or more persons shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both, and shall be subject to criminal and civil forfeiture under sections 981 and 982 of this title.
Federal jurisdiction could reach conduct outside the United States if the alleged offender is a U.S. national or is present in the United States, regardless of nationality. It could also apply if any part of the offense occurs in the United States, or if the offense results or is intended to result in a child obtaining citizenship through birth here.
There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if— (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States (as such term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)); (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the offender; or (3) the offense is committed, in whole or in part, within the United States, or the offense results, or is intended to result, in a child obtaining United States citizenship by being born in the United States.
Section 3 would make a noncitizen inadmissible—ineligible for admission to the United States—if a consular officer or the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that the person is seeking, or previously sought, admission to obtain citizenship for a child through birth in the United States. This provision uses “any alien” and does not repeat Section 2's permanent-resident exception. The surrounding admission laws are not supplied, so this textual distinction does not establish how all existing admission rules or exceptions would interact with the amendment.
Any alien who a consular officer or the Secretary of Homeland Security determines is seeking, or has previously sought, admission to the United States for the purpose of obtaining United States citizenship for a child through birth in the United States, is inadmissible.
The term covered alien means any alien except for an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States.
The proposed citizenship-revocation provision would apply to a naturalized citizen convicted of the new offense or of an offense under 18 U.S.C. 1546 involving a false claim or statement related to the new admission restriction. It would also apply when the person admits committing either offense or admits acts constituting its essential elements; a conviction would not be the only trigger.
If a naturalized citizen is convicted of, admits to having committed, or admits to committing acts constituting the essential elements of, an offense under section 1430 of title 18, United States Code, or section 1546 of such title (related to a false claim or statement related to section 212(a)(11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(11)))
The qualifying conviction or admission would count as “prima facie and sufficient evidence”—evidence sufficient on its face—that the person lacked specified qualifications when naturalized and obtained citizenship through concealment of a material fact or deliberate misrepresentation. The listed qualifications concern good moral character, attachment to constitutional principles, and disposition toward the country's good order and happiness.
such conviction or admission shall be considered prima facie and sufficient evidence that— (1) such person, at the time of his or her naturalization— (A) was not a person of good moral character; (B) was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States; and (C) was not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States; (2) the order admitting such person to citizenship— (A) was obtained by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation
The proposed provision directs revocation of the citizenship order and cancellation of the naturalization certificate. Those actions would take effect retroactively as of the original dates of the order and certificate. The existing citizenship-revocation statute is not supplied in full, so the complete procedures and available defenses cannot be established from this bundle.
(2) the order admitting such person to citizenship— (A) was obtained by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation; and (B) shall be revoked and set aside, along with the cancellation of his or her certificate of naturalization; and (3) such revocation and setting aside of such admission order and such cancellation of such certificate of naturalization shall be effective as of the original date of such order and certificate, respectively.
Section 4 would require the Attorney General, coordinating with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to establish the American Citizenship Integrity Interagency Task Force within 180 days after enactment. Those two officials would jointly chair it.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall establish a task force to be known as the American Citizenship Integrity Interagency Task Force
The Task Force shall be co-chaired by the— (1) Attorney General; and (2) Secretary of Homeland Security.
The task force would include the leaders of immigration enforcement, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, border protection, citizenship and immigration services, immigration court administration, and State Department consular affairs. Its chairs could add representatives of other agencies.
The Task Force shall be composed of the following members: (1) The co-chairs listed under subsection (b). (2) The Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (3) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (4) The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (5) The Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (6) The Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review. (7) The Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs. (8) Any other individual representing such other agencies as the co-chairs determine appropriate.
The task force would coordinate identification, investigation, and referrals for prosecution of organized fraud schemes involving citizenship for a child. It would also coordinate referrals to revoke citizenship from naturalized citizens convicted of those organized schemes.
coordinate the identification, investigation, and referral for— (A) prosecution of organized fraud schemes by individuals or entities related to the acquisition of United States citizenship for a child; and (B) denaturalization of any naturalized citizen convicted of organized fraud schemes related to the acquisition of United States citizenship for a child
The task force would prepare guidance on identifying organized fraud for consular officers, border officers, and immigration benefits decision-makers. It would coordinate with foreign governments and international law enforcement when appropriate and carry out other activities necessary to prevent citizenship-related fraud schemes involving children.
(2) develop guidance for, and make available to, consular officers, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudicators with respect to identifying indicators of such organized fraud; (3) coordinate with the governments of foreign countries and international law enforcement agencies, as appropriate, regarding organized fraud schemes operating extraterritorially related to the acquisition of United States citizenship for a child; and (4) perform any other activities necessary to prevent fraud schemes related to the acquisition of United States citizenship for a child.
The task force would submit its first report within one year after being established and report annually afterward on the prior year. Reports would go to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the House Homeland Security Committee, and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Not later than 1 year after the date of establishment of the Task Force, and annually thereafter, the Task Force shall, with respect to the prior year, submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate
Reports would describe task force activities and count children who obtained citizenship through U.S. birth whose parents are noncitizens other than lawful permanent residents. That child-count requirement is not limited to fraud cases. Reports would also count people determined to be ineligible for admission under the new provision.
(1) a description of any activities performed by the Task Force during the prior year in accordance with subsection (d); (2) the number of children who obtained citizenship by birth in the United States whose parents are aliens (other than an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence); (3) the number of aliens who were determined to be inadmissible under section 212(a)(11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(11))
Reports would count prosecutions and convictions under the new crime by designated prosecutor and judicial district, along with specified false-claim or false-statement cases. They would also report the number and outcomes of citizenship-revocation proceedings under the new provision and policy recommendations concerning citizenship integrity and fraud prevention.
(4) the number of prosecutions and convictions made— (A) under section 1430 of title 18, United States Code, by each designated assistant United States attorney for each judicial district; and (B) under section 1546 of title 18, United States Code, related to a false claim or statement related to section 212(a)(11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(11)); (5) the number of denaturalization proceedings conducted pursuant to section 340(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1451(d)); (6) the outcomes of such denaturalization proceedings; and (7) any policy recommendations to— (A) protect the integrity of United States citizenship; and (B) prevent fraudulent obtainment of United States citizenship.
Section 5 would require the Attorney General, consulting the appropriate U.S. Attorney, to appoint an assistant federal prosecutor in every judicial district to coordinate and supervise the specified criminal investigations, prosecutions, and citizenship-revocation proceedings. Compliance would be required within 180 days after enactment.
The Attorney General, in consultation with the appropriate United States Attorney, shall appoint, in each judicial district, an assistant United States attorney to coordinate and supervise any— (1) investigation or prosecution under section 1430 of title 18, United States Code; (2) investigation or prosecution under section 1546 of title 18, United States Code, related to a false claim or statement related to section 212(a)(11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(11)); and (3) denaturalization proceeding conducted pursuant to section 340(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1451(d)).
The Attorney General shall comply with section 542(c) of title 28, United States Code, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 6 would preserve the rest of the act if a provision, or its application to a particular person or circumstance, were held unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Other applications of that provision would also remain unaffected.
If any provision of this Act, or any application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the remainder of this Act, and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance, shall not be affected.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 24, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on September 16, 2026. It does not establish subsequent legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-24T15:25:39Z. 2026-09-16: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-09-16: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-16. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials, or any amendment's attachment history.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials. Formal earmark disclosures and accompanying materials are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential benefit warranting a finding under the stated criteria was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Broad population coverage distinctions were not treated as targeted benefits. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 24, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI