PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 14, 2016
Remedies for Refusal of Repatriation Act
This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish procedures for determining whether a foreign government systematically and unreasonably refuses or delays the repatriation of its nationals who: (1) have been ordered deported by the United States; and (2) have been convicted of a felony or a crime of violence or are a threat to national security or public safety.
Upon determining that a country does refuse or delay repatriation of its citizens, DHS shall notify the Department of State and the two departments shall meet with the country's representatives and notify them that the United States may deny visas to their nationals.
If the country continues to refuse or delay the repatriation of its nationals, the State Department shall discontinue the issuance of visas, unless DHS determines that such discontinuance is not in U.S. interests.
DHS and the State Department shall list such countries on their websites.
People & committees
Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT] · D–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. 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 S.3277 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 S.3277 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 S.3277 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 S.3277 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.