One House Bill Would Abolish DHS and Require an Act of Congress for Every Deportation

On October 13, Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) introduced H.R. 10803, the “Reimagining Safety Act.” The legislation would abolish the Department of Homeland Security, end immigration detention, and move what remains of immigration enforcement to the Justice Department. One section reads:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Attorney General shall not execute the removal of a noncitizen from the United States unless a joint resolution approving such removal is enacted.”

In other words, every deportation would need its own act of Congress, passed by the House and the Senate and signed by the president.

According to immigration court records, immigration judges issued 77,234 removal orders in August alone. Under H.R. 10803, each of those orders would wait on a vote.

How “fringe” is it?

By the numbers, the bill has little support. It has five cosponsors, and none has signed on since October 15. President Trump would veto it, and its supporters are far short of the votes to override him. It can’t become law before 2029.

Among the bill’s findings: “We brought the Department of Homeland Security into this world, and we can build a world without it, too.”

Three weeks after the bill was introduced, its backers gained power.

What changed on November 3

Democrats won the House and the Senate. Committee posts won’t be final until the new majority organizes in January, but the likely picks include people behind this bill.

• Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), an original cosponsor, expects to chair the House Rules Committee. That committee decides which bills reach the House floor.
• Rep. Ramirez is the presumed favorite to chair a Homeland Security subcommittee, and she sits on the subcommittee that oversees border security.
• The Congressional Progressive Caucus expects at least 105 members, the most it has ever had. Its incoming members named abolishing ICE as a priority.
• In this Congress, 109 House members signed onto bills to defund or abolish ICE or to take back its enforcement funding.
• Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan and Peggy Flanagan of Minnesota, who both campaigned on abolishing or dismantling ICE, won Senate seats.
• The Democratic National Committee adopted a resolution to abolish ICE on August 15.

Party leaders have not endorsed the bill. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), who is in line to chair the subcommittee that funds DHS, told the New York Post, “I’m not going to abolish ICE,” but said he would put serious limits on the agency. Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries says he wants a bipartisan fix for the immigration system.

But Jeffries also said on November 9 that House Democrats are “not going to give a dime” to deportation efforts, and that they will try to redirect the $75 billion Congress gave ICE through 2029. H.R. 10803 would do the same with every unspent enforcement dollar.

What the bill would end

Deportation

• No one could be deported unless Congress passed a joint resolution approving it (Sec. 106).
• Only the Attorney General or his deputy could approve starting a removal case.
• The bill would repeal the requirement that the government remove a person within 90 days of a final order. It would also repeal the rule that reinstates a removal order when someone who was deported comes back illegally (Sec. 302).

Detention

• Everyone in immigration detention would be released within six months. The bill makes no exception for criminal aliens (Sec. 302).
• Mandatory detention of criminal aliens would end. That includes the detention required by the Laken Riley Act, which Congress passed in January 2025 with votes from both parties.
• Detention contracts would end within two years, and ankle monitors would come off within six months (Sec. 303).

The border

• Illegal border-crossers would no longer be detained while their asylum claims are screened. The bill would also strike the authority behind the Remain in Mexico policy.
• No federal money could be spent on a border wall, and the surveillance towers would be shut down (Sec. 301).
• Social workers, medical staff, and interpreters would “receive” asylum seekers at the border. CBP field offices would become assistance centers (Sec. 101).

Local cooperation

• 287(g) agreements between ICE and local police would end the day the bill became law. Anyone held under one would be released “immediately” (Sec. 304).
• The bill would repeal the federal laws that stop sanctuary jurisdictions from blocking information sharing with immigration authorities.

Who could be removed

• Becoming a public charge and voting illegally would no longer be grounds for deportation. Voting illegally would remain a crime.
• The bill would drop the terrorism bar to admission, and every foreign terrorist organization designation would expire after one year.

The money

• Every unspent immigration-enforcement dollar would be taken back. Congress could then spend it only on a list that includes Medicare for All, universal basic income, and student loan forgiveness (Sec. 402).
• A new fund would pay income-replacement grants to households that lose a primary earner to detention or deportation.

What it would mean

Under H.R. 10803, a judge’s removal order would begin a wait for Congress, and the person ordered removed could not even be detained in the meantime.

Illegal migrants weigh the risks of the trip against the rewards. A law that ends detention and sends social workers to meet asylum seekers would raise the reward.

The bill doesn’t legalize anyone, but it would stop almost all removals and repeal the rule that bars work permits for people already ordered removed. Some employers hire illegal workers because they expect the law won’t be enforced. This bill would write non-enforcement into law.

Voters didn’t ask for this

In the national exit poll, 72 percent of voters called immigration enforcement crucial or a major factor in their House vote. Immigration was the only one of eight issues where voters trusted Republicans over Democrats, 44 percent to 41 percent. Only about 3 percent of voters who backed a Democrat for the House named immigration as their top issue.

A majority, 57 percent, did say the administration’s immigration actions have gone too far. That is an objection to how enforcement has been carried out. H.R. 10803 would go far past tactics and end removal and detention themselves.

El-Sayed and Flanagan won, but both ran behind the top of their tickets. El-Sayed won by 7 points while the Democratic candidate for governor won by about 11. In Minnesota, Sen. Amy Klobuchar won the governor’s race by 13 points and Flanagan won by 10.

Where pieces of it could pass

The bill as a whole won’t become law. Parts of it could be attached to spending bills. Government funding expires on December 11, and the new majority will write the next Homeland Security funding bill. Jeffries has already listed conditions he wants attached, including a judicial-warrant requirement and limits on enforcement near schools, churches, and hospitals.

President Trump said this month that he thinks a bipartisan immigration bill can be done. Jeffries wants a broad one, and the discharge petition for the amnesty bill H.R. 1589 is one signature short. Next to a bill that abolishes DHS, an amnesty with new limits on enforcement could be marketed as the “moderate” choice.

Funded, but not locked in

Congress gave immigration enforcement money that lasts through September 2029. It wrote very little of the policy into law. The House Judiciary Committee approved a border bill, H.R. 9773, in July, and it still hasn’t had a floor vote.

Policy that isn’t in statute can end with a memo on the first day of a new administration. Undoing a statute takes a majority of the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and a president’s signature. H.R. 10803 lists what its backers want to undo.

Congress left the work unfinished, and the people who want to reverse it are about to chair committees. That’s why NumbersUSA and its activist members can’t rest.