The ASSIMILATION Act, introduced by Rep. Andy Ogles with a Senate companion from Sen. Tommy Tuberville, aims to overhaul current immigration law with a focus on cultural integration, stricter entry standards, and dramatic cuts to net immigration. The bill targets key statutes like the Hart-Celler Act and the immigration measures of the 1990s, and it proposes a range of changes from ending chain migration and the diversity lottery to tougher asylum rules and new language and civics requirements. Supporters frame the measure as restoring a cohesive national identity and reducing welfare dependency, while critics foresee accusations of racism and constitutional challenges. This article walks through the bill’s core goals, notable claims from its sponsors, the legislative path ahead, and the broader political reaction.
Rep. Andy Ogles announced the 83-page ASSIMILATION Act on social media and described it as a direct attempt to curb what he calls abuses of the immigration system and to require newcomers to integrate into American society. The introduction seeks to replace long-standing provisions that govern who can come to the United States and under what conditions. Ogles and his allies argue that the status quo has encouraged mass migration that weakens cultural cohesion and burdens public resources.
The bill’s sponsors emphasize a sharp drop in legal immigration if the measure were enacted, claiming an immediate 85 percent decrease in net immigration. The proposal includes an array of policy shifts meant to accomplish that reduction: ending the H-1B program in its current form, imposing mandatory e-verify, rescinding birthright citizenship as currently interpreted, tightening public charge rules, and elevating English and civics proficiency as prerequisites for citizenship. These are packaged as measures to protect American workers and preserve national identity.
Supporters describe a broader philosophy behind the legislation: immigrants should arrive intending to assimilate and adopt American values and institutions. Senator Tommy Tuberville, who introduced a companion bill in the Senate, told media that people who do not intend to join American culture do not belong here. That line of argument frames assimilation as a civic expectation rather than a cultural imposition, and it is central to how proponents defend the measure against charges of bias.
Excited to announce that my 83-page ASSIMILATION Act has been introduced.
Months of labor were undertaken by my staff, @SenTuberville and myself in order to GUT the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, as well as scrap provisions of the Immigration Act of the 1990s.
The goal of this bill is simple: end replacement migration and ensure American cultural cohesion.
This bill will end the H-1B scam, ensure migrants NEVER become a public charge, and make America look like America again. FYI, net immigration immediately decreases by 85% under this bill.
Some other things it does:
• National Interest Standard
• Stringent Character Tests
• Mandatory E-Verify
• Ends Chain Migration
• Ends Diversity Lottery
• GUTS Birthright Citizenship
• WAY Tougher Asylum Standards
• Stronger Public Charge Rules
• 10 Year Citizenship Requirement
• English & American Civics PROFICIENCY
On the ground, these changes would touch our legal pathways, asylum system, and family-based immigration. Ending chain migration and the diversity visa would shrink the categories by which relatives and certain applicants enter the country, while more stringent character tests could disqualify a larger share of applicants. Proponents say these steps would redirect the system toward economic merit and shared civic values.
Not everyone buys that framing. Critics predict vigorous pushback from Democrats, immigrant advocates, and civil liberties groups, who are likely to label the bill “white nationalist,” “hateful,” or “racist,” as supporters themselves anticipate. Legal experts also point out that measures like rescinding birthright citizenship and imposing language proficiency requirements would invite constitutional challenges and long court battles if enacted.
The legislative path is straightforward but arduous: both the House and Senate bills must clear committee markups, survive floor votes, and then reconcile any differences before a final version could reach the president’s desk. That process would expose the text to amendments and political bargaining, and it would test whether Republican majorities are prepared to make immigration overhaul a top priority amid other competing issues.
For most of our history, people have come here to become Americans. They came here to assimilate. They worked hard. They learned. They followed the law, and they contributed. That’s what this country is all about. Today, we’re seeing large numbers, and I mean large numbers, of people coming into this country with no intentions of assimilating into our culture or our way of life. People from third world hellholes are being let into this country who have no desire to adapt to our way of life. They not only refuse to work, but they also choose to take advantage of Americans welfare system, forcing hardworking Americans to bank roll their lives. The question must be asked: why are we letting these people who don’t share values and refuse to assimilate? Why are we letting them in our country? The word assimilate is often treated with suspicion because it is often related to racism. But assimilation has absolutely nothing to do with race.
Backers say the bill is about restoring an old compact: newcomers should become Americans in language, practice, and civic commitment. They argue that enforcement and legal clarity, not open borders, will reduce illegal migration and the fiscal pressures critics complain about. Opponents say the draft conflates lawful immigration with cultural conformity and risks alienating communities that the country needs.
An editor’s note included with early coverage asserted that stronger presidential enforcement has already reduced illegal crossings and that the political debate is about policy choices more than reality on the border. Whether that contention will sway lawmakers is an open question as the bills move through committees and public scrutiny intensifies.
Add comment