Rep. Tom McClintock (R‑CA) warned lawmakers this week that a Democratic proposed amendment to immigration legislation could allow illegal aliens who admit to committing fraud to remain in the United States indefinitely.
He argued that the change would weaken an already strained enforcement system, impose additional costs on taxpayers, and exacerbate long-standing structural problems within federal immigration policy.
Under current law, admissions of fraud are grounds for deportation, McClintock explained during a House session.
“This bill says if you admit to fraud, you’re deportable,” he said, according to LifeZette. “The amendment removes this provision, allowing individuals to remain even after admitting wrongdoing. That’s absurd.”
He emphasized that enforcement is difficult even under existing statutes. McClintock cited specific cases where convictions did not result in timely deportation.
One individual, convicted of a $169,000 food-stamp fraud connected to an aggravated felony, remained in the country for years before a federal appeals court intervened.
Another person admitted to $3.5 million in fraudulent benefits but spent multiple years contesting removal proceedings.
“These examples show how loopholes in the system can be exploited repeatedly, undermining the rule of law,” McClintock said.
Structural challenges within the immigration system further compound the problem.
By the end of fiscal 2024, immigration courts had nearly 3.6 million pending cases, creating massive backlogs that strain judges, administrative staff and enforcement agencies.
Resource shortages, procedural delays and surges in enforcement encounters have intensified the issue, leaving many illegal aliens in legal limbo despite clear criminal convictions.
Pending cases have nearly doubled since 2019, reflecting a decades-long trend that undermines public confidence in timely deportation.
The financial consequences of weak enforcement are significant.
Fraud in federal benefit programs, such as SNAP, imposes costs far beyond the amount stolen.
A LexisNexis Risk Solutions study found that for every $1 lost to fraud, agencies incur roughly $4 in combined investigative, administrative, and operational expenses.
“Fraud isn’t just a loss of benefits; it strains the entire system,” McClintock said.
He noted that unresolved cases leave taxpayers footing bills for years in administrative costs, legal proceedings and extended oversight.
Proponents of the amendment argue that it clarifies ambiguous language and reduces litigation over technical deportation grounds. McClintock countered that sidestepping consequences for admitted fraud sends the wrong message.
“We already have systemic weaknesses in enforcement. Adding loopholes only encourages exploitation of U.S. laws,” he said, warning that it could encourage other noncitizens to exploit procedural gaps.
Experts and lawmakers caution that relaxing deportation standards could undermine public confidence, weaken the rule of law and strain federal budgets.
McClintock emphasized that policy changes must balance fairness with enforcement, noting that unchecked fraud threatens both government resources and public trust.
He also pointed to potential international implications, suggesting that weaknesses in U.S. immigration enforcement could encourage cross-border criminal activity and complicate cooperation with foreign law enforcement agencies.
As Congress debates the amendment, the discussion highlights larger questions about judicial efficiency, enforcement priorities and the long-term consequences of immigration policy.
McClintock’s warnings arrive amid heightened scrutiny of federal immigration programs and are likely to shape debates leading into the 2026 midterm elections, underscoring the urgency of addressing both procedural loopholes and structural inefficiencies within the immigration system.
WATCH:
