Progressive activists and advocacy groups have sharply criticized several New Jersey Democrats in Congress who voted in favor of a Republican-backed bill, the “Preventing Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act” (H.R. 30), which aims to broaden the deportation grounds for non-U.S. nationals convicted of certain crimes, including domestic violence and sexual offenses.
The bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives with bipartisan support from 61 Democrats who joined 213 Republicans, but it was opposed by a wide array of organizations, including the Coalition of Labor Union Women, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Planned Parenthood, the National Women’s Law Center, and more than 200 groups that work with victims of domestic violence.
The legislation seeks to expand the deportation grounds for immigrants involved in domestic violence or sex crimes, including both physical and sexual abuse, and any related patterns of coercive behavior within close relationships.
Democrats who opposed the bill said there are already punishments in place for anyone who commits those crimes, including inadmissibility and deportation.
Supporters of the bill, including Republican sponsor Rep. Nancy Mace, argue that it will better protect women and children from violent offenders. However, critics have raised concerns that the bill’s broader scope could jeopardize the safety of domestic violence survivors and weaken existing protections for immigrant victims.
Among the New Jersey House members who voted in favor of the bill were Democratic Representatives Josh Gottheimer and Mikie Sherrill, and Republican Congressmen Tom Kean Jr., Chris Smith, and Jeff Van Drew.
The ‘Vichy Democrats’ caving into GOP manipulation sparked a backlash from progressive groups and activists.
Lisa McCormick, a prominent progressive voice in New Jersey, condemned the legislation, emphasizing that it does nothing to address gaps in the law but instead risks endangering domestic violence survivors.
“I have been a strong supporter of the Violence Against Women Act, but this Republican messaging bill would put domestic violence victims at greater risk,” McCormick said. “This bill fails to protect survivors, including legal migrants, by eliminating exemptions that have kept them safe. It would discourage victims from coming forward, for fear of deportation, even in cases where they were acting in self-defense or were wrongfully accused.”
“Survivors may face domestic violence convictions because they acted in self-defense or were falsely accused of being a primary aggressor by their abusers, who are known to often use threats and lies,” McCormick said. “Manipulative abusers are effective at keeping victims trapped in violent relationships.”
McCormick said that survivors of abuse may struggle to fully disclose their experiences or defend against false accusations due to language barriers, the absence of legal counsel, fear of retaliation from the abuser, and the severe trauma they have endured.
Opponents of the bill argue that existing immigration laws already allow the deportation of individuals who commit serious crimes, including sexual assault and domestic violence, making the legislation redundant.
They also warn that it would harm vulnerable survivors of abuse, particularly immigrants, who may be subjected to deportation or denied critical legal protections that currently safeguard them from being wrongfully punished.
“Our immigration laws today will get you kicked out—deported—if you commit rape, other sex offenses, domestic violence, or indeed any other crime of violence. That’s the law today—you’re convicted, you’re deported, you’re out. That’s been the law for decades in America,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, who spoke forcefully on the House floor in opposition to the bill that would harm survivors of domestic violence and does nothing to keep survivors safe.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal criticized the bill, calling it a “weaponization” of the Violence Against Women Act and an effort to expand immigration enforcement in ways that could hurt survivors of abuse.
“This bill would make it easier to label survivors of domestic violence as perpetrators, to make them removable from the country, and eliminate existing legal safeguards,” said Jayapal, who leads the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Many advocates for domestic violence victims argue that the bill’s provisions could prevent survivors from seeking help, as they might fear deportation if they come forward about their abuse.
According to a 2019 survey, 76% of immigrant survivors of violence expressed concerns about contacting the police due to potential immigration consequences. The passage of this measure would only exacerbate these fears, leaving more victims vulnerable and less likely to report abuse.
Rep. Bobby Scott suggested that if Republicans were truly committed to addressing domestic violence, they would work to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.
“It is clear that this bill is not a solution to protecting women. Instead, it risks harming those it purports to help,” Scott said. “We need policies that create safe spaces for victims to seek help, not policies that put them in further jeopardy.”
Cindene Pezzell, director of the Battered Women’s Justice Project, explained, “Criminalized survivors are people who end up charged or convicted of crimes, not just in spite of their experiences of being abused, but oftentimes because of them.”
While the bill’s supporters, including Mace, claim that it would protect women from dangerous individuals, critics argue that it would only create more obstacles for those trying to escape violent situations. They emphasize the need for policies that strengthen legal protections for survivors, rather than using them as a means to justify harsher immigration enforcement.
As the debate continues, progressive lawmakers and activists are calling on their colleagues to reconsider their stance on the bill, warning that its passage could have serious implications for vulnerable populations, including immigrants, who already face significant barriers in accessing justice and safety.
The bill’s passage by the House, with 61 Democrats joining Republicans in support, has sparked a wider conversation about the direction of U.S. immigration and domestic violence policies, with critics urging Congress to prioritize the needs and safety of survivors, rather than advancing punitive measures that could undermine their protection.
“This bill undermines survivor protections and fails to address the real barriers to safety,” said Stephanie Love-Patterson, CEO of the National Network to End Domestic Violence.