Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 17.
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to make any alien who carried out, participated in, planned, financed, afforded material support to, or otherwise facilitated the Hamas-initiated attacks against Israel beginning October 7, 2023, inadmissible and ineligible for immigration relief. It adds a new inadmissibility ground (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(H)), makes such aliens ineligible for relief including asylum and other statutory relief, expands removal grounds, and requires annual DHS reporting to Congress on affected aliens.
Progressives stress due process and overbreadth risks
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that adds a new inadmissibility ground, an ineligibility-for-relief provision, a conforming removal amendment, and an annual DHS reporting requirement.
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to make any alien who carried out, participated in, planned, financed, afforded material support to, or otherwise facilitated the Hamas-initiated attacks against Israel beginning October 7, 2023, inadmissible and ineligible for immigration relief.
It adds a new inadmissibility ground (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(H)), makes such aliens ineligible for relief including asylum and other statutory relief, expands removal grounds, and requires annual DHS reporting to Congress on affected aliens.
Substantively narrow and administrable so it can win broad support, but Senate procedural and legal pushback create meaningful barriers.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that adds a new inadmissibility ground, an ineligibility-for-relief provision, a conforming removal amendment, and an annual DHS reporting requirement. The statutory placement and reporting cadence are clearly specified, but the bill leaves important procedural, evidentiary, fiscal, and edge-case matters to existing authorities without further statutory guidance.
Progressives stress due process and overbreadth risks
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress due process and overbreadth risks
Supports denying benefits to confirmed terrorists but worries the language is broad and could sweep in refugees, aid workers, or civilians with tenuous connections.
Concerned about due process, evidentiary standards, and potential profiling of Palestinians and their families.
Generally favors preventing terrorists from receiving immigration relief while seeking clearer implementation details.
Views the reporting requirement as useful oversight but wants precise standards and resource estimates to avoid unintended consequences.
Strongly supports the bill as a necessary measure to deny terrorists and their supporters any U.S. immigration benefits.
Sees it as a straightforward enforcement and deterrence tool and a firm statement of solidarity with Israel.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantively narrow and administrable so it can win broad support, but Senate procedural and legal pushback create meaningful barriers.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress due process and overbreadth risks
Substantively narrow and administrable so it can win broad support, but Senate procedural and legal pushback create meaningful barriers.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that adds a new inadmissibility ground, an ineligibility-for-relief provision, a con…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.