PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 3, 2025
No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorists Act
This bill imposes immigration-related penalties on certain non-U.S. nationals (aliens under federal law) who are involved with terrorism or attacks against Israel.
Under this bill, members of Palestinian Islamic Jihad or Hamas or individuals who participated in or otherwise facilitated the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel may not be admitted into the United States.
The bill also expands an existing admissions bar against officers, representatives, and spokespersons of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Under this bill, all PLO members are barred from admission into the United States.
The bill also prohibits any non-U.S. national who participated in or otherwise facilitated the October 7, 2023, attacks from seeking any immigration-related relief or protections, including (1) protection from being deported to a country where the individual's life or freedom would be threatened, or (2) asylum in the United States.
The Department of Homeland Security must annually report to Congress the number of individuals found to be inadmissible or deportable due to their participation in or facilitation of the attacks.
People & committees
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4926)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4926)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 176.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4926–4928)
Mr. McClintock moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 17.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-27.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-27.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.176 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.176 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.176 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.176 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.