PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 28, 2017
American Hope Act of 2017
This bill amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to allow a state to extend higher-education benefits to state residents regardless of whether they are lawfully present in the United States.
In addition, the bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to cancel the removal, and adjust the status, of certain residents who entered the United States as children prior to 2017. An individual whose status has been so adjusted shall be considered to have obtained conditional permanent-resident status, valid for a period of eight years and subject to termination on the basis of specified deportable conduct.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
In order for an individual's conditional status to become permanent, the individual must timely file with DHS a petition indicating, among other specified information, that the individual has maintained conditional permanent-resident status for at least three years. Any period of time in which the individual was granted deferred action pursuant to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy shall count toward this three-year period. Information furnished by an individual in such a petition may not be used by an officer or employee of the United States to initiate removal proceedings.
The bill also: (1) allows DHS to establish a competitive grant program for the provision of nonprofit assistance to eligible applicants for conditional permanent-resident status; (2) establishes the Presidential Award for Business Leadership in Promoting American Citizenship; (3) allows the Department of Education to develop an open-source, electronic English-learning program; (4) specifies requirements related to federal higher-education assistance for individuals with conditional permanent-resident status; and (5) requires the Government Accountability Office to report on specified data related to the bill.
People & committees
Rep. Gutierrez, Luis V. [D-IL-4] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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: Aug 11, 2025. 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.3591 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.3591 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.3591 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.3591 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.