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 07 · Reported to House · Jan 25, 2024
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 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.
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 passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 422 - 2, 1 Present (Roll no. 28).
House roll call 28 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 422 - 2, 1 Present (Roll no. 28).
House roll call 28 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H341-342)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of the debate on H.R. 6679, the Chair put the question on passage of the bill and by voice vote, announced the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Nadler demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 980, the House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Rose amendment No. 1.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 6679.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5585, H.R. 6678, H.R. 6679 and H.R. 6976. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 5585, H.R. 6678, H.R. 6679, and H.R. 6976 under a structured rule. Rule provides for one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit on each measure.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 980. (consideration: CR H338-340)
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 980 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5585, H.R. 6678, H.R. 6679 and H.R. 6976. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 5585, H.R. 6678, H.R. 6679, and H.R. 6976 under a structured rule. Rule provides for one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit on each measure.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 293.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 118-358.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 118-358.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 24 - 0.
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.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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.6679 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.6679 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.6679 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.6679 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.