PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 23, 2025
End Unaccountable Amnesty Act
This bill revises, restricts, and repeals various laws and programs addressing the admissibility and deportability of certain non-U.S. nationals (aliens under federal law). The bill includes changes to the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program, the treatment of unaccompanied children, and removal proceedings.
Under current law, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may grant a foreign state Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which protects qualified nationals of that foreign state from removal from the United States. The bill instead requires an act of Congress to grant TPS to a foreign state. The bill limits TPS status to 12 months, subject to extension.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill also generally requires the return of unaccompanied inadmissible children to their country of nationality or last habitual residence, among other changes. Under current law, DHS is authorized (not required) to return these children, and only if their country of nationality or last habitual residence is contiguous to the United States.
The bill also repeals the law allowing for the cancellation of removal or adjustment of the immigration status of qualifying non-U.S. nationals.
Under the bill, certain forms of identification, including a Notice to Appear issued by DHS, are no longer valid documents for purposes of airport security checkpoints.
The bill also limits the ability of DHS to grant parole (temporary admission granted on a case-by-case basis). For example, the bill limits the granting of parole to a list of specific situations, such as the imminent death of a close family member.
People & committees
Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22] · R–TX
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 Border Security and Enforcement.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, and Transportation and Infrastructure, 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 Committees on Homeland Security, and Transportation and Infrastructure, 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 Committees on Homeland Security, and Transportation and Infrastructure, 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.
Source last updated: May 30, 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.696 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.696 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.696 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.696 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.