Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 23, 2003
Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act of 2003 - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the nonimmigrant admission of an alien (and accompanying family members or relatives) who the Attorney General determines, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Director of Central Intelligence and other appropriate officials, and in the Attorney General's unreviewable discretion, is an individual: (1) who has worked at any time in an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program; (2) who is in possession of critical and reliable information concerning any such Iraqi program; (3) who is willing to provide, or has provided, such information to the United States or to United Nations or International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors; (4) who will be or has been placed in danger as a result of providing such information; and (5) whose admission would be in the public interest or in the interest of national security.Limits such entrants to 500 aliens.Requires such an alien, in order to be admitted and remain in the United States, to: (1) report to the Attorney General concerning his or her whereabouts and activities; (2) not be convicted of any criminal offense punishable by a term of imprisonment of one year or more after the date of admission or grant of status; (3) have waived rights to contest, other than on the basis of an application for withholding of removal or for protection under the Convention Against Torture, any action for removal instituted before the alien obtains lawful permanent resident status; and (4) cooperate fully with all information requests, including information concerning any Iraqi program to produce or deliver weapons of mass destruction.Authorizes the Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Director of Central Intelligence, to adjust the status of such an alien (and family members) to permanent resident status.Authorizes the Attorney General to waive the inadmissability of such an alien for reasons of public interest or national security.Amends the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 to revise the definition of "weapon of mass destruction" to replace "disease organism" with "biological agent, toxin, or vector."
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.205 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.205 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.205 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.205 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.