In a decisive move, the U.S. House of Representatives has taken a stand against terrorism by passing a bill to block participants in the horrific Hamas-led attack on Israel from setting foot on American soil.
According to Breitbart, on Monday, the House passed the "No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorists Act of 2025," a measure designed to prohibit entry to anyone involved in the brutal assault against Israel that began on October 7, 2023.
This legislation, backed solely by Republican cosponsors such as Reps. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, Claudia Tenney of New York, and Ann Wagner of Missouri sailed through with overwhelming support via a voice vote, encountering no objections.
The bill aims to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, explicitly barring any foreign national who planned, executed, financed, or supported the October 7, 2023, attacks, with a clear focus on members of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Rep. Tom McClintock of California, the bill’s sponsor, framed this as a necessary update to immigration law, drawing parallels to historical bans on members of the Nazi Party and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
McClintock pointed to a chilling example: Mahmoud Amin Ya’qub al-Muhtadi, a migrant from Gaza who entered the U.S. in 2024 and was recently charged by the Department of Justice for his role in the Hamas-led violence of 2023.
While Democrats voiced support for the bill’s intent, they raised concerns about tweaking the Immigration and Nationality Act to reference a specific terrorist event.
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland argued that existing laws already exclude members of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, questioning the need to single out one attack. “Consider our response to the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath of that catastrophe,” Raskin said, noting broader systemic changes over targeted citations.
“We revised our immigration laws to overhaul significant parts of our immigration system, and we created the Department of Homeland Security,” he added, suggesting a precedent for comprehensive rather than narrow reforms.
McClintock, undeterred, fired back with a historical jab, asking, “Does anyone seriously argue that we should repeal the sanctions against persons who aided and abetted the Nazis’ Holocaust?”
His rhetoric paints Hamas as a modern echo of past evils, insisting that explicitly naming them in law is not just warranted but urgent. It’s a punchy reminder that some threats demand clear, unflinching language, even if it ruffles progressive feathers about “over-specificity.”
Let’s be frank: while the concern about setting precedents with specific attacks has merit, the reality of a known participant slipping into the U.S. suggests that closing loopholes isn’t political theater—it’s common sense.
Now, the bill heads to the Senate, where a prior version stumbled and failed to gain traction. The road ahead may be rocky, but the House’s near-unanimous voice vote sends a signal that protecting American borders from documented threats isn’t a partisan game—it’s a shared priority, even if the details spark debate.
In a world where bureaucratic wordplay often obscures real dangers, this legislation cuts through the fog with a clear message: those who wage terror against our allies have no place here. It’s a stance worth defending, provided the Senate doesn’t let procedural nitpicking derail a much-needed safeguard.