HR-9710-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Nancy Mace (R-SC)
What it does
This bill would prohibit nationals of 40 named countries — primarily in Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia and the Caribbean — from entering the United States, along with holders of Palestinian Authority travel documents. It would apply only to people outside the U.S. who do not already hold a valid visa on the date of enactment. Exceptions exist for lawful permanent residents, dual nationals of non-listed countries, certain diplomatic and NATO-related visa holders, athletes at major international sporting events, Afghan special immigrants, and Iranian religious/ethnic persecution visa holders. The Secretary of Homeland Security may grant case-by-case national interest waivers. The Secretary of State would be required to report to Congress every 180 days on whether the ban should be continued, modified, or ended.
Who benefits
U.S. nationals and residents who support reduced immigration from the listed countries on security or economic grounds. Domestic workers in sectors where labor competition from immigrants in these nationality groups is concentrated. Advocates for stricter immigration enforcement who view the bill as a deterrent to unauthorized entry. Businesses or individuals who may benefit from reduced visa processing backlogs for other nationalities. Congressional oversight bodies that would receive mandatory biannual reporting on the ban's implementation.
Who is hurt
Nationals of the 40 listed countries — including students, workers, tourists, and family members of U.S. citizens or residents — who would be barred from entry. U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents with family members from listed countries who would be separated from relatives. Universities and research institutions that recruit international students and scholars from listed countries, including Nigeria, Ghana (not listed), and others. Employers who hire skilled workers from listed countries. Refugee and asylum-seeking populations from conflict zones such as Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen who would lose a legal pathway to the U.S. Palestinian Authority document holders, including journalists, academics, and business travelers. U.S. businesses with trade or investment ties to listed countries. Humanitarian and religious organizations that facilitate travel for persecuted populations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the listed countries share common characteristics — including inadequate identity verification systems, state fragility, or state sponsorship of terrorism — that make it impossible to reliably vet incoming nationals for security threats. They contend that Congress has clear constitutional authority under the Naturalization Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict entry by nationality, and that the Supreme Court upheld a similar country-based travel restriction in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) under rational basis review. They further argue that the bill's robust exception and waiver system — covering diplomats, dual nationals, special immigrants, and national interest cases — ensures that legitimate travelers are not categorically excluded.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's use of the term "Third World" in its title signals discriminatory intent, and that targeting 40 countries — the vast majority of which are majority-Black or majority-Muslim — raises equal protection concerns under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause that go beyond the rational basis review applied in Trump v. Hawaii. They contend that a blanket statutory ban, unlike an executive proclamation, removes the President's flexibility to respond to changing conditions and that the bill would sever family ties for hundreds of thousands of U.S. residents, disrupt academic and economic exchange, and effectively eliminate refugee pathways from some of the world's most active conflict zones without demonstrated evidence that existing vetting procedures are insufficient.
Constitutional context
The Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) gives Congress broad authority to set rules for entry and exclusion of non-citizens. In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the Supreme Court upheld a country-based entry restriction under rational basis review, deferring to the executive's national security judgment; this bill shifts that authority to Congress by statute. Fifth Amendment Due Process protections may be raised on behalf of U.S. persons with family ties to listed nationals, though courts have historically applied minimal scrutiny to entry restrictions on non-citizens abroad.
Checks and balances
Congress gains direct authority to set entry prohibitions by statute, reducing executive flexibility; the Secretary of Homeland Security retains a narrow case-by-case waiver power, and the Secretary of State must report to Congress every 180 days, preserving a legislative oversight check.
Historical precedent
Presidential Proclamation 9645 (2017), upheld in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), imposed entry restrictions on nationals of several overlapping countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen) under executive authority; this bill would enact a broader, statutory version of a similar mechanism.