Neighbors Not Enemies Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 630
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Immigration
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-01-22: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-05-16T08:07:35Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The "Neighbors Not Enemies Act" (H.R. 630) aims to repeal the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, an outdated law that grants the President broad authority to detain or deport non-citizens from enemy nations during times of war or invasion. The bill seeks to eliminate this provision to promote fairness and protect civil liberties for immigrants and non-citizens.
Key Provisions
- Short Title: The legislation is officially named the "Neighbors Not Enemies Act."
- Repeal Clause: It directly repeals sections 4067 through 4070 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 21-24), which comprise the entire Alien Enemies Act.
- No additional provisions are included; the bill focuses solely on the repeal.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This would completely remove the Alien Enemies Act from U.S. law, ending a 226-year-old statute that has historically allowed the executive branch to target and restrict the rights of non-citizens based on their national origin during declared wars.
- The repeal would eliminate legal mechanisms for warrantless apprehension, restraint, or removal of such individuals without standard judicial oversight, shifting reliance to other modern immigration and national security laws (e.g., those under the Immigration and Nationality Act).
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) would lose a tool for wartime enforcement against non-citizens, potentially requiring new protocols or reliance on broader statutes for similar actions. This could streamline operations by removing an archaic law but might complicate emergency responses.
- On Citizens and Non-Citizens: Non-citizens, particularly immigrants from countries involved in conflicts with the U.S., would gain stronger protections against discriminatory detention or deportation based solely on nationality. U.S. citizens would be unaffected directly, but the change could enhance overall trust in the immigration system.
- On International Relations: The repeal might signal a more humane U.S. approach to immigration during conflicts, potentially improving diplomatic ties with affected nations and reducing perceptions of xenophobia. However, it could raise concerns among allies about diminished national security flexibility.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Immigrants and Non-Citizens: Primary beneficiaries, as they would no longer face nationality-based restrictions during wars.
- Civil Rights and Immigrant Advocacy Groups: Organizations like the ACLU or immigrant rights coalitions, who often criticize the Act for enabling discrimination.
- Federal Government Officials: The President, DHS, and DOJ, who would need to adapt enforcement strategies without this authority.
- Congress and Policymakers: Lawmakers focused on immigration reform, national security, or civil liberties, including the bill's sponsors (a group of progressive Democrats led by Rep. Ilhan Omar).
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: The repeal would align U.S. law more closely with modern due process standards under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (which protect against arbitrary government actions), potentially reducing litigation over the Act's use in historical contexts like World War II internment of Japanese Americans.
- Constitutional Implications: It addresses concerns that the Act grants excessive executive power, possibly conflicting with equal protection principles by singling out groups based on origin. Without it, challenges to similar actions would rely on constitutional review.
- Political Implications: The bill reflects ongoing debates between national security hawks (who may oppose repeal as weakening defenses) and civil liberties advocates (who view it as correcting a discriminatory relic). Its introduction by a large bipartisan-leaning but progressive caucus highlights partisan divides on immigration policy, though passage would require broad congressional support.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (67)
Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7], Rep. Casar, Greg [D-TX-35], Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20], Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28], Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13], Rep. Evans, Dwight [D-PA-3], Rep. Foushee, Valerie P. [D-NC-4], Rep. García, Jesús G. "Chuy" [D-IL-4], Rep. Green, Al [D-TX-9], Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-7], Rep. Hayes, Jahana [D-CT-5], Rep. Jackson, Jonathan L. [D-IL-1], Rep. Jacobs, Sara [D-CA-51], Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7], Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4], Rep. Lee, Summer L. [D-PA-12], Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7], Rep. McCollum, Betty [D-MN-4], Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2], Rep. McIver, LaMonica [D-NJ-10], Rep. Meng, Grace [D-NY-6], Rep. Moore, Gwen [D-WI-4], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Pallone, Frank [D-NJ-6], Rep. Pocan, Mark [D-WI-2], Rep. Pressley, Ayanna [D-MA-7], Rep. Ramirez, Delia C. [D-IL-3], Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5], Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9], Rep. Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA-3], Rep. Simon, Lateefah [D-CA-12], Rep. Smith, Adam [D-WA-9], Rep. Stansbury, Melanie A. [D-NM-1], Rep. Takano, Mark [D-CA-39], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2], Rep. Vargas, Juan [D-CA-52], Rep. Watson Coleman, Bonnie [D-NJ-12], Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7], Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9], Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19], Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria [D-NY-14], Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5], Rep. Balint, Becca [D-VT-At Large], Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10], Rep. Frost, Maxwell [D-FL-10], Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18], Rep. Cisneros, Gilbert Ray, Jr. [D-CA-31], Rep. Garcia, Sylvia R. [D-TX-29], Rep. Dexter, Maxine [D-OR-3] and 17 more
Recent Actions
- 2025-01-22: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-01-22: Introduced in House
- 2025-01-22: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Neighbors Not Enemies Act — issued 2025-01-22 — PDF (2 pages)