Land of the Free Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Ross, Deborah K. [D-NC-2]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 12, 2025
Bottom line
The bill seeks to remove a specific legal basis for deporting non-citizens related to speech activities, thereby strengthening free speech protections within U.S. immigration law.
What it actually does
This bill proposes to repeal Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which currently allows for the deportation of non-citizens who have engaged in activities deemed to have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States. By eliminating this specific ground for deportability, the bill aims to prevent non-citizens from being removed from the country solely based on speech or activities that would otherwise be protected under First Amendment principles for U.S. citizens.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the current law, Section 237(a)(4)(C), is an infringement on fundamental free speech rights, even for non-citizens, and can be used to target individuals for political expression rather than genuine threats to national security. They contend that repealing this section ensures that non-citizens are not penalized or deported for exercising speech that would be protected for citizens, thereby upholding the principle of free expression in the United States and preventing potential abuses of power.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that Section 237(a)(4)(C) is a necessary tool for national security and foreign policy, allowing the government to remove non-citizens whose speech activities, while perhaps not directly inciting violence, contribute to an environment that endangers public safety, national security, or diplomatic relations. They may contend that the government has a sovereign right to control who remains within its borders and that certain speech, even if not criminal, can be detrimental to the nation's interests when expressed by non-citizens.
The bill is exceptionally short and can be read and understood in less than a minute, making it highly accessible for any reader.
Section 2
Repeal of Deportation Ground for Protected Speech Activities
This section repeals subsection (a)(4)(C) of Section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Currently, this subsection allows for the deportation of any non-citizen who has engaged in any activity a consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States. The repeal would remove this specific ground for deportability, meaning non-citizens could no longer be deported solely for engaging in speech or activities deemed to have such foreign policy consequences, aligning immigration law more closely with First Amendment principles.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this repeal is crucial for safeguarding free speech, ensuring that non-citizens are not subjected to deportation for expressing views that would be protected for U.S. citizens. They contend that the existing provision is overly broad and can be misused to suppress dissent or target individuals based on political opinions, thereby undermining fundamental democratic values and the U.S.'s commitment to free expression.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that the provision being repealed is a vital tool for the U.S. government to manage foreign relations and protect national interests. They could assert that allowing non-citizens to engage in activities that have 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences' without fear of deportation could jeopardize diplomatic efforts, national security, or the safety of U.S. personnel abroad, and that the government has a right to remove individuals who undermine these interests.
Tradeoffs
The bill navigates the tension between protecting free speech rights for non-citizens within U.S. borders and the government's sovereign authority to control immigration and manage foreign policy, particularly concerning individuals whose activities might be perceived as detrimental to national interests or international relations.