H.R.534 - Creating Obstructions Necessary To Address Illegal and Nefarious Entry Rapidly Act; CONTAINER Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.534, also known as the CONTAINER Act, aims to authorize certain states to take specific actions on federal land to secure the U.S. international borders. It allows border states to place movable, temporary structures on federal land adjacent to the northern or southern borders without needing special use authorization, provided they give 45 days' notice. The bill defines key terms like 'Border State,' 'Federal land,' and 'Secretary concerned,' outlining the scope and responsibilities involved.
The Act permits these temporary structures for up to one year, with potential 90-day extensions upon approval by the relevant Secretary and consultation with the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Extensions are contingent on whether operational control of the border has been achieved.
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committees on Natural Resources and Agriculture for consideration.
Expected Effects
The likely effect of this bill is to expedite the placement of temporary barriers or structures along the U.S. borders. This could lead to a more immediate physical response to perceived border security threats.
States would gain increased autonomy in managing border security on federal lands within their borders. This could lead to a patchwork of different approaches along the border, depending on the policies of individual states.
It may also lead to legal challenges regarding the extent of state authority on federal land and potential environmental impacts.
Potential Benefits
- Enhanced Border Security: Could lead to more effective control of illegal border crossings in the short term.
- State Autonomy: Empowers states to address border security concerns directly.
- Faster Response Times: Allows for quicker deployment of barriers compared to federal processes.
- Flexibility: The use of temporary, movable structures allows for adjustments based on changing needs.
- Increased Collaboration: Requires consultation between state and federal entities (CBP).
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Environmental Impact: Temporary structures could harm sensitive ecosystems on federal lands.
- Limited Scope: The temporary nature of the structures may not provide a long-term solution.
- Potential for Inefficiency: Lack of federal oversight could lead to inconsistent or ineffective measures.
- Legal Challenges: The extent of state authority on federal land could be challenged in court.
- Strain on Federal Resources: Consultation and approval processes could burden federal agencies.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment is complex. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to regulate immigration and naturalization, implying federal authority over border security. However, the Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, potentially justifying state action in the absence of comprehensive federal measures.
The bill could be challenged under the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3), which gives Congress the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. State actions on federal land without explicit congressional consent could be seen as infringing upon this power.
Furthermore, the bill's implementation must adhere to the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, ensuring fair and non-discriminatory application of border security measures.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).