H.R.992 - Preventing Aliens Through Rivers or Land Act; PATROL Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.992, the PATROL Act, seeks to prevent the Department of Justice from bringing civil actions against states that construct barriers along their borders for the purpose of preventing illegal immigration or protecting state territory. The bill specifically targets actions under sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899, which relate to obstructions in navigable waters. It defines 'barrier' broadly to include walls, fences, and floating buoys.
The bill aims to give states greater autonomy in securing their borders without federal intervention. The Act defines both 'alien' and 'immigration laws' by referencing Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Judiciary.
Expected Effects
If enacted, the PATROL Act would limit the federal government's ability to challenge state-led border security measures in court, specifically those involving physical barriers. States would have more freedom to construct border barriers without the threat of federal lawsuits under the specified sections of the Act of March 3, 1899.
This could lead to increased construction of border barriers by states. It may also shift legal battles to other areas of law not covered by this Act.
Potential Benefits
- Increased border security for states choosing to implement barriers.
- Greater state autonomy in managing their borders.
- Reduced legal challenges for states implementing border security measures under specific federal laws.
- Potential decrease in illegal immigration in states that construct effective barriers.
- Enhanced protection of state territory, as perceived by the enacting state.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential for environmental damage due to barrier construction.
- Possible disruption of natural waterways and ecosystems.
- Increased tensions between the federal government and states regarding immigration enforcement.
- Risk of escalating costs for barrier construction and maintenance borne by the states.
- Could lead to a fragmented approach to border security, lacking federal oversight and coordination.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment is complex. While states have certain inherent powers, the federal government has broad authority over immigration and foreign affairs, stemming from Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, but this is limited by the Supremacy Clause (Article VI), which establishes federal law as supreme. The question is whether regulating structures in navigable waterways (related to interstate commerce) falls under federal or state jurisdiction in this context.
Whether the Act aligns with the Constitution depends on judicial interpretation of the balance between federal authority over immigration and state rights to protect their borders. It could be argued that the Act infringes on the federal government's ability to enforce immigration laws uniformly.
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).