Overview

Title

To prohibit the Federal Government from removing or altering a barrier, fence, barbed wire, or obstacle constructed by a State along the United States border for the purpose of preventing unlawful crossings, and for other purposes.

ELI5 AI

The RAZOR Act is a rule that says the big national bosses can't mess with or take down fences or walls a state puts up near the border to stop people from sneaking in.

Summary AI

H.R. 7083, titled the “Restricting Administration Zealots from Obliging Raiders Act” or the “RAZOR Act,” is a bill introduced in the House of Representatives on January 25, 2024. The bill aims to prevent any federal department or agency from removing or altering barriers such as fences, barbed wire, or other obstacles that are constructed by a state along the United States border. These structures are specifically intended for preventing unlawful border crossings into the United States. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Homeland Security for further consideration.

Published

2024-01-25
Congress: 118
Session: 2
Chamber: HOUSE
Status: Introduced in House
Date: 2024-01-25
Package ID: BILLS-118hr7083ih

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
2
Words:
306
Pages:
2
Sentences:
4

Language

Nouns: 115
Verbs: 21
Adjectives: 9
Adverbs: 0
Numbers: 5
Entities: 41

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.03
Average Sentence Length:
76.50
Token Entropy:
4.29
Readability (ARI):
39.08

AnalysisAI

The proposed bill, known as the "Restricting Administration Zealots from Obliging Raiders Act" or the "RAZOR Act," aims to restrict the Federal Government from altering or removing barriers, fences, barbed wire, or obstacles that states have constructed along the United States border. The purpose of these constructions is to prevent unlawful crossings at the border, reflecting a state-driven approach to border security measures.

General Summary

H.R. 7083 is designed to ensure that any physical barriers erected by individual U.S. states along national borders remain untouched by federal entities. By prohibiting federal departments or agencies from intervening with state-constructed border barriers, the bill highlights a significant shift towards state autonomy in managing border security efforts. The bill lacks extensive provisions and centers primarily on maintaining the integrity of state-initiated barriers against illegal crossings.

Significant Issues

One of the major issues identified within the bill is the broad reference to the "Federal Government" in Section 2. This vagueness leaves room for confusion regarding which specific departments or agencies are impacted by this prohibition. Consequently, this could lead to potential legal ambiguities or disputes about jurisdiction and enforcement.

Another concern is the ambiguity surrounding the phrase "constructed by a State." It is not clear whether small local governments or private companies that may also erect barriers are subjected to the same federal restrictions. Furthermore, the bill does not explicitly define what constitutes "unlawful crossings," nor does it detail how these crossings would be monitored or verified. This lack of clarity could lead to subjective enforcement and different interpretations across states.

The bill's scope in terms of retroactivity is another gray area, as it currently does not specify whether the prohibition applies only to future federal actions or if it includes past instances. This omission could lead to legal confusion and financial consequences.

There is also a notable absence of discussion about who will bear the financial responsibility for maintaining these barriers. Without this clarification, there may arise disputes regarding whether states or the federal government should be accountable for the continued upkeep of such constructions.

Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

Broadly, the bill could lead states to feel more empowered in executing their own border security strategies without fear of federal interference. This might foster greater localized control but might also lead to inconsistencies in enforcement and standards across state lines, affecting residents and border communities differently depending on state policies.

For stakeholders like local governments and private landowners, the bill raises questions about their rights and roles in constructing and managing border barriers. The potential cost implications due to maintenance obligations might create financial strains, particularly for states with extensive border territories.

On the positive side, proponents might argue that the bill allows for quicker, more tailored responses to immigration and security challenges faced by border states. However, opponents might contend that the lack of federal oversight could result in an uncoordinated and patchwork approach, potentially hampering a unified national response to border security.

In conclusion, while the RAZOR Act highlights the importance of local autonomy, it raises significant questions about legal interpretation, financial responsibility, and operational coherence at the border. These aspects will require careful consideration to balance state interests with broader national objectives effectively.

Issues

  • The scope of the term 'Federal Government' in Section 2 may be overly broad and lack clarity regarding which specific departments or agencies are affected by the prohibition, which could lead to legal disputes and complications.

  • The phrase 'constructed by a State' in Section 2 could lead to ambiguity regarding the inclusion or exclusion of local jurisdictions or private entities, raising legal or administrative questions.

  • The act does not define how 'unlawful crossings' are determined or verified in Section 2, potentially leading to subjective interpretations and implementation challenges.

  • Section 2 does not specify whether the prohibition on altering barriers applies retroactively, which could have significant legal and financial implications.

  • The act does not address financial responsibilities for maintaining barriers, fences, or obstacles in Section 2, which could lead to budgetary concerns or disputes over state versus federal responsibilities.

  • The lack of specificity in Section 1 regarding the objectives of the 'RAZOR Act' could lead to misunderstandings about the act’s intent and scope, reducing transparency and accountability.

Sections

Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.

1. Short title Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The first section of the bill states that it can be referred to as the "Restricting Administration Zealots from Obliging Raiders Act" or simply the "RAZOR Act."

2. Prohibition Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section prohibits any department or agency of the Federal Government from removing or changing any barrier, fence, barbed wire, or obstacle that a State builds along the U.S. border to stop illegal crossings.