Overview
Title
To prohibit the Federal Government from taking any action to regain control of, access, or otherwise interfere in activities carried out by the State of Texas in the vicinity of Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, Texas, without the consent of the State of Texas.
ELI5 AI
The Halt the Invasion Act says that the U.S. government can't do anything in a park in Texas unless Texas agrees, and Texas will get paid back for taking care of the park. Texas also has to share some safety numbers to keep this rule going.
Summary AI
H.R. 7118, titled the “Halt the Invasion Act,” is a bill aimed at preventing the Federal Government from taking any action to interfere with activities carried out by the State of Texas at Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, Texas, without the state’s consent. It mandates that the Federal Government cannot spend money to regain control of this area unless agreed to by Texas. The bill also requires the Federal Government to reimburse the State of Texas for costs incurred to maintain control over Shelby Park, as long as these costs do not exceed what the federal government would spend. Moreover, the bill includes a condition for its continuation, requiring Texas to regularly publish data on criminal arrests of illegal immigrants, drug seizures, and other relevant border security information.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Overview of H. R. 7118
H. R. 7118, introduced in the House of Representatives on January 29, 2024, aims to limit the Federal Government's ability to regain control of or interfere with activities conducted by the State of Texas around Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, Texas, unless Texas provides consent. The bill requires the federal government to reimburse Texas for managing the park and includes provisions for information sharing concerning border security activities.
Significant Issues
Vague Title and Intent
The bill is titled the "Halt the Invasion Act," which lacks specificity and context, potentially leading to misunderstandings or political controversy. The use of the term "invasion" is nebulous without further elaboration on the type or nature of the invasion being referenced.
Federal and State Authority Conflicts
Section 2(a) of the bill could significantly restrict federal operations due to its prohibition on federal expenditure unless Texas consents. While this affirms state autonomy, it potentially hampers federal authority and might work against general public interests if federal involvement is beneficial.
Reimbursement Disputes
The reimbursement mechanism in Section 2(b) presents issues in calculating costs incurred by the State of Texas versus hypothetical federal costs. The limitation that reimbursement cannot exceed what the federal government would have spent may not account for Texas’s actual expenses, potentially leaving the state financially disadvantaged.
Data Provision Requirements
Section 2(d) imposes a rigorous data-sharing requirement on Texas, which may lead to administrative burdens. Failure to comply with this requirement could cause the bill's provisions to expire, diminishing the protections and financial reimbursements intended by the legislation.
Potential Impacts on the Public
For the general public, this bill underscores a tension between state and federal authority over local activities, especially in border regions. It reflects ongoing debates about state rights and federal oversight, with possible implications for how urgent management or enforcement details are handled in certain regions like Shelby Park.
Impacts on Stakeholders
State of Texas
For Texas, this bill could reinforce state sovereignty, granting more control over local activities without federal interference. However, it may also financially strain the state if it incurs significant costs that are not fully reimbursed by the federal government.
Federal Government
From the federal perspective, the bill introduces constraints that could limit its ability to manage operations or respond to issues effectively in the area without Texas’s consent. This could set a precedent for similar legislation in other states, potentially complicating federal management of national concerns.
Local Communities
Local populations may benefit from closer state oversight or suffer from the lack of federal resources and support if state management proves less effective or efficient. Additionally, the emphasis on local control might resonate positively with residents who prefer state governance over federal intervention.
In conclusion, while H. R. 7118 reasserts state rights over federal involvement in local matters, the financial, administrative, and operational consequences raise questions about the balance between state autonomy and federal oversight. These will likely be central to ongoing legislative and public discussions.
Issues
Section 2(a): The prohibition on federal expenditure might be overly restrictive and could hinder federal operations that might benefit public interest unless Texas consents, raising concerns about federal authority and state autonomy.
Section 1: The title 'Halt the Invasion Act' is vague and lacks context, which could lead to misunderstandings or political controversy as it does not specify what type of 'invasion' is referenced.
Section 2(b)(1) and (b)(2): The reimbursement clause could lead to disputes over cost calculations between Texas and the federal government, particularly with the limitation that reimbursement cannot exceed hypothetical federal costs, potentially leaving Texas underfunded.
Section 2(c): The ambiguous reference to 'other purposes' for federal funding could create loopholes or misinterpretations, possibly allowing unintended federal actions in Texas.
Section 2(d): The data provision requirement might be burdensome and pose risks of non-compliance for Texas, as failure to provide timely data could lead to the termination of the bill's protections.
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 officially called the "Halt the Invasion Act".
2. Prohibition Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section prohibits the Federal Government from using funds to control or interfere in Texas's activities near Shelby Park without the state's consent. It also requires the Federal Government to reimburse Texas for maintaining control of the park, unless Texas stops providing required monthly border security data, in which case, the bill section would end one year later.