Overview
Title
To appropriate $25,000,000,000 for the construction of a border wall between the United States and Mexico, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill plans to spend $25 billion to build a big wall between the United States and Mexico, but it also wants to change some tax rules that could make it harder for some people, especially those without a Social Security number, to save money on their taxes.
Summary AI
S. 293, the “WALL Act of 2025,” allocates $25 billion to build a physical barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border. The funding remains available until used. The bill offsets this expense by making changes to tax credit eligibility, primarily requiring a valid Social Security number, and by imposing fees on those using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs). It also mandates the use of the E-Verify system for certain federally funded benefits and proposes fines for illegal entry or overstaying a visa.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The proposed legislation, titled the "WALL Act of 2025," seeks to allocate $25 billion toward constructing a physical barrier along the southern border of the United States, aimed at enhancing border security. In addition to funding the wall, the bill introduces changes to the Internal Revenue Code, particularly affecting eligibility for specific tax credits. It also puts in place new immigration enforcement measures, including minimum fines for illegal entry and visa overstays. Furthermore, the bill requires the verification of immigration status for certain federal benefits using E-Verify, a system that confirms employment eligibility.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the fundamental issues with the bill pertains to the $25 billion appropriated for the border wall (Section 2). There is a lack of detail on how these funds will be managed, which raises concerns about potential waste and ineffective use. Alongside, the vague description of a "physical barrier" and unspecified locations for its construction further complicates execution, leaving room for ambiguity and potential ineffectiveness.
In Section 3, the bill introduces a fee for filing taxes using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). This fee could disproportionately impact immigrants or non-citizens, potentially leading to accusations of discrimination. Additionally, the requirement for all federally funded programs to adopt E-Verify may lead to significant administrative challenges and could delay access to benefits for eligible individuals.
Section 4 focuses on fines for illegal entry and overstaying visas. These fines could be financially crippling for individuals without substantial means, raising ethical concerns regarding their harshness. Furthermore, the provisions allowing for exceptions to penalties leave room for potential loopholes or inconsistent application of the law.
Impact on the Broader Public
The broader public might face both direct and indirect implications as a result of this bill. While the intention behind the border wall is to strengthen national security, the absence of detailed planning and oversight may lead to taxpayer funds being spent ineffectively. The broad implementation of E-Verify may strain government resources and lead to processing delays, which could ultimately hinder eligible recipients' access to necessary benefits.
Additionally, imposing high fines and tax return fees may exacerbate existing financial challenges for certain groups, particularly immigrants facing economic hardship. These measures could create divisive public opinion, with some viewing them as necessary security measures and others as excessively punitive and potentially discriminatory.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For immigrants, especially those who rely on ITINs for tax returns and are most likely to be affected by the visa overstay and entry penalties, the bill poses significant challenges. The financial burdens introduced by fines and fees could disproportionately impact these communities, adding to existing hardships.
On a more positive note, supporters of stricter immigration controls might view the bill as enhancing border security and potentially reducing unauthorized immigration. For lawmakers advocating for fiscal accountability, the offsets within the tax code could be perceived as measures to ensure only eligible individuals receive specific tax credits.
Overall, while this bill aims to address complex issues related to border security and immigration, the potential for unintended consequences necessitates a careful evaluation of its provisions and their broader implications for society.
Financial Assessment
The bill known as the "WALL Act of 2025," formally designated as S. 293, primarily focuses on the financial appropriation of $25 billion for constructing a border wall between the United States and Mexico. This allocation is designed to remain available "until expended," meaning there is no time limit set for using these funds, which could lead to concerns about prolonged or indefinite spending without strict oversight or accountability measures in place.
Allocations and Spending
The bill specifies that the $25 billion appropriation is intended for building a physical barrier, yet it lacks critical details about how these funds will be distributed or managed. This raises significant concerns regarding potential wasteful spending. Without clear guidelines on allocation, management, and oversight, there is a risk that the funds may not be utilized efficiently or effectively.
Furthermore, the description of the border wall as a "physical barrier" along the "southern land border" is vague and ambiguous. It does not specify where the wall would be constructed along the extensive border, leading to potential inefficiencies and strategic planning challenges.
Offsets through Tax Changes
To offset the substantial spending on the wall, the bill imposes restrictions related to tax credits and fees. It mandates that to qualify for certain tax credits, such as the child tax credit, the taxpayers and their qualifying children must have a valid Social Security number. This requirement may disproportionately affect individuals who do not possess such identification, potentially raising issues of fairness and discrimination.
Additionally, a new fee is imposed for filing tax returns using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). Specifically, a $300 fee per individual is required on such returns. This fee could unfairly burden immigrants and non-citizens, adding a financial strain on individuals who might already be facing economic challenges.
Concerns on Accountability and Implementation
The lack of constraints on the availability of the $25 billion allocation, alongside the absence of detailed management guidance, could lead to misuse or inefficient use of the funds. Without restrictions or deadlines, there is a possibility of the appropriation being spent over an indefinite period, raising accountability concerns.
Moreover, the bill mandates the broad use of the E-Verify system for verifying the immigration status of individuals receiving certain federally funded benefits. Implementing this system across various programs may present significant administrative burdens and increase processing times, possibly delaying access to benefits for eligible individuals.
Potential Impact of Fines
The imposition of minimum fines of $3,000 to $10,000 for illegal entry or overstay adds another financial burden to individuals who may already be economically disadvantaged. Such high fines could be seen as excessively punitive and may have severe financial implications for the individuals involved.
Overall, while the bill demonstrates a clear commitment to funding the border wall project, it raises several financial and ethical concerns. The lack of detailed financial management, potential discriminatory impacts of tax changes, and the harshness of fines call for careful reconsideration to ensure efficacy, fairness, and responsibility in the use of public funds.
Issues
The appropriation of $25,000,000,000 for the construction of a border wall lacks details on allocation, management, oversight, and accountability (Section 2). This raises potential concerns of wasteful spending and ineffective use of funds.
The fee imposed for using an ITIN in tax returns (Section 3d) could disproportionately affect immigrants or non-citizens, potentially raising legal and ethical concerns of discriminatory practices.
The broad implementation of the E-Verify system across various federally funded programs and housing assistance (Section 3f) may pose significant administrative burdens, inconsistencies between states, and could lead to delays in processing benefits, impacting timely access for eligible individuals.
The imposition of high fines for illegal entry and overstay (Section 4) could be excessively punitive and financially crippling for individuals who may already be under significant economic pressure, raising ethical concerns.
The vague description of a 'physical barrier' along the southern land border and lack of specific locations (Section 2) leaves the execution and strategic planning of the construction ambiguous and potentially ineffective.
The exclusion provisions for certain individuals from penalties and fines leave room for perceived loopholes or inconsistent application of law (Section 4).
The lack of environmental, economic, or social impact assessments for the border wall construction (Section 2) raises concerns about potential adverse effects and oversight issues.
Absence of constraints on fund availability ('remain available until expended') in the border wall appropriation (Section 2b) could lead to prolonged or indefinite spending without accountability.
No specific guidance provided on how collected fees under Section 3d will be used may raise transparency and accountability concerns.
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 this Act states that it can be referred to as the "WALL Act of 2025."
2. Mandatory spending for border wall Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allocates $25 billion for building a physical barrier along the southern border of the United States, and this funding will be available until it is fully used for this purpose.
Money References
- In general.—There is appropriated $25,000,000,000 for the purpose of constructing a physical barrier along the southern land border of the United States.
3. Offsets Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section of the bill makes several changes to the Internal Revenue Code, including requiring valid Social Security numbers for child tax credit eligibility and excluding Social Security numbers of those prohibited from U.S. employment. It also introduces a fee for filing taxes using an ITIN unless a Social Security number misuse is reported, mandates E-Verify for noncitizen eligibility for certain federal benefits, and requires government coordination to confirm Social Security numbers' validity.
Money References
- (d) Fees for filing a tax return using an ITIN.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 6109(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: “(5) FEE FOR FILING TAX RETURN USING AN ITIN.— “(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any individual income tax return filed by a taxpayer residing in the United States, the Secretary shall require the taxpayer to pay a fee for each such return filed in an amount equal to the product of— “(i) the total number of individuals included on such return (including any spouse or dependent of the taxpayer) with respect to whom an individual taxpayer identification number has been issued, multiplied by “(ii) $300.
4. Minimum fines for illegal entry and overstay Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish fines for illegal entry and overstaying. For the first illegal entry, an individual can be fined $3,000 to $10,000, face up to 6 months of jail, or both; and for repeat offenses, up to 2 years in prison may apply. Those denied entry or deported who reenter the U.S. illegally also face fines from $3,000 to $10,000 unless specific exceptions apply. Additionally, overstaying a visa results in a $50 fine for each month the stay exceeds the authorized period.
Money References
- SEC. 4. Minimum fines for illegal entry and overstay. (a) Illegal entry.—Chapter 8 of title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1321 et seq.) is amended— (1) in section 275 (8 U.S.C. 1325)— (A) in subsection (a)— (i) by striking “(1)”; (ii) by striking “or (2)”; (iii) by striking “(3)”; and (iv) by striking “shall, for” and all that follows and inserting the following: “shall— “(1) for the first commission of any such offense, be fined in accordance with subsection (b), imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both; and “(2) for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined in accordance with subsection (b), imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.”; and (B) in subsection (b)— (i) by inserting “(1)” before “Any alien”; (ii) by striking “civil penalty of” and all that follows through the period at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting “civil penalty in an amount equal to not less than $3,000 and not more than $10,000.”; and (iii) in the undesignated matter at the end, by striking “Civil penalties” and inserting the following: “(2) Civil penalties”; and (2) in section 276 (8 U.S.C. 1326), by amending subsection (a) to read as follows: “(a)(1)
- Subject to paragraph (2) and subsection (b), any alien who, after being denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed or after departing the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding, enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States, shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount equal to not less than $3,000 and not more than $10,000.
- “(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an alien described in such paragraph shall not be subject to the civil penalty described in such paragraph if— “(A) before reembarking at a place outside the United States or applying for admission from a foreign contiguous territory, the Secretary of Homeland Security has expressly consented to such alien's reapplying for admission; or “(B) with respect to an alien previously denied admission and removed, such alien establishes that he or she was not required to obtain such advance consent under this Act.”. (b) Overstay.—Section 222(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1202(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following: “(3) An alien described in paragraph (1) shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount equal to the product of $50 multiplied by the number of months the alien remained in the United States beyond the alien’s authorized period of stay.”.