Overview

Title

To prohibit deployment of Federal air marshals to the southern and northern borders of the United States, and for other purposes.

ELI5 AI

S. 3808 is a plan that says special airplane police (called Federal air marshals) can't be sent to help at the big fences between the U.S. and its neighbors unless there's a really big problem at the border, and the top boss says so.

Summary AI

S. 3808 proposes to prevent Federal air marshals from being sent to the United States' southern and northern borders for border security or immigration-related tasks. This includes tasks like helping with the processing of illegal or other immigrants and assisting the Department of Homeland Security or any Federal agency with such matters. However, this restriction can be lifted in a border crisis if the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies it as such to specific congressional committees, and this decision cannot be delegated.

Published

2024-02-27
Congress: 118
Session: 2
Chamber: SENATE
Status: Introduced in Senate
Date: 2024-02-27
Package ID: BILLS-118s3808is

Keywords AI

federal air marshals border security immigration department of homeland security southern border northern border border crisis prohibition secretary of homeland security certification process

Sources

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
2
Words:
564
Pages:
3
Sentences:
20

Language

Nouns: 159
Verbs: 35
Adjectives: 24
Adverbs: 1
Numbers: 27
Entities: 39

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.10
Average Sentence Length:
28.20
Token Entropy:
4.71
Readability (ARI):
15.19

AnalysisAI

Summary of the Bill

The proposed legislation aims to restrict the deployment of Federal air marshals to the United States' southern and northern borders for tasks related to border security or immigration processes. Specifically, the bill prevents these marshals from being used at the borders for such activities, except in instances deemed as a "border crisis." These crises must be identified by the Secretary of Homeland Security and confirmed in writing to specified congressional committees. The bill is known officially as the "No FAMS at the Border Act of 2024," and includes a technical amendment changing certain references from "Under Secretary" to "Administrator" within the related legal texts.

Significant Issues

This bill introduces several notable issues:

  1. Flexibility in Border Security: By prohibiting Federal air marshals from engaging in border security roles, the bill may limit the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) ability to adapt quickly to changing situations on the ground. This rigidity could lead to concerns during periods when additional manpower is urgently needed at the borders.

  2. Certification Process for Border Crises: Before Federal air marshals can be deployed during a border crisis, the Secretary of Homeland Security must certify the crisis in writing. This requirement could potentially delay an immediate response to urgent situations, which may be problematic during rapidly escalating events.

  3. Ambiguity in Definitions: Terms such as "border crisis" and "border security purposes" are not clearly defined. This lack of clarity might lead to inconsistent applications of the bill’s provisions, creating operational confusion and potential legal disputes.

  4. Congressional Oversight Limitation: The bill specifies that only certain congressional committees are to be notified in the event of a border crisis certification. This restriction could limit broader congressional oversight, potentially excluding other committees that may have a vested interest or valuable input on border issues.

  5. Non-delegation Clause: The requirement that the Secretary cannot delegate the crisis certification authority might lead to inefficiencies, especially if the Secretary is incapacitated or dealing with multiple crises simultaneously.

Broader Impact

Public Impact

For the general public, the bill underscores ongoing debates around how best to manage border security and immigration. By focusing air marshals on their original role of ensuring security in the aviation sector rather than border enforcement, the bill may be seen as limiting resources in a time when other agencies perceive a need for additional help at the borders. However, it also ensures that air marshals continue to focus on their primary aviation security responsibilities.

Stakeholder Impact

  • Department of Homeland Security: The DHS may find its operational flexibility constrained, as the bill limits the Secretary's ability to deploy air marshals to border security duties without undergoing a formal certification process. This could complicate strategic planning and resource allocation.

  • Federal Air Marshals: This workforce would primarily concentrate on aviation-related duties, maintaining the specialization and focus on air travel security that is critical in their role.

  • Congressional Committees: The oversight process may be more streamlined for the specific committees listed in the bill. However, other relevant committees may feel sidelined or uninvolved in important border security matters.

  • Border Communities: Areas close to the southern and northern borders might experience varying impacts. Limiting deployments of air marshals could either be seen as reducing unnecessary federal presence or as an underutilization of available resources during crises.

In summary, while the bill aims to clarify and restrict the deployment of Federal air marshals, it raises important questions about resource allocation, prompt response capabilities, and oversight in border security management. Each of these factors could carry implications for both immediate tactical responses and long-term border security strategies.

Issues

  • The bill prohibits the deployment of Federal air marshals to the southern and northern borders for border security or immigration purposes, potentially limiting the flexibility of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to respond to urgent or changing border security needs. This issue is particularly significant in Section 2(a)(2).

  • The requirement for the Secretary of Homeland Security to certify in writing to specific congressional committees that a border crisis exists before deploying Federal air marshals may delay necessary agency responses to urgent border situations, as noted in Section 2(a)(3)(A).

  • Ambiguity in the definitions of 'border crisis' and 'border security purposes' in Section 2(a)(3) could lead to challenges in interpreting and applying the exceptions to the prohibition on deployment, raising concerns over operational clarity and legal interpretation.

  • The bill specifies 'appropriate congressional committees' in its certification process, limited to certain committees, which could restrict wider congressional oversight and analysis relevant to border security issues, as highlighted in Section 2(a)(3)(A).

  • The non-delegation clause in Section 2(a)(3)(B) could limit the operational efficiency of the DHS if the Secretary is unavailable to make or certify a determination about a border crisis, potentially creating leadership bottlenecks in urgent situations.

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 proposed law is titled the “No FAMS at the Border Act of 2024,” and it serves to establish the name by which the entire act will be known.

2. Prohibition on deployment Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

In this section, a prohibition is established that prevents Federal air marshals from being deployed to the U.S. southern or northern borders for border security or immigration activities, unless a border crisis is declared by the Secretary of Homeland Security, who must then report this decision to specific congressional committees. Additionally, a technical amendment updates the title of "Under Secretary" to "Administrator" in another part of the legislation.