Sponsors (26)
Introduced January 16, 2025 by Jodey Cook Arrington · Last progress January 16, 2025
The resolution increases emphasis on border security and federal drug enforcement and gives state/localities stronger grounds to seek federal help, but it risks politicizing policy, enabling expanded/militarized enforcement, and creating pressure to divert funds away from social services while harming immigrants' rights.
Border communities and law enforcement could see increased federal drug-enforcement activity focused on cartel and fentanyl seizures, potentially reducing drug-related deaths.
State and local governments will have stronger justification to request federal assistance or emergency measures to secure borders and reduce local costs.
Low-income individuals and state budgets could lose social-service funding if emphasis on large state expenditures is used to divert federal funds toward enforcement measures.
Border communities and civil liberties could be harmed if framing cartels as paramilitary leads to expanded militarized law-enforcement responses, increasing costs and surveillance.
Immigrants and asylum seekers may face greater stigma and justification for restrictive policies because the findings broadly portray migrants as criminals, threatening rights and access to asylum.
Based on analysis of 2 sections of legislative text.
Records findings that the federal government failed to secure the southern border and documents impacts on border states, migrants, and public safety.
States findings that the federal government failed to secure the southern border and outlines alleged consequences for border states, migrants, and public safety. The resolution lists data and claims about increased apprehensions, state costs for services, criminal activity (including fentanyl), encounters with people on terror-watch lists, and cartel involvement, and it cites the Constitution as framing federal responsibilities to protect states.