Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Bill is filed in its originating chamber and assigned a number.
Filed in the House.
Next: In Committee
Members of the committee(s) the bill was referred to
Allows states to take action against border invasions without federal approval.
The problem
Some argue states lack authority to defend their borders during migration surges. Supporters say federal government inadequately addresses unauthorized border crossings.
The proposal
Grants states power to respond to invasion situations at borders. Enables state military/National Guard deployment without waiting for federal authorization.
The impact
States gain border control authority. Immigrants and border communities face new enforcement. Federal-state power dynamics shift on immigration policy.
Empowers states to respond quickly to border situations without federal delays. States can deploy resources when they believe invasion is occurring. Allows local leaders to address community security concerns directly.
States don't need federal permission to deploy National Guard or take defensive actions. Eliminates bureaucratic delays in crisis situations. Communities could address border issues more quickly.
Border states gain more say in immigration enforcement in their territories. Respects state sovereignty in security matters. Allows governors to make decisions for their constituents.
States can act if they believe federal government is not adequately securing borders. Provides backup enforcement mechanism if federal resources are insufficient.
U.S. Constitution gives federal government exclusive power over immigration and military. States deploying military without federal approval raises legal conflicts. Could face court challenges on whether states have this authority.
State and federal governments could clash over border control decisions. Different states might take conflicting actions on same borders. Could create confusion about who has real authority.
Different states might enforce immigration laws very differently. Creates patchwork of border policies instead of uniform national approach. Could disadvantage some border states over others.
States taking military action could complicate U.S. relations with Mexico and other nations. International partners may object to military activities not coordinated nationally. Could create diplomatic incidents.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 10740
To designate Ukraine under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide certain nationals of Ukraine with continued eligibility for temporary protected status, and for other purposes.
HR 10656
Nicholas Douglas Quets Border Travel Safety Act
S 5521
Ukrainian Adjustment Act of 2026
S 5490
A bill to designate Ukraine under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide certain nationals of Ukraine with continued eligibility for temporary protected status, and for other purposes.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.