Jump to content
TedderVision
TexAgRepublican

American National Security Act

Recommended Posts

Mr. Swanner, on behalf of President Macmillan and with thanks to Mr. McCaul and Mr. Hurd, submits

A BILL

To protect the United States and its people from threats to its safety. 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

(a) This act shall be cited as the American National Security Act.

SEC. 2. CONSTRUCTION OF PHYSICAL BARRIER ALONG U.S.-MEXICO BORDER.

(a) A physical precast concrete wall no less than 30 feet high and extending no less than 10 feet underground shall be constructed along no less than 1,000 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border by December 31, 2020. 

(b) $12,000,000,000 is appropriated for this section. 

SEC. 3. IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT SURGE.

(a) The Department of Homeland Security shall be authorized to enter into a written agreement with a state or a subdivision thereof pursuant to which a state or local officer or employee may carry out immigration-related investigations, apprehensions, or detentions of aliens in the United States at state or local expense. 

SEC. 4. REVIEW OF ALIENS TO IDENTIFY SECURITY THREATS TO THE UNITED STATES.

(a) In this section, the term “covered alien” is defined as any alien applying for admission to the United States who is a national or resident of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, or any other nation the Secretary of Homeland Security determines to be heavily compromised by terrorism, or who has no nationality and whose last habitual residence was from any of the aforementioned nations or any other nation the Secretary of Homeland Security determines to be heavily compromised by terrorism.

(b) In addition to the screening conducted by the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall take all actions necessary to ensure that each covered alien receives a thorough background investigation prior to admission. A covered alien may not be admitted until the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation certifies to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence that each covered alien has received a background investigation that is sufficient to determine whether the covered alien is a threat to the security of the United States.

(c) A covered alien may only be admitted to the United States after the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the unanimous concurrence of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Director of National Intelligence, certifies that the covered alien is not a threat to the security of the United States.

(d) The Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security shall conduct a risk-based review of all certifications made under subsection (c) each year.

SEC. 5. OPEN-SOURCE SCREENING SOFTWARE.

(a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall

(1) develop an open-source software based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s global travel targeting and analysis systems and the Department of State’s watchlisting, identification, and screening systems in order to facilitate the vetting of travelers against terrorist watchlists and law enforcement databases, enhance border management, and improve targeting and analysis; and

(2) may make such software and any related technical assistance or training available to foreign governments or multilateral organizations for such purposes, provided that the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence concurrently certify that such availability is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) The authority provided under this section shall be exercised in accordance with applicable provisions of the Arms Export Control Act, the Export Administration Regulations, or any other similar provision of law.

SEC. 6. PREVENTING TAX CREDIT FRAUD.

(a) Claimants of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit must have a social security number that is valid for employment. 

SEC. 7. ENACTMENT.

(a) This act shall take effect immediately. 

Edited by TexAgRepublican

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point of order.

OOC: this bill is an almost identical copy of the construction clause of the previous bill. The funding is off, but I’m assuming this was made in haste. 60 republicans voted against such a clause, but now that O’Dweyer has in effect stopped playing, the GOP is attempting to reinsert this because now it wouldn’t be blocked. However, IG, it would not make sense for those 60 republicans to have a sudden change of mind. This is poor gamesmanship, it’s petty, and there should either be SERIOUS IG consequences or this bill should either be scrapped or receive the same votes as the Amendment. @Richard

Edited by Jsawrie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas W. Wickham, Jr., Parliamentarian

The point of order is recognized. This bill will not be brought up onto the floor until it is reviewed by the Parliamentarian and his staff.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas W. Wickham, Jr., Parliamentarian

Mr. Speaker, the motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair is in order. As it has received the required second, it is in order and debatable. It requires a majority vote to pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

similar legislation was already proposed to this house on the first docket. The spend and time frame are similar. The declaration to construct a physical barrier are identical. We have answered this question. What we have is Republican Congressmen more beholden to their party than to their constituents. The Republican from Texas should show why this section is different than the construction language that was removed by Democrats and some 60 Republicans. If he can show a fundamental difference between construction of a physical barrier and construction of a physical barrier, I’d love to hear it. 

Now the gentleman from Virginia will tell us the President promised Americans a wall and he should have one. But to be blunt Mr. Speaker, I won’t give a wall and I don’t give a dam. The letters from my constituents also show, many don’t either. If he is concerned about his promises, maybe he shouldn’t promise asinine things. 

This bill is improper. We have addressed this. It is not fundamentally different. I move to table this bill. 

I yield. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker

I am disgusted to see you disagree with our parliamentarian and disgusted at this gross missuse of these house rules and the laws of the constitution. Therefore I second the gentleman from Arkansas motion to table and I echo his sentatments, I too will not give a wall, and I too, do not give a dam. Mr. speaker you should be ashamed of yourself and the gentleman from Texas, mr swanner should be ashamed of himself. 

I yield.

Edited by Dogslife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Mr. speaker,

 

I rise today in opposition to this bill coming to the floor. I thank the minority leader  for standing up against this end around to constitutional law. The president is walking awfully close to introducing a bill that is unconstitutional. When the president took to Twitter and stated that he was going to get is wall no one in this country would’ve thought you would go to these extreme measures.  This body voted as a bipartisan legislature to vote down construction of a new border wall. The speaker the president and the gentleman from Texas should respect the legislation that has passed both chambers of Congress that prohibited construction of a new border wall.  This latest stunt is just as extreme as the president federalizing the National Guard.  Yet again we are looking at another failure to lead in the first hundred days of his presidency.  the American people elected a president that they expected to lead from in front but in fact all we got was a president leading from behind that likes to throw temper tantrum‘s when he does not get his way and he goes to links to almost circumvent the law he pushes the law to the extremes. 

 

 The American people deserve a majority and a president that has their best interest In heart and not egos. Every time that this majority decides to pull a stunt like this it shows to the American people thatva Democratic majority in both chambers is necessary on the midterms. Mr. Speaker we are putting you on notice that this will not be tolerated anymore and be ready to hand over the gavel when we take back the majority because you sir will not lead.  

 

I yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

I just want to share the irony that Republicans have boasted about their past election win and have told Democrats to "deal with" the results of this past election.  We have been told to not oppose the President or the Republicans because "the people chose them" as they say.  Now the tables have turned.  The house, who represents Americans all across the country, has voted on the people's behalf to remove the border wall from what was a comprehensive and collaborative effort from both sides.  I wish they would take their own advice and simply "deal with it."   They lost the vote because the wall is an expensive and ineffective solution to their problem.  This bill with another wall proposal is a wasted docket slot.  Something much better could have been in its place.  What about an education bill, Mr. Speaker? How about a bill that protects the environment as opposed to one that exploits it?  An energy bill, a student loan bill, a small business aid bill, or anything of actual value to the American people.  We shouldn't waste docket time on an obsolete concept or bill.

I yield, Mr. Speaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOC:

PLAYER NAME
Republicans Democrats
NAT EV BUS MR ML SJW  PRO GLO
Change 4 0 1 1 -2 -2 0 -2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Speaker,

I am delighted to see this issue brought to the public's attention and to the floor of this House, I would like to personally congratulate you on your courage and on your conviction to see the will of the American people as a whole realised. National Security is as important an issue for any government as there is, period. A surge in immigration enforcement, a review of aliens from troubled regions of the world, and open source software for the screening of immigrants will no doubt go a long way to reinforcing the provisions we passed in the last docket. I do however have a question for the bill's sponsor ((@TexAgRepublican)). This bill requires that any recipient of tax credits has a social security number, a valid and laudable requirement, however one of the most common ways for illegals to fraudulently claim welfare is by having a fake social security number. How does the learned gentleman plan to, or suggest that the White House, combat this issue?

Finally Mr Speaker, to talk briefly about the elephant in the room, I fully support the measures to bring a wall back to this place. I urge my colleagues to support this vital part of President Macmillan's agenda as it will not only help immigration enforcement but forms a sizeable part of his national security agenda too. I see my colleagues across the isle sharpening their pitchforks for a good old fashioned witch hunt and will only say that I will oppose them each and every step of the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

I rise today to speak against this aborrhent piece of legislation. The Republican Three are again trying to force their Know-Nothing, Nationalistic views upon the nation because they serve the interest of their anti immigrant fears rather than the interests of the American people. I rise to speak because the toddlers representing Texans, New Yorkers, and Virginians cannot settle for a good Immigration bill. Let expedite the process. The President’s honorable representative from Virginia will argue that the President promised a wall. But I don’t give a dam, and I won’t give a wall. I don’t care what the President promised. To use the expression “buck up snowflake, you’re not entitled to anything.”

We answered this question already. 60 Republicans voted against new construction. Will they now flip flop? Is the party so wishy washy that they can’t decide where they stand? This is identical legislation. They can lie and say it isn’t. But they would be liars. 

But let’s again raise the issue. To build this, the government is going to have to seize private land. They’re again going to take people’s property to bill a $12 billion dollar shrine to the President’s massive...ego. The Republicans are getting good at allowing for private property to be taken without the consent of current owners. More than two thirds of the natural border is owned by private individuals and Native Tribes. If it sounds familiar, it’s because it is. This is just another instance of the Republican Nationalists saying they don’t care about farmers, private landowners, and Native Americans. In 2006, the Bush Administration desecrated sacred land for construction. Here we go again. They don’t care. They’re beholden to their Virginian task master. They ought to be ashamed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×