HR-4765-119
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Tim Moore (R-NC)
What it does
This bill would transfer unobligated funds previously appropriated for IRS tax enforcement activities to fund nonintrusive inspection systems along the northern and southwest borders and construction of a border wall system along the southwest border. It would also authorize Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to pay recruitment, retention, and relocation bonuses to agents, with relocation bonuses capped at 15% of annual base pay and conditioned on a three-year service commitment. Additionally, the bill would change current law from permitting to requiring the Department of Justice to either return non-U.S. nationals arriving by land from a neighboring country to that country (or a safe third country) while removal proceedings are pending, or detain them while their asylum application is under consideration.
Who benefits
CBP agents who would be eligible for new recruitment, retention, and relocation bonuses. Border communities that may see increased physical security infrastructure. Domestic manufacturers and contractors involved in border wall and inspection system construction. Taxpayers who support reduced unauthorized border crossings. Asylum seekers in neighboring countries who may be returned to a "safe third country" rather than detained. Existing legal immigrants and visa holders who may benefit from faster processing if border resources are expanded.
Who is hurt
Individuals arriving by land from Mexico or Canada who are not clearly entitled to admission — they would face mandatory return or detention rather than the current discretionary approach, potentially limiting access to asylum proceedings. IRS enforcement operations, which would lose unobligated funds previously designated for tax collection and criminal investigations, potentially reducing tax compliance and revenue recovery. Taxpayers who may bear the cost of reduced IRS enforcement capacity. Environmental and landowner groups along the southwest border who may be affected by wall construction. Asylum seekers who could face prolonged detention while applications are processed. Legal aid organizations that may face increased caseloads from detained individuals.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that mandatory return or detention of land-border arrivals closes a significant gap in current law, where discretionary authority has led to inconsistent enforcement and large numbers of individuals released into the country pending proceedings. They contend that redirecting unobligated IRS funds — money not yet committed to specific expenditures — to physical border infrastructure and inspection technology represents a reallocation of existing resources rather than new spending, and that CBP staffing bonuses address documented recruitment shortfalls that have left the agency understaffed at key entry points.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandatory detention or return of all land-border arrivals who are not clearly admissible would strain detention capacity, raise costs, and conflict with U.S. obligations under international refugee law, which prohibits returning individuals to countries where they face persecution. They contend that stripping IRS enforcement funding would reduce the government's ability to collect taxes already owed — potentially costing more in lost revenue than the border projects save — and that the bill's mandatory return and detention provisions may violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause by limiting individualized review, as recognized in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001).
Constitutional context
The Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) and the executive Take Care Clause (Art. II, §3) are both relevant: Congress has broad authority to set immigration rules, while the executive branch retains enforcement discretion. The mandatory detention and return provisions could face Fifth Amendment Due Process challenges — Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) established that indefinite detention of non-citizens is constitutionally limited when removal is not reasonably foreseeable. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any agency regulations implementing the mandatory return or detention requirements would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than deference.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority by converting executive enforcement discretion into a statutory mandate, reducing DOJ's flexibility; courts retain the ability to review individual detention and removal decisions under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Historical precedent
The Remain in Mexico policy (Migrant Protection Protocols, 2019) similarly required land-border asylum seekers to await proceedings outside the U.S. and was challenged on statutory and due process grounds, with the Supreme Court addressing its rescission in Biden v. Texas (2022).