Expresses steadfast resolve with the people of Texas, condemns the current administration's efforts to impose the consequences of illegal immigration on the States, and considers, pursuant to article III, section 3 of the Constitution, Joe Biden to be guilty of treason against the people of the United States.
Impact
The resolution explicitly calls for the acknowledgment that the Biden administration is guilty of treason against the people of the United States, based on the assertion that his policies have adversely affected the welfare and safety of American citizens. It highlights the rising apprehension numbers at the southern border as evidence of an ongoing crisis and suggests that these policies exacerbate public health and safety issues, notably through the influx of illegal drugs like fentanyl. In this way, the bill could have far-reaching implications for future federal policies concerning immigration and border security.
Summary
House Resolution 1020 expresses strong support for the people of Texas in light of the ongoing challenges posed by illegal immigration and the Biden administration's border policies. The resolution condemns these policies as detrimental to national security and claims they have resulted in serious social and economic repercussions for the states experiencing the brunt of illegal immigration. The resolution argues that the federal government is failing to protect states' rights and undermines their ability to secure their own borders. It asserts that this failure leads to an invasion of the United States and constitutes an abdication of responsibility by the federal authorities.
Contention
Critics of the resolution may argue that labeling the president as 'guilty of treason' is a politically charged move that could further polarize debates around immigration reform. Some may see HR1020 as an attempt to delegitimize the federal government's role in immigration policy, which could undermine collaborative efforts to address the complexities of border security and immigrant welfare. This resolution also sets a contentious precedent, as it questions the federal government's capability and willingness to manage immigration effectively, leading to potential conflicts between state and federal authorities.
A resolution to express the sense of the Senate regarding the constitutional right of State Governors to repel the dangerous ongoing invasion across the United States southern border.
A resolution to express the sense of the Senate regarding the constitutional right of State Governors to repel the dangerous ongoing invasion across the United States southern border.
Providing the sense of the House of Representatives that the political persecution of President Donald J. Trump is morally unjustifiable and has damaged institutional trust to an extraordinary degree; that the Biden administration's weaponization of the Federal Government against Donald Trump, the Republican Party's nominee for President in 2024, must end; that those responsible for the persecution of Donald Trump within the Biden administration must be held accountable by Congress; and that the United States would benefit enormously from having Donald J. Trump inaugurated once again as the President of the United States on January 20, 2025.
Recognizing that article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution explicitly reserves to the States the sovereign power to repel an invasion and defend their citizenry from the overwhelming and "imminent danger" posed by paramilitary, narco-terrorist cartels, terrorists and criminal actors who have seized control of our southern border.
This resolution declares that every state within the United States has the sovereign right to exclude any person who does not have the right to be there. It also declares that the states along the southern border (1) were invaded by terrorists, narco-terrorist cartels, and criminal actors from 2021 through 2024; and (2) have the sovereign and unilateral authority to defend themselves against such an invasion.
Removing James E. Boasberg, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for failure to remain in good behavior pursuant to section 1 of article III of the Constitution.