For the relief of Maria Merida de Macario.
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6]
ID: M001196
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the underlying disease.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is a classic case of "Private Relief" – a euphemism for "I'm doing a favor for my buddy or contributor." The main purpose is to grant permanent resident status to Maria Merida de Macario, an individual who has managed to catch the attention of Representative Moulton. One can only wonder what strings were pulled or favors traded to make this happen.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill waives various grounds for removal and denial of admission, essentially giving Maria a get-out-of-jail-free card. It also allows her to adjust her status to lawful permanent resident, despite any previous transgressions. The cherry on top is the reduction of immigrant visa numbers for natives of her country of birth – because, you know, we need to make room for this one special person.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Maria Merida de Macario is the obvious beneficiary, but let's not forget the real stakeholders: Representative Moulton and his constituents. This bill is a perfect example of " constituent service" – a euphemism for "I'm doing something to make myself look good." The rest of us are just collateral damage.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill sets a lovely precedent for future private relief bills, where Congress can cherry-pick individuals for special treatment. It's a slap in the face to those who have played by the rules and waited patiently in line. The real impact is on the integrity of our immigration system, which is already a joke.
Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a severe case of "Special Interest-itis" – a disease characterized by an overabundance of self-serving politicians catering to their cronies and contributors. Symptoms include blatant disregard for existing laws, favoritism, and a healthy dose of hypocrisy. Treatment involves a strong dose of transparency, accountability, and a commitment to serving the greater good.
Prognosis: Poor. This bill will likely pass with flying colors, as our esteemed representatives are more concerned with their own interests than the well-being of the country. The rest of us will be left to deal with the consequences of this legislative malpractice.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 22 nodes and 21 connections
Total contributions: $132,500
Top Donors - Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6]
Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 178 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise interior immigration enforcement. This Administration’s humanitarian crisis—which is arguably the greatest humanitarian crisis in the modern era, one which has harmed Americans and foreign nationals alike—will take many years and billions of dollars to fully address. One casualty of the Biden Administration’s behavior will be the current form of the U.S. Refugee Admission Program (USRAP). The federal government’s obligation to shift national security–essential screening and vetting resources to the forged border crisis will necessitate an indefinite curtailment of the number of USRAP refugee admissions. The State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, which administers USRAP, must shift its resources to challenges stemming from the current immigration situation until the crisis can be contained and refugee-focused screening and vetting capacity can reasonably be restored. l Strengthening bilateral and multilateral immigration-focused agreements. Restoration of both domestic security and the integrity of the U.S. immigration system should start with rapid reactivation of several key initiatives in effect at the conclusion of the Trump Administration. Reimplementation of the Remain in Mexico policy, safe third-country agreements, and other measures to address the influx of non-Mexican asylum applicants at the United States–Mexico border must be Day One priorities. Although the State Department must rein in the C-175 authorities of other agencies, the Department of Homeland Security should retain (or regain) C-175 authorities for negotiating bilateral and multilateral security agreements. l Evaluation of national security–vulnerable visa programs. To protect the American people, the State Department, in coordination with the White House and other security-focused agencies, should evaluate several key security-sensitive visa programs that it manages. Key programs include, but should not be limited to, the Diversity Visa program, the F (student) visa program, and J (exchange visitor) visa program. The State Department’s evaluation must ensure that these programs are not only consistent with White House immigration policy, but also align with its national security obligations and resource limitations. PIVOTING ABROAD Personnel and management adjustments are crucial preludes to refocus the State Department’s mission, which is implementing the President’s foreign policy agenda and, in so doing, ensuring that the interests of American citizens are given — 179 — Department of State priority. That said, the next President must significantly reorient the U.S. govern- ment’s posture toward friends and adversaries alike—which will include much more honest assessments about who are friends and who are not. This reorien- tation could represent the most significant shift in core foreign policy principles and corresponding action since the end of the Cold War. Although not every country or issue area can be discussed in this chapter, below are examples of several areas in which a shift in U. S. foreign policy is not only import- ant, but arguably existential. The point is not to assert that everyone in the evolving conservative movement, or, in some cases, the growing bipartisan consensus, will agree with the details of this assessment. Rather, what is presented below demon- strates the urgency of these issues and provides a general roadmap for analysis. In a world on fire, a handful of nations require heightened attention. Some rep- resent existential threats to the safety and security of the American people; others threaten to hurt the U.S. economy; and others are wild cards, whose full threat scope is unknown but nevertheless unsettling. The five countries on which the next Administration should focus its attention and energy are China, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and North Korea. The People’s Republic of China The designs of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Chinese Com- munist Party, which runs the PRC, are serious and dangerous.9 This tyrannical country with a population of more than 1 billion people has the vision, resources, and patience to achieve its objectives. Protecting the United States from the PRC’s designs requires an unambiguous offensive-defensive mix, including protecting American citizens and their interests, as well as U.S. allies, from PRC attacks and abuse that undermine U.S. competitiveness, security, and prosperity. The United States must have a cost-imposing strategic response to make Bei- jing’s aggression unaffordable, even as the American economy and U.S. power grow. This stance will require real, sustained, near-unprecedented U.S. growth; stronger partnerships; synchronized economic and security policies; and American energy independence—but above all, it will require a very honest perspective about the nature and designs of the PRC as more of a threat than a competitor.10 The next President should use the State Department and its array of resources to reassess and lead this effort, just as it did during the Cold War. The U.S. government needs an Article X for China,11 and it should be a presidential mandate. Along with the National Security Council, the State Department should draft an Article X, which should be a deeply philosophical look at the China challenge. Many foreign policy professionals and national leaders, both in government and the private sector, are reluctant to take decisive action regarding China. Many are vested in an unshakable faith in the international system and global norms. They are so enamored with them they cannot brook any criticisms or reforms, let alone
Introduction
— 178 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise interior immigration enforcement. This Administration’s humanitarian crisis—which is arguably the greatest humanitarian crisis in the modern era, one which has harmed Americans and foreign nationals alike—will take many years and billions of dollars to fully address. One casualty of the Biden Administration’s behavior will be the current form of the U.S. Refugee Admission Program (USRAP). The federal government’s obligation to shift national security–essential screening and vetting resources to the forged border crisis will necessitate an indefinite curtailment of the number of USRAP refugee admissions. The State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, which administers USRAP, must shift its resources to challenges stemming from the current immigration situation until the crisis can be contained and refugee-focused screening and vetting capacity can reasonably be restored. l Strengthening bilateral and multilateral immigration-focused agreements. Restoration of both domestic security and the integrity of the U.S. immigration system should start with rapid reactivation of several key initiatives in effect at the conclusion of the Trump Administration. Reimplementation of the Remain in Mexico policy, safe third-country agreements, and other measures to address the influx of non-Mexican asylum applicants at the United States–Mexico border must be Day One priorities. Although the State Department must rein in the C-175 authorities of other agencies, the Department of Homeland Security should retain (or regain) C-175 authorities for negotiating bilateral and multilateral security agreements. l Evaluation of national security–vulnerable visa programs. To protect the American people, the State Department, in coordination with the White House and other security-focused agencies, should evaluate several key security-sensitive visa programs that it manages. Key programs include, but should not be limited to, the Diversity Visa program, the F (student) visa program, and J (exchange visitor) visa program. The State Department’s evaluation must ensure that these programs are not only consistent with White House immigration policy, but also align with its national security obligations and resource limitations. PIVOTING ABROAD Personnel and management adjustments are crucial preludes to refocus the State Department’s mission, which is implementing the President’s foreign policy agenda and, in so doing, ensuring that the interests of American citizens are given
Introduction
— xxvii — Contributors Joseph Edlow, The Heritage Foundation Jen Ehlinger, Booz Allen Hamilton John Ehrett, Office of Senator Josh Hawley Kristen Eichamer, The Heritage Foundation Robert S. Eitel, Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies Will Estrada, Parents Rights Foundation Jon Feere, Center for Immigration Studies Baruch Feigenbaum, Reason Foundation Travis Fisher, The Heritage Foundation George Fishman, Center for Immigration Studies Leslie Ford, The Heritage Foundation Aharon Friedman, Federal Policy Group Bruce Frohnen, Ohio Northern University College of Law Joel Frushone Finch Fulton Diana Furchtgott-Roth, The Heritage Foundation Caleigh Gabel, American Cornerstone Institute Christopher Gacek, Family Research Council Alexandra Gaiser, River Financial Inc. Mario Garza Patty-Jane Geller, The Heritage Foundation Andrew Gillen, Texas Public Policy Foundation James S. Gilmore III, Gilmore Global Group LLC Vance Ginn, Economic Consulting, LLC Alma Golden, The Institute for Women’s Health Mike Gonzalez, The Heritage Foundation Chadwick R. Gore, Defense Forum Foundation David Gortler, Ethics and Public Policy Center Brian Gottstein, The Heritage Foundation Dan Greenberg, Competitive Enterprise Institute Rob Greenway, Hudson Institute Rachel Greszler, The Heritage Foundation DJ Gribbin, Madrus Consulting Garrison Grisedale, American Cornerstone Institute Joseph Grogan, USC Schaeffer School for Health Policy and Economics Andrew Guernsey Jeffrey Gunter, Republican Jewish Coalition Joe Guy, Club for Growth Joseph Guzman Amalia Halikias, The Heritage Foundation Gene Hamilton, America First Legal Foundation Richard Hanania, Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology — xxviii — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Simon Hankinson, The Heritage Foundation David Harlow Derek Harvey, Office of Congressman Devin Nunes Jason Hayes, Mackinac Center for Public Policy Jennifer Hazelton Lou Heinzer Edie Heipel Troup Hemenway, Personnel Policy Operations Nathan Hitchen, Equal Rights Institute Pete Hoekstra Gabriella Hoffman, Independent Women’s Forum Tom Homan, The Heritage Foundation Chris Horner Mike Howell, The Heritage Foundation Valerie Huber, The Institute for Women’s Health Andrew Hughes, American Cornerstone Institute Joseph Humire, Center for a Secure Free Society Christopher Iacovella, American Securities Association Melanie Israel, The Heritage Foundation Ken Ivory, Utah House of Representatives Roman Jankowski, The Heritage Foundation Abby Jones Emilie Kao, Alliance Defending Freedom Jared M. Kelson, Boyden Gray & Associates Aaron Kheriaty, Ethics and Public Policy Center Ali Kilmartin, Alliance Defending Freedom Julie Kirchner, Federation for American Immigration Reform Dan Kish, Institute for Energy Research Kenneth A. Klukowski Adam Korzeniewski, American Principles Project Kathy Nuebel Kovarik, Sagitta Solutions, LLC Bethany Kozma, Keystone Policy Matthew Kozma Julius Krein, American Affairs Stanley Kurtz, Ethics and Public Policy Center David LaCerte, Baker Botts, LLP Paul J. Larkin, The Heritage Foundation Kent Lassman, Competitive Enterprise Institute James R. Lawrence III, Envisage Law Paul Lawrence, Lawrence Consulting Nathan Leamer, Targeted Victory David Legates, University of Delaware (Ret.)
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.