Rep. Andy Ogles plans to introduce a bill to block entry from several countries he says pose verification and security problems, framing it as a continuation of travel restrictions from the Trump era. The measure, called the Halt Immigration from Countries with Inadequate Verification Capabilities Act (HICIVA), names specific nations and aims to bar recent residents from entry, while reacting to a recent deadly shooting in Austin that has lawmakers talking about vetting and ideology. This article covers the bill’s basics, the quoted remarks driving it, and the incident that sharpened the debate.
Ogles announced his intent to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to stop admission of aliens from a list of countries he views as problematic for verification and security. Republicans supporting the move say it is a commonsense national security measure, built on the rationale used by prior administrations when credible identity verification was at issue. This is being pitched as preventive policy, not symbolic politics.
“Mass Islamic immigration, legal or illegal, has transformed America and brought destructive consequences,” Ogles said.
“America’s moral exemplar is a meek carpenter who rose from the dead, not a warmonger with 12 wives and countless slaves. My bill will preserve this truth.”
Ogles’ bill targets Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen, listing them as places where governments or conditions prevent reliable verification of identities, backgrounds or intentions. The restriction would also apply to people who have lived in those countries within the five years prior to trying to enter the United States. The legislation explicitly makes an exception for U.S. citizens.
The bill’s full name, the Halt Immigration from Countries with Inadequate Verification Capabilities Act (HICIVA), underlines the point lawmakers are making: this is about paperwork, records, and security, they say, rather than cultural commentary. Supporters stress that when a government cannot produce reliable records or cooperate on checks, the risk to Americans grows. That is the legal framing the bill uses to avoid claims the policy targets religion rather than foreign governance and documentation.
The push comes in the wake of a deadly shooting in Austin that left multiple people dead and many wounded, an event that has driven renewed calls for tighter vetting. The suspected shooter, Ndiaga Diagne, 53, was killed in a confrontation with law enforcement after the attack. Authorities reported items found that raised alarm bells for investigators and lawmakers alike.
Police said the suspect wore a hoodie marked with the words “property of Allah” and that a search of his residence turned up an Iranian flag and photos of Islamic leaders. Investigators have not yet tied motive to a single cause, and officials warn the probe must consider many possible influences. Lawmakers point to these kinds of indicators when arguing the policy gap HICIVA aims to close.
“We’re looking at the totality of this. We see these indicators, we’re thinking about events and what’s occurring in the country as well. The motives – all of those things, that’s what the investigation is about right now,” Austin Police Chief Lisa Davis said in a press event.
Ogles and his allies argue that ideology matters when it spurs violence or undermines the social order, and they say those risks are already reflected in policy debates about who can enter the country. In Ogles’ words, he wants statutory backing for what he sees as a prudent border stance rooted in security rather than sentiment. That is how he links HICIVA to earlier executive actions.
“In 2017, President Trump rightly called out the unassimilable nature of those from Islamic nations, and I want to make it statute. America is no place for a religion that endorses pedophilia, sex slavery, polygamy, abuse of women and the murder of Christians,” Ogles said, referring to an executive order from Trump’s first term.
The 2017 travel restrictions from the Trump administration sought limits on travel from several of the same countries for a set period, and the Supreme Court has previously upheld the president’s authority in this arena in Trump v. Hawaii. That precedent, supporters note, distinguished national security motives from improper religious animus, and it is part of the legal foundation they point to for HICIVA today.
Rep. Randy Fine of Florida is listed by Ogles’ office as an original co-sponsor, signaling GOP interest beyond a single backer. As the debate moves to committees and headlines, Republicans pushing the bill are keeping the message simple: secure the border, verify identities, and prevent people from entering when reliable checks are impossible. The controversy is likely to focus on where to draw the line between security and discrimination as the legislative process unfolds.
