Bill Overview
Title: Preserving Border Integrity Act
Description: This bill imposes restrictions on non-U.S. nationals (aliens under federal law) seeking asylum in the United States. Under this bill, a non-U.S. national may not, except in certain situations, seek asylum if the individual (1) entered (or attempted to enter) the United States through the northern or southern border, and (2) did not apply for protection from persecution or torture in at least one country that the individual transited through to reach the United States.
Sponsors: Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]
Target Audience
Population: People seeking asylum in the United States
Estimated Size: 500000
- The primary group affected by the bill is non-U.S. nationals, specifically those seeking asylum in the United States who enter through the northern or southern border.
- The bill introduces additional requirements for asylum seekers, such as applying for protection in a transit country, which may deter or prevent some asylum seekers from qualifying.
- The UNHCR estimated around 1.1 million asylum seekers globally in 2021, but this number changes annually based on global events such as conflicts, persecutions or natural disasters.
- Not all these asylum seekers attempt to enter the U.S., and not all come through land borders, so not all 1.1 million are affected.
Reasoning
- To understand the impact of the 'Preserving Border Integrity Act', we interviewed people who are likely to be indirectly or directly impacted by changes to asylum policies. The target population includes non-U.S. nationals currently in the U.S. or planning to seek asylum, who would face increased barriers to entry under the new policy.
- The policy directly influences non-U.S. nationals at the borders, particularly those crossing through southern and northern borders who are required to apply for asylum in a transit country. It indirectly affects American citizens who engage with or support these asylum seekers, potentially altering community dynamics and local economies in border areas.
- Given the budget constraints and target populations, the policy's implications are likely regulatory and procedural, enforcing stricter processes at U.S. borders, which may reduce illegal crossings but not significantly change U.S. demographics immediately.
- The simulated interviews indicate diverse impacts across the population, with asylum seekers facing primary impacts, while U.S. citizens may experience secondary socio-economic and community impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Immigration Lawyer (Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will make it harder for valid asylum seekers to enter the U.S. legally, which could inadvertently increase illegal crossings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Tech Worker (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill represents a step back in humane treatment for people fleeing persecution. It's important we advocate for these groups.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
CEO of a Mid-sized Company (New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our diversity might suffer as the policy becomes more stringent on who can apply for asylum and enter the country.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Border Patrol Agent (Arizona)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill should help reduce undocumented entries and clarify processes for asylum seekers, but it could also increase tension at the border.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
High School Teacher (Illinois)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Many of my students are from families who have fled violence. Policies like this make their future uncertain.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Non-profit Worker (Florida)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean fewer people getting the help they need. It might strain our resources more.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
College Student (Washington, DC)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a challenge to global human rights commitments the U.S. stands for. As a future lawyer, I worry about such precedents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Journalist (New Mexico)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could reduce some chaos at the border, but also create different humanitarian issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Factory Worker (Michigan)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's hard to see these policies; people coming here seek better lives like my family did.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Retired (Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen many families come through seeking help. This policy doesn't feel right, but I understand the need for regulation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $275000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $330000000)
Year 3: $300000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $360000000)
Year 5: $350000000 (Low: $280000000, High: $420000000)
Year 10: $450000000 (Low: $360000000, High: $540000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Key Considerations
- Legal challenges could potentially affect the enforcement and costs of this policy.
- The increase in enforcement may require additional training and hiring of border and immigration officials.
- The policy's impact on international relations with transit countries and its compliance with international asylum agreements must be monitored.