Bill Overview
Title: Closing Loopholes and Ending Asylum Abuse Act of 2022
Description: This bill imposes restrictions on noncitizens ( aliens under federal law) applying for asylum, authorizes asylum seekers to apply for asylum abroad, and requires applicants to apply abroad in certain instances. For example, the bill requires a refugee's persecution or well-founded fear of persecution to stem from a government (or affiliated entity), whereas currently the persecution does not have to stem from a government. The bill also requires an applicant who passes through another country with a U.S. diplomatic mission that processes asylum claims to apply for asylum while physically in that country.
Sponsors: Rep. Crenshaw, Dan [R-TX-2]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals seeking asylum in the United States.
Estimated Size: 0
- The bill aims to impose restrictions on noncitizens applying for asylum in the United States, affecting those currently in the U.S. seeking asylum and future asylum seekers intending to apply within U.S. borders.
- It changes the conditions under which asylum can be granted, specifically requiring persecution to be government-backed, which narrows the criteria for asylum eligibility.
- Asylum seekers are required to apply for asylum abroad if they pass through a country with a U.S. diplomatic mission that processes asylum claims, impacting individuals who might have used the U.S. as their first asylum application point.
- Asylum seekers will have to comply with new procedural requirements such as applying in third countries, altering the journey and strategy of many asylum applicants.
Reasoning
- The budgetary constraints suggest a limited implementation scale, primarily focusing on screening at designated diplomatic missions abroad and case processing back in the U.S., but still leaving outreach and support to NGO partners.
- Given the estimated 4 million global potential applicants, the bill's constraints are focused on those taking unusual paths or leveraging the previous broader criteria.
- The actual impact on U.S. soil will be indirect, mostly influencing the legal and administrative workload tied to asylum processing rather than immediately affecting resident populations in traditional senses.
- The bill could lead to changes in migration patterns, making human rights conditions in third-party countries instrumental in the outcomes for potential applicants.
- Asylum seekers directly impacted in the U.S. are likely few, especially if they do not comply with the 'apply abroad' requirement—thus interviews will focus on those individuals and associated stakeholders.
Simulated Interviews
Immigration Lawyer (Texas)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will greatly complicate asylum seekers' paths, potentially putting many clients at risk if the third country is not safe.
- My job will become more complex as we navigate these new procedural challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Tech Worker (California)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think safe screening for asylum claims is important, but the bill may discourage legitimate asylum seekers from attempting to come here.
- I'm supportive of policies that ensure fairness in the system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Human Rights Activist (New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could create unsafe conditions for migrants in transit countries which often lack stable human rights records.
- It could significantly reduce the ability of individuals to seek asylum based on non-state persecution.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Border Patrol Agent (Arizona)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill may reduce border influx allowing us to focus more on security threats.
- Documentation following implementation will help, but it feels like a short-term solution.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Asylum Seeker (Florida)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am scared for others who have to apply abroad, especially if passing through dangerous regions.
- I hope my status can be resolved before these changes complicate things further.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Policy Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might prevent fraudulent claims but at a high humanitarian cost.
- Policies must strike a balance between security and compassion.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Social Worker (Illinois)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lesser pathways for asylum could break family units trying to reunite in the U.S.
- Social services will ultimately need to adjust but may face increased pressure under these new constraints.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
College Professor (Minnesota)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy presents new challenges for jurisprudence in immigration law, which my students and I will follow closely.
- Over-restriction could backfire, increasing illegal crossings instead of formal applications.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired Refugee Assistance Volunteer (Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efforts for organized asylum processes are worthy, but this policy seems too restrictive and less humanitarian.
- The implications for those stranded abroad are concerning.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Religious Leader (Georgia)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy shifts the burden onto countries that might not have robust support for asylum seekers, which worries me for our congregation's relatives.
- We need to understand these changes fast to support our community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $75000000)
Year 2: $55000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $80000000)
Year 3: $60500000 (Low: $44000000, High: $85000000)
Year 5: $66550000 (Low: $48400000, High: $93500000)
Year 10: $83893500 (Low: $61008000, High: $117010500)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The implementation of this bill could face legal challenges, affecting the timeline and costs.
- The potential for humanitarian concerns regarding asylum access might affect international relations and reputations.
- Administrative costs are contingent on the speed and scale of implementing foreign application requirements.