Bill Overview
Title: Refugee Protection Act of 2022
Description: This bill modifies provisions related to asylum seekers and addresses related issues. For example, the bill (1) eliminates the statutory time limit for applying for asylum (currently one year after arriving in the United States), (2) establishes stateless protected status for individuals who are not considered a national by any country under that country’s law, and (3) requires the goal for refugee admissions for any given fiscal year to be no fewer than 125,000.
Sponsors: Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-19]
Target Audience
Population: Asylum seekers and stateless individuals
Estimated Size: 335000
- The bill modifies provisions related to asylum seekers, which includes individuals who come to the U.S. seeking refuge from persecution or violence.
- The current annual refugee ceiling for the U.S. is well below 125,000, so increasing the goal will impact more people globally, potentially allowing for more refugees to be resettled.
- The elimination of the statutory one-year time limit for applying for asylum impacts individuals who were formerly prevented from applying due to missing this deadline.
- The creation of a stateless protected status opens up protections for individuals who do not have a nationality recognized by any country.
- Globally, the number of people forced to flee their homes is over 103 million, according to UNHCR statistics.
Reasoning
- The Refugee Protection Act of 2022 aims to increase the capacity for the U.S. to admit refugees and provide a legal framework for stateless individuals. This can affect a wide range of people, from asylum seekers to citizens who interact with the immigration system.
- Given the budget constraints, there will be limits to how efficiently and broadly the policy can be implemented across the outlined decade.
- The aim of 125,000 refugees annually means an increase in resources and infrastructure to support them, like housing, legal aid, and employment services.
- Not all U.S. residents will be impacted directly; however, there can be indirect impacts on communities with high numbers of immigrants or refugees.
- The Cantril wellbeing scores allow us to estimate the change in perceived life satisfaction and expected life trajectory following policy implementation.
Simulated Interviews
Immigration Attorney (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is crucial for many of my clients who were unable to apply for asylum due to missing the deadline.
- It will positively impact the lives of numerous people by offering them a chance at stability and security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Stateless Individual (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being stateless has made life incredibly difficult. This policy could give me rights I've never had.
- I'm hopeful but cautious about how it will be implemented.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Social Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We desperately need more resources to morally and effectively support more refugees.
- I'm concerned about how we will manage the increased intake without overwhelming our current systems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Refugee (Chicago, IL)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy should have been enacted a long time ago; it's a step in the humane direction.
- I worry about backlash from anti-immigrant sentiments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More refugees may mean more potential workers, which can help my business grow.
- It's important that integration is supported to prevent any conflicts or misunderstanding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
College Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is vital for human dignity and rights.
- I hope it leads to more inclusive policies nationwide.
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 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the impacts on local resources and services if the system isn't ready.
- Past changes have been challenging to implement effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a necessary step forward, but it should come with technology upgrades for processing applications.
- My family's experience shows how crucial such policies are for futures.
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 |
Teacher (Boston, MA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Education will need more funding to handle an increase in refugee children.
- I'm hopeful that this policy will allow us to better support students from all backgrounds.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Policy Analyst (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy reflects shifting priorities towards a more humane approach.
- Successful implementation will depend on inter-agency cooperation and efficient resource allocation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1700000000)
Year 2: $1600000000 (Low: $1400000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 3: $1700000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $1900000000)
Year 5: $1850000000 (Low: $1600000000, High: $2100000000)
Year 10: $2000000000 (Low: $1750000000, High: $2250000000)
Year 100: $4000000000 (Low: $3500000000, High: $4500000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy supports humanitarian obligations and international commitments to providing asylum.
- The long-term fiscal impact can vary significantly based on refugee integration success rates.
- Historically, refugees have demonstrated significant potential to positively contribute to economic growth.
- There is potential for local governments to experience funding and resource pressures, particularly in areas with high refugee populations.