Bill Overview
Title: Asylum Integrity Act
Description: This bill establishes under statute a framework for determining whether an asylum seeker has filed a frivolous application. Under this bill, an asylum application shall be considered frivolous if the application was knowingly filed and (1) includes a fabricated material element, (2) is premised on false or fabricated evidence, (3) was filed without regard to the merits of the claims, or (4) is clearly foreclosed by law. (Currently, regulations provide for a similar, but not identical, framework for asylum applications filed on or after January 11, 2021.)
Sponsors: Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals seeking asylum.
Estimated Size: 100000
- The bill targets individuals who are seeking asylum in a particular country, most likely the United States, given the context.
- Asylum seekers often consist of people fleeing persecution, war, or violence from various parts of the world.
- This legislation specifically addresses those individuals filing asylum claims and focuses on ensuring that these claims are genuine and not frivolous.
- The target population is globally those who might seek asylum as a legal recourse for protection.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects asylum seekers, individuals who have already experienced trauma and displacement.
- Most U.S. citizens would not be directly impacted, except those involved in immigration services.
- The policy potentially reduces the number of frivolous claims, aiming for a more efficient asylum process.
- Indirect effects might include impacts on communities with higher proportions of asylum seekers, where businesses rely on them for labor.
- The allocated budget suggests substantial resources for training, enforcement, legal proceedings, and administrative requirements, impacting how the policy is implemented and perceived.
Simulated Interviews
Asylum Seeker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this makes the process faster, but I'm worried about being judged unfairly.
- It feels like another hurdle, but I have no choice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Immigration Lawyer (El Paso, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clarifying the law is good, but it might deter some genuine cases.
- I'm concerned about increased bureaucratic obstacles for my clients.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Asylum Seeker (Miami, FL)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am nervous about proving my case, but I understand why it's done.
- There's an anxiety of being rejected without a fair chance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Asylum Interview Officer (New York, NY)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will help in filtering out cases and focusing on those who really need protection.
- Greater clarity aids in decision-making, but it might initially slow down due to adjustments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Community Activist (Boston, MA)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried that asylum seekers won't understand the implications and their rights under this policy.
- It could deter unjustly those who sincerely need help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this brings more order to the system without creating fear among employees.
- Stable policy is good for business predictions, but abrupt changes can disrupt.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Social Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful it will reduce the stress on the system and provide more targeted aid.
- Concerns that it could initially lead to more uncertainties and stress for clients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Public Policy Analyst (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Legislating existing practices could streamline operations, but enforcement is key.
- The fear is that it could limit legitimate cases being heard thoroughly.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Asylum Seeker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could make things harder for people genuinely seeking safety.
- It might increase the time I have to wait to reunite with my family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Federal Immigration Judge (Washington, DC)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I welcome the statutory clarity, though it may require initial adaptations.
- Balancing speed with justice is always challenging, but necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 2: $290000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $340000000)
Year 3: $280000000 (Low: $230000000, High: $330000000)
Year 5: $260000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $310000000)
Year 10: $230000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $280000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $150000000)
Key Considerations
- The implementation would require coordination across multiple immigration enforcement and judiciary bodies.
- There may be legal challenges to defining an application as frivolous, increasing the workload on immigration courts.
- Potential impact on human rights considerations and international relations if the policy is perceived as too restrictive.