Bill Overview
Title: Transit Ban Act of 2022
Description: This bill bars non-U.S. nationals ( aliens under federal law) from receiving asylum if they traveled through at least one other country to arrive at or enter the United States through the U.S.-Mexico border, with certain exceptions, such as if the individual is a victim of a severe form of human trafficking.
Sponsors: Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]
Target Audience
Population: Non-U.S. nationals seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border traveling through another country
Estimated Size: 0
- The bill applies to non-U.S. nationals (aliens) who are seeking asylum in the United States.
- The bill specifically affects migrants traveling through the U.S.-Mexico border who have passed through at least one other country before reaching the U.S.
- The main demographic impacted would be individuals from Central and South America passing through multiple countries before arriving at the U.S. border.
- Asylum seekers from various countries could potentially be impacted, depending on the route they take and geopolitical circumstances that influence cross-border migration.
- There are exceptions such as victims of severe human trafficking, which means the total number is somewhat reduced.
Reasoning
- The Transit Ban Act primarily affects non-U.S. nationals at the U.S.-Mexico border, implying U.S. citizens are indirectly impacted, primarily those involved in immigration services.
- Considering the $100,000,000 budget in Year 1, the policy will focus resources on border security and processing centers, impacting available services for asylum seekers but potentially increasing efficiency for approved cases.
- A large fraction of the affected population may not even make it to the U.S., potentially lowering the anticipated impact within the country. Budget considerations will prioritize exceptions like human trafficking victims.
- The policy will likely motivate some to explore alternate routes or legal advice, potentially affecting services like legal aid, impacting U.S. personnel.
- Given the Transit Ban Act's trajectory from initiation to projected outcomes at 20 years, the policy mainly deters illegitimate claims, but its humanitarian clause on trafficking victims will serve moral and legal obligations. Budget over time improves procedural quality and support for exempted significant cases.
Simulated Interviews
Immigration Lawyer (New Mexico)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy makes it much harder for my clients to qualify for asylum.
- Many families are affected as they passed through at least one other country.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
NGO Worker (California)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy ignores the plight of many genuine asylum seekers who deserve to be heard.
- It places undue burden on humanitarian organizations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Border Patrol Officer (Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will streamline our work, reducing clutter.
- Fewer people try to cross fraudulent claims – we focus on genuine cases.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Human Trafficking Survivor (New York)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved that victims of trafficking still have a chance under the new law.
- Many will still suffer due to the narrow protections.
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 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Political Analyst (Arizona)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a deterrent for non-genuine asylum seekers.
- It won't stop those desperate enough.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Social Worker (Louisiana)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might compromise due diligence for asylum claims.
- It's challenging to balance legal norms with border restrictions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Business Owner (Florida)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law may affect community workers' morale.
- The workforce draws heavily on immigrant communities, including asylum seekers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Legislator (Washington)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy strikes a better balance in immigration control.
- Positive impacts depend on effective implementation and support resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Tech Worker (Illinois)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy itself won't affect me directly, but I worry for other migrants.
- Legal routes should remain open and fair.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Asylum Seeker Advocate (Nevada)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Much of my work revolves around protecting the rights of asylum seekers.
- This policy seems to undermine those seeking sincere refuge.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $125000000)
Year 2: $120000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $150000000)
Year 3: $130000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $160000000)
Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 10: $180000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $220000000)
Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Key Considerations
- The increase in staffing and border infrastructure will require upfront investment but could streamline border processing over time.
- Implementation challenges may arise due to the complexity of determining eligibility amid trafficking exceptions.
- Potential international relations concerns with countries affected by transit bans and their migrants.
- Legal challenges and humanitarian considerations may arise due to changes in asylum processes.