The proposed bill titled “Safeguarding Americans From Extremist Risk (SAFER) at the Border Act” is aimed at prohibiting the Secretary of Homeland Security from granting parole to certain groups of aliens deemed to pose security risks and includes measures for enforcement by state officials. The bill specifies restrictions on granting parole to individuals identified as known or suspected terrorists, as well as those classified as special interest aliens based on criteria such as travel patterns and potential security threats.

General Summary

The bill seeks to amend sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act to define terms related to terrorist threats and to set boundaries on the use of parole for temporarily allowing certain non-citizens into the United States. Under the proposed measures, individuals deemed as known or suspected terrorists, special interest aliens, and refugees would be barred from receiving parole. Additionally, the legislation provides state attorneys general with the authority to sue the Secretary of Homeland Security if these parole provisions are violated, especially if such violations result in harm to the state or its residents.

Significant Issues

One of the main concerns with this bill is the potential lack of clarity in the definitions for terms like “known terrorist”, “suspected terrorist”, and “special interest alien”. Such definitions could lead to arbitrary or inconsistent classifications without clear criteria or accountability, potentially affecting individuals’ due process rights. The bill’s prohibition on paroling refugees and designated individuals raises questions about the compatibility of these measures with international human rights standards.

Another notable issue is found in Section 3, where the criteria for granting parole for “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit” are not well-defined. This vagueness could result in uneven application and interpretation, affecting the Department of Homeland Security's ability to manage immigration cases effectively.

The bill empowers state attorneys general to take legal action against the Secretary of Homeland Security, which might increase litigation and court workload. The broad definition of harm to a state or its residents could also lead to subjective interpretations and an influx of lawsuits.

Impact on the Public

The broader public impact of this bill could manifest in both security measures and civil liberties. On one hand, it aims to enhance national security by restricting entry to individuals considered threats. On the other hand, it raises potential concerns about civil rights and the fairness of such determinations, given the unclear definitions and processes involved.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For stakeholders such as immigrants, refugees, and individuals traveling to the U.S., this bill could result in stricter entry regulations and potentially harsher enforcement actions. Those possibly misclassified under vague definitions might find it challenging to appeal or rectify their status.

State governments could find themselves more empowered to act in immigration matters, especially where they perceive federal actions as detrimentally affecting state security or finances. However, this additional authority comes with the potential burden of increased legal costs and the allocation of state resources to these challenges.

Lastly, the Department of Homeland Security could face operational changes, needing to adjust practices to ensure compliance with new rules while managing challenges around definitions and their consequences. This could have implications for the effectiveness and consistency of their duties concerning border security and immigration enforcement.

In the examination of H.R. 9373, financial considerations play a subtle yet critical role, particularly in Section 4 of the bill, which touches upon potential financial impacts on states and residents stemming from violations of the parole prohibitions.

Financial Harm and Litigation Costs:

One key provision explicitly references financial harm, wherein a state or its residents are considered harmed if they experience "financial harm in excess of $100." This relatively low threshold for defining financial damage opens the door for state attorneys general to initiate legal proceedings against the Secretary of Homeland Security. While the figure of $100 aims to provide a tangible benchmark for financial harm, it also raises questions about the potential for minor financial impacts to trigger legal actions.

The ability for state attorneys to bring lawsuits based on such financial harm could result in increased litigation nationwide. This broad definition allows for a wide array of lawsuits, which might strain both state and federal resources as numerous cases could be brought to court. Managing and processing these lawsuits would incur administrative costs, which are not covered or specified in the bill. This absence of clear financial guidelines or limits related to litigations could lead to a significant financial burden on courts and on the states pursuing these actions.

Implications for Court and Legal Resources:

The broad financial harm definition might also influence the amount of legal resources required to deal with claims. While acknowledging harm above $100 aims to safeguard against trivial claims, it does not specify the breadth of "harm," potentially leading to subjective interpretations and numerous lawsuits. These actions may escalate costs associated with legal and court resources, causing further expenditures that are implicitly related to the bill's implementation but not directly addressed within its text.

In summary, while H.R. 9373 does not explicitly involve direct spending or allocations of federal funds, its provisions related to financial harm and litigation costs introduce the possibility of indirect financial impacts. These considerations are crucial for understanding the broader economic implications the bill may have on states, the judiciary, and immigrants subject to parole prohibitions.