Overview
Title
To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from granting parole to certain dangerous aliens, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill stops certain people who might be dangerous from coming to the U.S. and lets states complain if this rule is broken and causes problems, even small money problems.
Summary AI
The bill S. 4818, also known as the "Safeguarding Americans From Extremist Risk (SAFER) at the Border Act," seeks to prevent the Secretary of Homeland Security from granting parole to certain dangerous aliens. It defines "known terrorist," "suspected terrorist," and "special interest alien" and prohibits their parole into the U.S. by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Additionally, the bill allows state attorneys general to take legal action against the Secretary of Homeland Security if the parole prohibition is violated, causing harm to the state or its residents.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The bill titled "Safeguarding Americans From Extremist Risk (SAFER) at the Border Act," introduced in the United States Senate, aims to tighten restrictions on granting parole to certain non-citizens perceived as national security threats. Key definitions include "known terrorist," "suspected terrorist," and "special interest alien," categories meant to identify individuals who might pose risks due to potential terrorist connections. Importantly, the bill prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security from offering parole to these individuals, as well as to refugees. Additionally, state attorneys general are empowered to bring legal actions against the Secretary if parole rules are violated in ways harmful to the state or its residents.
Significant Issues
One of the most pressing concerns related to this bill is the broad and vague criteria used to define "known terrorist," "suspected terrorist," and "special interest alien." Such definitions could potentially infringe civil liberties, leading to issues with due process. Moreover, prohibiting parole for refugees could conflict with international standards for the treatment and rights of asylum seekers, raising significant human rights concerns.
The criteria for granting parole in cases of "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit" are also criticized for their vagueness, which might result in inconsistent application of the law. Further, the provision allowing state attorneys general to sue over parole violations could lead to an increase in litigation, straining judicial resources without clear plans for efficient case management.
Potential Impact on the Public
The bill may significantly affect how certain non-citizens are treated upon arrival in the United States. By tightening the criteria for parole and broadening the definition of potential threats, the measure aims to increase national security. However, this could result in prolonged detention and potential civil liberties violations for individuals labeled under these broad definitions, impacting non-citizens seeking refuge or entry on humanitarian grounds.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For government authorities, particularly those in national security and immigration enforcement, the bill offers tools that could potentially streamline the identification and prevention of perceived threats. However, for individuals and advocacy groups concerned with civil liberties, there are fears that these tools could lead to overreach and misuse, infringing on human rights and due process.
State governments might see both positive and negative impacts. On one hand, they gain the ability to act if they believe federal parole violations harm their residents. On the other hand, the broad definition of harm and the latitude in enforcement might lead to increased litigation, imposing additional financial and resource burdens on state legal systems.
Thus, while the bill aims to protect national security, it must balance these goals with the imperative to uphold human rights and maintain clarity and fairness in legal definitions and processes. The debates surrounding this bill will likely focus on these central themes of security versus liberty and efficiency versus justice.
Financial Assessment
The bill S. 4818, titled the "Safeguarding Americans From Extremist Risk (SAFER) at the Border Act," includes specific financial references that have implications for how the bill may be implemented and how it may affect various stakeholders.
Financial References and Implications
Mention of Financial Harm: In Section 4 of the bill, a monetary reference is made concerning the concept of harm to a state or its residents. The legislation stipulates that a state or its residents are considered harmed if they experience financial harm in excess of $100. This specific financial threshold is notable for its relatively low bar, which could lead to a broad range of claims being made on the basis of this minimal financial impact.
Potential Issues Arising from Financial References
Increased Litigation and Resource Allocation: The low financial threshold of $100 set for determining harm could potentially result in an increase in litigation. State attorneys general are granted the standing to sue the Secretary of Homeland Security if the parole prohibition requirements are violated, purportedly causing harm to the state or its residents. This low threshold may encourage numerous lawsuits based on relatively minor financial impacts. Consequently, this could lead to higher litigation costs, burden the court systems, and require a significant allocation of resources to process these claims. This possibility aligns with concerns about resource allocation and judicial capacity mentioned in the identified issues.
Subjective Interpretation of Financial Harm: The bill's broad definition of what constitutes harm, especially with the low financial damage benchmark, might lead to subjective interpretations. States might interpret the harm provision differently, potentially initiating legal actions for relatively minor financial impacts. This broad scope and the potential for varied interpretations across different jurisdictions could divert necessary resources from addressing more significant legal matters.
In summary, the financial elements in this bill, particularly the threshold for what constitutes financial harm, are likely to influence how the legislation is implemented and the impact it has on states and the federal legal system. The decision to include such a low financial benchmark holds implications for potential legal actions and resource allocation within the judicial system.
Issues
The definitions in Section 2 for 'known terrorist', 'suspected terrorist', and 'special interest alien' may lead to potential civil liberties violations due to their broad and vague criteria, raising concerns about due process and the potential for misuse or overreach by government authorities.
Section 3's prohibitions on parole for certain aliens, including refugees and those designated as 'known terrorists', 'suspected terrorists', or 'special interest aliens', may conflict with international law regarding the treatment and rights of refugees and asylum seekers, posing significant human rights concerns.
The language in Section 3, particularly subparagraph (A), regarding parole criteria for 'urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit' is vague, which could lead to inconsistent and possibly biased application of parole decisions by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Section 4 grants standing to State attorneys general to sue the Secretary of Homeland Security, potentially increasing litigation costs and burdening court systems without specifying how such cases will be efficiently managed, raising concerns over resource allocation and judicial capacity.
The lack of specific guidelines in Section 2 on the duration or review process for a person's status as a 'suspected terrorist', 'special interest alien', or 'known terrorist' could lead to indefinite labeling without proper oversight or opportunities for redress, raising ethical and legal questions about indefinite detention or monitoring without due process.
The broad definition of 'harm' to a State or its residents in Section 4 might lead to subjective interpretations and increased litigation based on potentially minimal impacts (like financial harm in excess of $100), which could divert resources from more significant legal matters.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states that it can be officially referred to as the “Safeguarding Americans From Extremist Risk (SAFER) at the Border Act.”
2. Definition of designated or suspected terrorist and special interest alien Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section defines key terms related to terrorism in U.S. immigration law. A "known terrorist" is someone officially identified or charged with terrorism-related crimes, a "special interest alien" is an immigrant who may pose a security risk due to possible terrorist connections, and a "suspected terrorist" is someone reasonably believed to be involved in terrorism-related activities.
3. Parole of certain aliens prohibited Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section explains that the Secretary of Homeland Security can allow certain non-citizens to temporarily enter the U.S. for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, but they won't be considered officially admitted and must return once their parole purposes are fulfilled. It also states that refugees, known or suspected terrorists, or special interest aliens cannot be paroled into the country.
4. Enforcement by attorney general of a State Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows state attorneys general or authorized state officers to sue the Secretary of Homeland Security if there’s a violation of parole rules that negatively impacts the state or its residents. This action can be taken in a U.S. district court, with cases given priority, especially if the harm includes financial loss over $100.
Money References
- For purposes of this paragraph, a State or its residents shall be considered to have been harmed if the State or its residents experience harm, including financial harm in excess of $100.”.