H.R.1837 - Timely Departure Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.1837, the "Timely Departure Act," aims to require nonimmigrant visa applicants to pay a bond between $5,000 and $50,000 to ensure timely departure from the U.S. The bill stipulates that failure to depart by the authorized date results in automatic forfeiture of the bond, without appeal. The forfeited funds would be directed to an "Immigration Detention and Enforcement Account.
Aliens who overstay their visas would also face removal and a period of ineligibility (4-12 years) for any lawful immigration status. The bill also limits the ability of nonimmigrants to apply for asylum or withholding of removal after their authorized stay expires.
The Act outlines specific exceptions for certain visa categories and countries participating in the visa waiver program.
Expected Effects
The bill would likely lead to increased costs for nonimmigrant visa applicants and stricter enforcement of departure deadlines. It could also deter some individuals from overstaying their visas.
Additionally, the bill may reduce the number of asylum applications submitted after the expiration of a nonimmigrant's authorized stay. The increase in funding for detention facilities and international transportation could lead to more deportations.
Potential Benefits
- Increased funding for immigration enforcement through forfeited bonds.
- Potential reduction in visa overstays.
- Deterrent effect on those considering violating visa terms.
- Streamlined removal process for those who overstay.
- May reduce strain on resources used to locate and deport individuals who have overstayed their visas.
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential for deterring legitimate visitors and workers due to the bond requirement.
- Risk of economic impact on industries that rely on nonimmigrant labor.
- Possible legal challenges related to due process and asylum rights.
- Increased administrative burden for processing bonds and forfeitures.
- Could negatively impact the U.S.'s reputation as a welcoming destination for international visitors and students.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutionality could be challenged under the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees due process. The automatic forfeiture of bonds without appeal raises concerns about fairness and the right to a hearing.
Additionally, the limitations on asylum applications may conflict with international treaty obligations and established principles of asylum law. The bill's focus on immigration enforcement aligns with the federal government's power to regulate immigration, as established in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
However, the specific mechanisms for enforcement and the potential impact on individual rights require careful consideration to ensure compliance with constitutional principles.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).