WASHINGTON, D.C. — A draft reform bill introduced by the ruling party would suspend the United States asylum system for the duration of its parliamentary term, directing that all new applications be denied and existing cases be nullified, with claimants marked for deportation.

The legislation, titled the Asylum Suspension Act, was unveiled on Tuesday and would come into force immediately upon passage, a period estimated at 12 months based on the current legislative calendar. Proponents argue it will curb what they call “system abuse,” citing that 45,000 asylum applications were filed in the past fiscal year, a 15 % increase over the previous year.

Under the proposal, the Department of Homeland Security would be required to close all pending asylum files, estimated at roughly 12,000 cases, and issue removal orders for each applicant. “The policy eliminates a loophole that allows individuals to linger indefinitely while their claims are adjudicated,” said policy analyst Maria Torres of the Center for Immigration Studies.

Legal experts warn the measure could clash with international obligations, including the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the United States is a signatory. Immigration attorney James Liu cautioned, “Even if Congress passes the bill, courts are likely to issue injunctions on the grounds that it violates constitutional due process and non‑refoulement principles.”

Opposition parties have condemned the draft as “inhumane” and “counter‑productive,” arguing it will damage the U.S.’s global reputation and deter legitimate refugees fleeing persecution. Polls show 57 % of registered voters oppose a complete suspension of asylum, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.

Key Takeaways

• The bill would halt all asylum processing for the parliamentary term, estimated at up to 12 months.
• Approximately 12,000 pending cases would be voided, and claimants slated for deportation.
• Legal challenges are expected, with potential conflicts against international refugee obligations.

As the debate intensifies, lawmakers face pressure to balance border security concerns with humanitarian commitments, while courts may ultimately determine whether the sweeping suspension can withstand judicial scrutiny.