Bill Overview
Title: Local Control Act
Description: This bill imposes requirements on the placement in a state of a non-U.S. national ( alien under federal law) without lawful immigration status. Specifically, before such an individual may be settled in, housed in, or transported to a state or political subdivision within a state, the Department of Homeland Security must notify the office of the governor of that state and the office of the chief executive of the political subdivision. No federal funds may be used for the proposed settling, housing, or transporting if (1) the state governor's office does not approve of the action, or (2) the political subdivision in question has a law or resolution prohibiting or disapproving of such an action. These requirements shall not apply to the use of federal funds to transport or detain such an individual for civil or criminal law enforcement purposes.
Sponsors: Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL-5]
Target Audience
Population: Non-U.S. nationals without lawful immigration status
Estimated Size: 11000000
- The bill specifically targets non-U.S. nationals without lawful immigration status, meaning it could potentially impact any such individuals in the U.S.
- According to estimates, there are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.
- Globally, there are millions of individuals without lawful immigration status in various countries, but this bill specifically affects those non-U.S. nationals who are within the U.S. borders.
- The bill affects the ability of the federal government to settle, house, or transport such individuals within particular states or political subdivisions, potentially affecting living conditions and migration patterns of the undocumented population.
Reasoning
- When considering the population affected by the Local Control Act, the primary population impacted would be undocumented immigrants residing in individual states and political subdivisions within the United States.
- However, the policy's requirement for state and local government approval introduces variability in how different regions implement this policy and therefore impact individuals differently.
- The limitation of federal funds can influence whether these individuals receive housing, transportation, or other settlement services provided by federal initiatives, potentially increasing their vulnerability.
- The already existing state policies and public opinion in those areas can predict whether a high or low impact is expected in specific locales.
- Furthermore, the financial budget for the policy, especially in its initial year, may not allow for wide-scale enforcement or impact immediate change beyond administrative processes.
- Cultural, legal, and social safety nets provided by community organizations may buffer or exacerbate the policy’s impact on individuals.
- Including interviews with a diverse group, both directly and indirectly impacted individuals, helps gauge a wide range of repercussions on their wellbeing scores.
Simulated Interviews
Construction Worker (Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am worried that this policy will make it harder for people like me to move to areas where we can find work and support.
- I fear being unable to change locations without risking detainment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Student (California)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think California might be more lenient, but I worry about other states.
- My concern is primarily for my family who might be affected more directly by these restrictions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Restaurant Owner (New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies targeting undocumented individuals may affect my workforce availability.
- I strive to comply with state laws but worry about operational disruptions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Community Activist (Arizona)
Age: 49 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy could increase fear in immigrant communities.
- We need more humane solutions, not policies that deepen divides.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
High School Student (Florida)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry constantly about my parents' future in this country.
- This policy makes me more anxious about the stability of my family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
State Government Official (Ohio)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy can help state decisions align with local values on immigration.
- However, it places additional logistical responsibilities on state offices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Retired (Washington)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that restricted funding will mean more people can't access basic services.
- Community organizations may have to stretch resources even more.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Tech Analyst (Illinois)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The surveillance aspects of this policy concern me from a privacy standpoint.
- It could lead to increased monitoring or data sharing between agencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Freelancer (Nevada)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about how state approval can limit my mobility, affecting job opportunities.
- Fear of being stopped and questioned increases with such policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Laboratory Technician (Georgia)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although this doesn't directly affect me, I fear how it might increase general hostility towards foreigners.
- Policies like this can perpetuate fear beyond the intended demographic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $51000000 (Low: $30600000, High: $71400000)
Year 3: $52020000 (Low: $31212000, High: $72828000)
Year 5: $54080800 (Low: $32448480, High: $75713120)
Year 10: $59493280 (Low: $35695968, High: $83290692)
Year 100: $156949154 (Low: $94169492, High: $219682817)
Key Considerations
- Administrative burdens and compliance costs for DHS to manage notifications and coordinate approvals with states and subdivisions.
- Potential legal challenges arising from conflicts between federal government actions and state or local prohibitions.
- Impact on states and subdivisions that refuse settlement or transport could lead to unintended financial strain if they lack resources for enforcement.