Bill Overview
Title: Stop the Betrayal Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits using federal funds to transport an unlawfully present non-U.S. national ( alien under federal law) into a U.S. region that is not within the border jurisdiction of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, unless such transportation is for (1) enforcing immigration laws, or (2) bringing an unaccompanied alien child to a Department of Health and Human Services facility.
Sponsors: Rep. Hinson, Ashley [R-IA-1]
Target Audience
Population: Unauthorized immigrants in the United States
Estimated Size: 11300000
- The bill impacts unauthorized immigrants who might be transported within the United States for purposes other than enforcement of immigration laws.
- It specifically targets those leaving border areas, affecting migrants moved to other states or cities.
- Federal agencies that handle immigrant transportation would also be affected by these restrictions.
- Local and state governments that might otherwise receive these immigrants as part of transportation initiatives could see changes in their roles and responsibilities.
Reasoning
- The proposed policy will likely primarily impact unauthorized immigrants and the legal and logistical entities interacting with them. However, the overall effect on the broader U.S. population might be limited since it directly restricts federal agencies involved in transportation rather than private individuals or businesses.
- The number of unauthorized immigrants affected is potentially large (11.3 million), but the m impact on wellbeing is varied, given different starting points and trajectories for these individuals based on their specific circumstances.
- Budget constraints will limit the scale and enforcement of this policy, meaning that impacts might be concentrated in border regions and areas with existing high levels of immigrant movement.
- The cost of enforcement vs. the broader socio-economic impacts on local economies and communities that have large immigrant populations might lead to nuanced wellbeing outcomes.
Simulated Interviews
Construction Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about what could happen if I can't move freely to find jobs or visit family in other parts of the country.
- It's already difficult to live as it is, and this law just adds another layer of fear.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Migrant Aid Worker (El Paso, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might restrict our ability to provide help where it's needed most and increase challenges for families who need relocation for safety or better opportunities.
- It will make coordination with federal aid efforts more complicated.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Even though this policy doesn't affect my business directly, my employees could face more stress and uncertainty, which might affect their job performance.
- A less stable workforce might also mean higher costs for my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's unfair to target people like me who grew up here and contribute to the community.
- This policy feels like a step back in providing better pathways to citizenship.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Border Patrol Agent (McAllen, TX)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could make our job more straightforward by setting clearer guidelines on transportation.
- However, it might lead to bottlenecks at the border if there's no alternative arrangements for those in need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Local Government Official (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could increase pressure on local resources if people are stranded at the border.
- It could also complicate our community support initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Retired Military Officer (Houston, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this might seem necessary for security, but they should not impede the rights and wellbeing of individuals who mean no harm.
- Fair and humane approaches should always be prioritized.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Graduate Student (San Diego, CA)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's concerning that such policies could increase immigrant vulnerability and complications in resettlement and integration processes.
- This could be a step towards more restrictive measures in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Community Organizer (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've already seen how policies like this isolate communities and create fear.
- Our job will become more about dealing with crises rather than advocating for long-term solutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Immigration Attorney (San Antonio, TX)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill could increase the legal challenges my clients face, leading to more prolonged cases.
- I worry about the precedent this sets for future policies and the lives it touches.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $3000000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $3000000)
Year 3: $1100000 (Low: $600000, High: $3500000)
Year 5: $1200000 (Low: $700000, High: $4000000)
Year 10: $1500000 (Low: $800000, High: $5000000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's primary fiscal impact is administrative and logistical rather than direct budgeting or savings.
- There may be potential legal implications if transportation practices are deemed non-compliant, possibly affecting costs.
- Estimates of unauthorized immigrant transport are limited, adding uncertainty to precise fiscal impacts.