Bill Overview
Title: Immigration Transparency and Transit Notification Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires notifications to certain officials before an unaccompanied alien child or a non-U.S. national ( alien under federal law) without lawful immigration status may be placed in or transported to a state or local jurisdiction. The bill also authorizes the office of the governor of the relevant state to prohibit the placement or transportation. At least seven calendar days before taking such an action, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must notify (1) the relevant state governor's office, (2) the state attorney general's office, (3) the county or municipal government, (4) local law enforcement, and (5) federal and state legislators representing the relevant jurisdiction. The action may not take place if the state governor's office objects no later than three calendar days after receiving the notification. This authority to object shall not apply if the action is to place an unaccompanied child with, or transport the child to, a family member.
Sponsors: Rep. Meuser, Daniel [R-PA-9]
Target Audience
Population: Non-U.S. nationals without lawful immigration status
Estimated Size: 0
- The legislation impacts unaccompanied alien children, a group defined legally as those without legal guardianship and without a lawful immigration status in the U.S.
- NGOs and advocacy groups that protect immigrants' rights will be interested in these changes.
- DHS and HHS activities and operations related to immigration will be influenced by the need for additional notifications and adherence to protocols.
- State and local officials' responsibilities are expanded to include decisions on transportation and placement of individuals without legal status.
Reasoning
- The policy is primarily focused on unaccompanied minors and state governance changes, meaning only specific groups within the U.S. population will feel a direct impact.
- Only states with significant undocumented immigrant populations are likely to feel an operational impact, as they may face increased responsibilities in handling notifications and decisions on transport and placement.
- Given the policy's focus on notifications and permissions, stakeholders involved in immigration and child welfare may feel the effect more than the general public.
- Cost considerations restrict significant alterations to other state operations or substantial escalations in immigrant services unless strongly concentrated in specific states.
Simulated Interviews
State Government Official (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems to increase our workload significantly with notifications and potential objections.
- It could create bureaucratic delays if not managed efficiently, but offers more control to state authorities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Immigration Lawyer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry the policy could delay reunifications or necessary placements for children in need.
- It introduces additional hurdles that might complicate the already burdensome process of navigating the immigration system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Children's Rights Advocate (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More notifications could improve oversight but may also slow down urgent placement processes.
- Need assurances that familial placements are not delayed by state interventions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Local Law Enforcement Officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might mean more coordination on our end, but it could also give us better situational awareness.
- I’m concerned about whether local resources will be enough to manage potential increases in responsibilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
DHS Policy Analyst (Washington, DC)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy introduces more complexity into our notification processes.
- Ensuring state compliance without overextending our budget is a major concern.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Public School Teacher (New York, NY)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Delays in placement could affect children entering our schools, influencing their educational stability.
- I hope the policy considers educational impacts and provides support early on.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Border Patrol Agent (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While improved notifications might assist state coordination, I worry about the added layers of approval during emergencies.
- Balancing child safety with state controls is key; hope for streamlined processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Social Worker (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fear additional state controls may complicate the already tough situation for these children.
- Ensuring family placements for children without delays will be critical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Federal Legislator (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides more tools for states but may unnecessarily complicate federal efforts.
- Collaborative frameworks will be essential to make this work effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
University Student (San Diego, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about how this policy prioritizes regional power over federal guidance, impacting immigrants.
- Hope for balanced approaches focusing on individual welfare over bureaucratic processes.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Year 2: $31000000 (Low: $26000000, High: $36000000)
Year 3: $32000000 (Low: $27000000, High: $37000000)
Year 5: $34000000 (Low: $29000000, High: $39000000)
Year 10: $37000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $42000000)
Year 100: $55000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill may incentivize states to develop rapid response teams to manage notifications and potential objection processes efficiently.
- Intergovernmental data-sharing protocols will need to be enhanced, which could require new cybersecurity and privacy measures.
- The fluctuating nature of migration can lead to unforeseen demand increases for notifications and processes across different states.