Bill Overview
Title: Ensuring Security for Military Spouses Act
Description: This bill waives for certain military spouses a residency requirement pertaining to naturalization, specifically the requirement that the applicant must have resided for at least three months in the state or service district where the naturalization application is filed. Under the bill, this residency requirement shall not apply to an applicant who is (1) a lawful permanent resident, and (2) the spouse of a member of the Armed Forces serving on active duty in the United States.
Sponsors: Rep. Herrera Beutler, Jaime [R-WA-3]
Target Audience
Population: Military spouses who are lawful permanent residents
Estimated Size: 30000
- The bill addresses the residency requirements for naturalization purposes.
- It targets spouses of active duty members of the U.S. Armed Forces who are lawful permanent residents.
- Military personnel are spread across various installations globally, affecting where spouses might reside.
Reasoning
- The population affected by this policy consists primarily of military spouses who are lawful permanent residents. This group is fairly niche, as it consists of spouses who are both non-citizens and married to active duty members.
- The $5,000,000 USD budget in the first year implies that relatively few people will benefit immediately. If the cost per person to facilitate their path to naturalization (handling paperwork, legal assistance, etc.) is around $500, this could aid about 10,000 spouses in the first year.
- Over the course of 10 years, with $60,250,000 USD allocated, the program could scale up to reach the full estimate of 30,000 individuals over time.
- Non-military families or spouses who are already citizens or not on active duty will not be impacted by this policy, which highlights that the commonness in the broader population is low.
Simulated Interviews
Homemaker (San Diego, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy feels like a relief. It will make the naturalization process smoother and faster for my family since my husband relocates often.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Miami, FL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am hoping this policy passes, as it would allow me to apply for citizenship and open new job opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Teacher (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy does not affect me, but I see how it could benefit many others in our community.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Software Engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is important for the community, easing the pressure on non-citizen spouses.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Nurse (Fort Bragg, NC)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this changes soon. It would allow me more stability without restarting the application process every time we move.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Bartender (Honolulu, HI)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s stressful moving so much and worrying about residency requirements for my application. This policy could help a lot.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Personal Trainer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although this does not apply to me, I support it as it could benefit friends in similar situations.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Engineer (Fort Worth, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My career options are somewhat limited without citizenship. This policy could expedite that process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Biologist (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Given our remote postings, this policy would let my family integrate faster without the lengthening application process every move.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Lobbyist (Washington, DC)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From a policy perspective, this will greatly ease bureaucratic hurdles and help families focus on supporting their military spouses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $5500000 (Low: $3300000, High: $11000000)
Year 5: $6000000 (Low: $3600000, High: $12000000)
Year 10: $7000000 (Low: $4200000, High: $14000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $30000000)
Key Considerations
- The size of the target population and the extent to which they might seek expedited naturalization under the new provision.
- The operational readiness and capacity of USCIS to handle potentially increased application volumes without significant delays.