Bill Overview
Title: No Alternatives to Detention for Illegals Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from enacting any program that provides alternatives to detention for a non-U.S. national ( alien under federal law) who is in DHS custody and housed at an immigration detention center.
Sponsors: Rep. Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA-50]
Target Audience
Population: People unable to access alternatives to detention at U.S. immigration centers
Estimated Size: 0
- The legislation targets non-U.S. nationals who are in DHS custody at immigration detention centers.
- Alternatives to detention programs are often used to provide more humane and cost-effective options, like supervised release or electronic monitoring.
- According to the American Immigration Council, more than half a million non-citizens are held at U.S. immigration detention facilities annually.
- Globally, individuals from various countries attempt to immigrate to the U.S., but only a fraction are subject to detention.
Reasoning
- The policy directly affects non-U.S. nationals who are typically detained at immigration centers. The U.S. citizens and legal residents are not directly impacted by the policy.
- The Cantril wellbeing scores provide a subjective measure of an individual's evaluation of their quality of life. Non-citizens in detention might experience changes in these scores based on their detention conditions.
- Some non-citizens prefer alternatives to detention for more humane conditions and to maintain family cohesion. Not allowing alternatives could result in lower wellbeing scores.
- Budget constraints limit the ability to improve conditions in detention centers, possibly lowering wellbeing scores if alternatives are prohibited.
Simulated Interviews
Day laborer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being detained is very stressful and impacts my mental health.
- I was hoping for an alternative that allows me to work and support my family while my case is processed.
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 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Restaurant server (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Alternatives gave me hope to stay with my children while we waited.
- Without options, I'm worried about being away from my family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Construction worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy restricts our movement and increases anxiety levels.
- Detention centers are not the place for families.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Home cleaner (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Detention with limited rights is harsh, alternatives could make it bearable.
- I cannot help my family if I am detained.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Retail manager (New York, NY)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expected to live with dignity while resolving my status.
- Disrupting my life with detention hurts my career and personal life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Driver (Dallas, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Detention feels like a punishment before a decision is even made.
- I was hoping to live with dignity with an alternative to detention.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fear being removed from my studies due to detention rules.
- Alternatives allow me to continue learning while resolving my case.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Warehouse worker (San Diego, CA)
Age: 43 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing options to detention affects emotional wellbeing.
- Family separation often results without alternatives, lowering morale.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Healthcare assistant (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Continuously worrying about detention affects mental health.
- Alternatives to detention let me maintain a normal life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Tech employee (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The stress of possible detention is overwhelming.
- I'll benefit from alternatives that let me continue working.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $102000000 (Low: $76000000, High: $152000000)
Year 3: $104040000 (Low: $77500000, High: $156000000)
Year 5: $108320000 (Low: $79500000, High: $160000000)
Year 10: $118000000 (Low: $85000000, High: $175000000)
Year 100: $160000000 (Low: $125000000, High: $230000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill increases government spending due to enhanced reliance on traditional detention facilities.
- Costs associated with detention facilities include security, personnel, food, healthcare, and facility maintenance.
- The demand for expanded detention capacity may prompt calls for new facility construction or upgrades to existing centers, adding to capital expenditures.