Bill Overview
Title: Safe Sponsor Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the placement of an unaccompanied alien child with a proposed custodian who is not a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident. The bill also requires a custodian to post a bond as assurance that the child will attend each necessary immigration-related legal proceeding.
Sponsors: Rep. Keller, Fred [R-PA-12]
Target Audience
Population: Unaccompanied alien children and potential custodians
Estimated Size: 300000
- The legislation affects unaccompanied alien children as it changes the criteria for who can become their custodian in the United States.
- Proposed custodians who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents will no longer be eligible to be custodians, affecting families or organizations seeking to care for these children.
- The legislation also impacts U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who wish to be custodians, as they will need to meet the bond posting requirement.
- Immigration-related legal services might also be indirectly affected as they will need to manage or assist with bond postings and ensure legal proceedings are attended.
Reasoning
- The policy is expected to impact a significant number of individuals involved in the care and legal proceedings of unaccompanied alien children, including those who might have been custodians but no longer qualify due to their citizenship status.
- Given the budget allocation and estimated annual number of unaccompanied alien children, the scale of potential custodial situations to manage under this policy can be substantial, affecting up to about 300,000 individuals annually.
- We aimed to include a mix of perspectives from potential custodians, legal services providers, and community members in these interviews to reflect diverse opinions and experiences.
Simulated Interviews
Immigration Lawyer (San Diego, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy adds another layer of bureaucracy which might deter sponsors.
- It is crucial to ensure children attend their legal proceedings, but bonds will burden some willing sponsors.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Teacher (Houston, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried this will reduce the number of available sponsors, potentially overwhelming the shelter system.
- However, it ensures more structured support for these children.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Community Organizer (Miami, FL)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am disappointed, as I was hoping to sponsor a child myself.
- The bond requirement seems to favor those with more financial resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Social Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides assurance on the child's attendance but adds stress to families.
- I fear fewer will step up as sponsors due to this barrier.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Non-profit Manager (El Paso, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might restrict our flexibility in placing children appropriately.
- We need more resources rather than barriers.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Paralegal (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law complicates the process for those already situated here and able to offer a home.
- Legal proceedings are tough enough without added financial stress.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Stay-at-home parent (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about managing the bond requirement due to our limited budget.
- It feels discouraging for families who want to help relatives.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Retired (Chicago, IL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law makes it less likely for me to act as a sponsor due to fixed income constraints.
- It's good for accountability but bad for community involvement in support networks.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Student (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could dissuade potential sponsors due to financial and legal burdens.
- Education on legal responsibilities is more effective than financial penalties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Retired Teacher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I value the focus on due process but fear the policy discourages compassionate care.
- I will need to consider financial planning if we choose to sponsor.
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: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Year 2: $26000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $36000000)
Year 3: $27000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $37000000)
Year 5: $29000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $38000000)
Year 10: $32000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $42000000)
Year 100: $42000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring compliance with the new custodial criteria might require significant resources initially as both documentation verification and support processes would need strengthening.
- The bond requirement for custodians will need robust tracking mechanisms to manage efficiently, ensuring legal obligations are met without undue hardship on custodians.
- The policy could lead to delays in placing children with families or qualified custodians if the administrative process becomes too cumbersome.
- Potential public resistance or legal challenges could arise related to restrictions on who can serve as custodians based on citizenship or residency, potentially impacting policy implementation.