Bill Overview
Title: No More Phones Act
Description: This bill prohibits federal agencies from using taxpayer funding to provide cellular devices to individuals who cross the southern border without lawful authorization.
Sponsors: Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who cross the US southern border without lawful authorization
Estimated Size: 0
- The bill impacts individuals who cross the US southern border without lawful authorization.
- There are several hundred thousand people who cross the US southern border without authorization each year.
- This group consists of potential migrants largely from Latin American countries.
- The US Department of Homeland Security may track data on unauthorized border crossings to estimate numbers.
- The bill specifies that federal agencies cannot provide cellular devices using taxpayer funds, directly influencing communication access for these individuals.
- Estimated global migration trends indicate millions of people migrating globally, potentially increasing unauthorized migration into the US.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a specific group of individuals, namely those who cross the US southern border without authorization. They make up a significant number of entries annually, but these individuals are not US citizens. Therefore, any direct welfare measures in the policy will apply exclusively to this group.
- It's critical to simulate individuals across different parts of the US population, including those indirectly affected by the policy, such as taxpayers who are concerned about how their tax money is spent, or individuals involved in border security and immigrant support services.
- Proportionally, the impact on everyday US citizens might be negligible in terms of direct effects since the policy does not provide tangible benefits or services to them. However, perceived changes in taxpayer money allocation could influence perceptions of wellbeing or opinions on the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Border Patrol Agent (El Paso, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this policy will help redirect resources to better manage the border crisis.
- It won't change my day-to-day work much, but it is a step in addressing resource allocation.
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 |
Immigration Lawyer (San Diego, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't address the real issues at the border.
- It may make communication harder for people I work with, complicating legal support.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Social Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that lack of communication access will compromise safety among vulnerable populations.
- The policy doesn't address the root causes of migration.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired - Teacher (Houston, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see it as a positive fiscal responsibility measure, stopping unnecessary spending.
- Unsure how impactful it will actually be on the ground.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems symbolic and won’t see much impact on everyday business.
- I'm supportive as long as it doesn't cost taxpayers excessively.
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 |
Community Organizer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't address humanitarian needs or access to basic communication.
- It's a detour from more compassionate immigration policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could free some funds, but doesn’t significantly advance immigration reform.
- Communication barriers may hurt more than help.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Journalist (New York City, NY)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m skeptical about the real impacts of this change; it's largely about optics.
- It could hamper NGOs that rely on communication tech to aid migrants.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Tech Entrepreneur (Portland, OR)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's disappointing to see tech potentially restricted where it could do good.
- Will look for alternative ways to support immigrant communication needs.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
High School Teacher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s an interesting policy to discuss with students, highlighting government spending decisions.
- I don't feel a direct effect; it's more about the principle of resource allocation.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Key Considerations
- The primary impact is symbolic, reinforcing policy against allocating taxpayer funds to services perceived as incentivizing unauthorized migration.
- This bill may serve a structural purpose in preventing future discretionary spending or potential misuse of funds.
- The act clarifies administrative policies without introducing new fiscal requirements or savings.