Bill Overview
Title: Border Safety and Security Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to suspend the entry of any non-U.S. nationals ( aliens under federal law) without valid entry documents during any period when DHS cannot detain such an individual or return the individual to a foreign country contiguous to the United States. A state may sue DHS to enforce this requirement. (Under current law, non-U.S. nationals who arrive at the border without entry documents are generally subject to expedited removal. However, if such an individual is found to have a credible fear of persecution, they are typically subject to detention while their asylum claim is being considered.) The bill also authorizes DHS to suspend the entry of non-U.S. nationals without entry documents at the border if DHS determines that such a suspension is necessary to achieve operational control over such a border.
Sponsors: Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21]
Target Audience
Population: Non-U.S. nationals seeking to enter the United States without valid entry documents
Estimated Size: 1000000
- Non-U.S. nationals without valid entry documents are the primary population affected as the act directly impacts their ability to enter the U.S.
- The act can affect asylum seekers who make up a substantial portion of undocumented entries, as their claim processing could be inhibited.
- The legislation indirectly impacts communities near the border as immigration influences economic and social dynamics.
- The bill authorizes the suspension of entries based on operational control needs, influencing discretionary enforcement measures.
Reasoning
- Non-U.S. nationals without valid entry documents, particularly asylum seekers, will be directly affected. The wellbeing of these individuals is likely to be negatively impacted as their entry and claim processing could be stalled.
- U.S. citizens living in border areas may experience varying impacts from changes in local community dynamics and potentially reduced local workforce participation, which could affect local economies.
- Border security personnel may face changes in job expectations and work intensity, impacting their work-life balance and job satisfaction.
- Communities throughout the U.S. might see shifts in economic conditions and public sentiment regarding immigration, which may influence wellbeing and social cohesion.
Simulated Interviews
Border Patrol Agent (El Paso, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might lead to heavier workload due to increased enforcement responsibilities.
- There are concerns about resources and morale among the team.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Teacher (San Diego, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about the effect on students from immigrant families.
- Worries this might lead to increased stress at school.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (McAllen, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fears labor shortages if immigration is reduced.
- Believes the policy could negatively affect local economy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 8 |
College Student (New York, NY)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worried about the human rights implications of the policy.
- Thinks it could increase fear among immigrant communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Recognizes a need for border security but worried about humanitarian consequences.
- Hopes the policy considers humane treatment of asylum seekers.
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 |
Activist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fiercely opposed to the bill, believing it endangers vulnerable people.
- Plans to increase advocacy efforts against the bill.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Immigration Lawyer (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerns about backlogs and clients being unable to enter the U.S.
- Emphasizes the importance of legal pathways and fair trials.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 8 |
Construction Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Does not see an immediate impact on his job.
- Supports secure borders but stresses fairness in policy implementation.
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 |
Farmer (Santa Fe, NM)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worried about labor shortages impacting farming operations.
- Sees a potential increase in costs due to labor changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 8 |
Policy Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Views the policy as a balancing act between security and human rights.
- Believes data will be crucial in assessing the bill's impact.
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: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 2: $1600000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1900000000)
Year 3: $1650000000 (Low: $1350000000, High: $1950000000)
Year 5: $1700000000 (Low: $1400000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 10: $1750000000 (Low: $1450000000, High: $2050000000)
Year 100: $1800000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2100000000)
Key Considerations
- The balance between security control and humanitarian obligations needs careful monitoring to avoid legal challenges.
- Economic effects on regions dependent on migrant labor might be significant in the short term.
- Implementation will require coordination between federal and state governments, especially in enforcement actions.