Bill Overview
Title: Children’s Safe Welcome Act of 2022
Description: This bill imposes requirements related to the treatment of noncitizen children detained in immigration custody. For example, the bill (1) prohibits an accompanied noncitizen child from being separated from a parent or legal guardian while in immigration custody, except in certain situations; (2) requires each child in immigration custody to receive a legal orientation presentation and have access to legal counsel and child advocates; and (3) requires each unaccompanied noncitizen child in Department of Health and Human Services custody to be placed in the least restrictive setting that most approximates a family and in which any special needs may be met.
Sponsors: Rep. Bass, Karen [D-CA-37]
Target Audience
Population: Noncitizen children in immigration custody
Estimated Size: 0
- The bill addresses noncitizen children detained in immigration custody in the U.S.
- The key provisions of the bill focus on preventing separation of children from their parents or guardians, providing legal counsel, and ensuring a family-like setting for unaccompanied children in custody.
- Noncitizen children, including both accompanied and unaccompanied, are the direct target population.
- This population includes children who have crossed U.S. borders, potentially from various countries.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects noncitizen children in immigration custody, hence direct impacts on U.S. citizens are indirect and related to their views on immigration policy.
- The policy's budget is significant but targets a specific, relatively small population of approximately 300,000 noncitizen children.
- U.S. citizens' opinions may vary based on political beliefs, proximity to immigration issues, or employment in related sectors.
- Wellbeing impacts are more directly related to those within or closely associated with the target population.
Simulated Interviews
Immigration Lawyer (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is crucial for the humane treatment of children in custody.
- Providing legal counsel and keeping families together are fundamental rights that need to be respected.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Border Patrol Agent (El Paso, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could potentially slow down our processes but it's essential to ensure the safety of children.
- I'm glad there's a focus on family unity and legal aid, even though it means adapting our work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Social Worker (San Diego, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in the right direction to address the needs of detained children.
- Ensuring children are in family-like settings is key to their mental health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
High School Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the policy as necessary, although the costs and logistics need careful management.
- It will likely not affect me directly, but I approve of better treatment for children.
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 |
Espresso Bar Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides necessary protections and aligns with my values of human compassion.
- Though I’m not directly affected, I support its humane approach to immigrant children.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
College Student (New York, NY)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm passionate about immigration rights, so this policy gives me hope for better treatment of children.
- I worry about enforcement and whether there will be enough funding.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm skeptical about the effectiveness of the policy due to bureaucracy.
- If it works as intended, it could mean a more compassionate treatment of children, which I support.
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 |
Child Psychologist (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Providing psychological support and stable environments for these children is vital.
- I’m optimistic about the policy's potential impact on the mental well-being of detained children.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about the policy's implementation costs and efficacy.
- However, I agree with the objectives and recognize the need for humane conditions.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Immigrant Rights Activist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a major relief and aligns with our advocacy goals.
- I'm hopeful it will significantly improve the living conditions of children in custody.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $750000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 2: $775000000 (Low: $515000000, High: $1030000000)
Year 3: $800000000 (Low: $530000000, High: $1060000000)
Year 5: $850000000 (Low: $565000000, High: $1120000000)
Year 10: $950000000 (Low: $630000000, High: $1250000000)
Year 100: $1450000000 (Low: $960000000, High: $1900000000)
Key Considerations
- The execution of this bill may face administrative challenges due to new protocol implementations and coordination requirements.
- The cost estimates include potential variations due to fluctuating numbers of noncitizen children in custody.
- This policy may necessitate inter-agency collaboration, potentially leading to governance and management complexities.