Bill Overview
Title: Protecting America from IRGC Terrorists Act
Description: This bill adds questions to certain visa, permanent residence, and naturalization applications concerning an applicant's association with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Sponsors: Rep. Banks, Jim [R-IN-3]
Target Audience
Population: People associated with the IRGC applying for US visas, permanent residence, or naturalization
Estimated Size: 5000
- The bill focuses on visa, permanent residence, and naturalization applications, which indicates it targets immigrants and individuals seeking legal status in the United States.
- The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is primarily based in Iran. Thus, individuals with Iranian nationality or descent applying for US immigration and naturalization could be impacted.
- The world has numerous immigrants applying to the US from various countries, and this legislation would specifically affect those from Iran or with connections to Iranian organizations.
- Global immigrant statistics indicate millions of applications to the US annually, with some proportion from or related to Iran.
Reasoning
- The policy affects individuals applying for US visas, permanent residence, and naturalization who have some form of association with the IRGC. This is a niche but important group, as the focus is primarily on security concerns related to terrorism.
- The target population is relatively small, estimated at around 5,000 people, mostly Iranian nationals or those connected to Iran living in the US.
- Our simulations should include a mix of affected individuals—those directly connected and those peripherally impacted—and individuals not impacted to understand the broad societal effects.
- The budget allocated for the policy ($82 million over 10 years) allows for thorough but targeted enforcement, likely leading to a medium average impact on wellbeing for those affected.
Simulated Interviews
Software Developer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned that this will add an extra layer of complexity and delay to my already prolonged green card process.
- While I understand national security concerns, I feel unfairly scrutinized.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Graduate Student (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think it will affect me directly, but it could impact my family members who are applying for visas.
- The policy seems necessary for security, but it must be implemented fairly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
University Professor (Houston, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support measures that enhance national security but hope they don't cause any undue hardship or profiling without cause.
- This policy seems like it could generate mistrust within our community.
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 |
Entrepreneur (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried this policy might cause delays or additional scrutiny in my citizenship application process.
- Security is important, but so is justice and fairness; I hope this balance is considered.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Freelancer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about my family's ability to visit and for new applications as it could affect them inadvertently.
- Security must be a priority, but I'm worried this causes unnecessary fear in our community without cause.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Retired Diplomat (Washington D.C.)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems sensible, but execution matters. Transparency and fairness will determine its success.
- I believe most people in this category are law-abiding and just seeking better opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Engineer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could complicate my status, especially with the delays it's likely to cause.
- My priority is maintaining the stability for my family here, and I'm concerned about that.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Tech Startup CEO (Austin, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the motives of this policy, but fear it might lead to unintended consequences such as profiling based on nationality.
- The real impact will widely depend on the execution and sensitivity involved.
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 |
Healthcare Professional (Detroit, MI)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this must ensure they do not adversely affect those with legitimate cases.
- Overall, this should be beneficial if correctly interpreted and implemented.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm uncertain about what this means for my education path; I worry about the potential delays or denials.
- There should be clear guidance and communication from authorities on policies like these.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $9500000 (Low: $7000000, High: $12000000)
Year 3: $9000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $11000000)
Year 5: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $7000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $9000000)
Year 100: $6000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill specifically targets a sensitive group, potentially requiring prudent handling to avoid discrimination claims or diplomatic issues.
- Implementation costs might vary depending on the need for technical upgrades and staff training or hiring.
- Evaluating the effectiveness of this added security measure could require periodic review.