Bill Overview
Title: PARENT Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires U.S. Customs and Border Protection to transfer custody of an unaccompanied alien child only to the Department of Health and Human Services or the child's parent or legal guardian.
Sponsors: Rep. Burgess, Michael C. [R-TX-26]
Target Audience
Population: Unaccompanied alien children in or entering the U.S.
Estimated Size: 0
- The bill focuses on unaccompanied alien children who are in the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
- Unaccompanied alien children are a specific subset of immigrants who enter the U.S. without a legal guardian and are usually minors.
- By requiring the transfer of custody to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or to parents/legal guardians, the aim is to ensure their safety and reduce the risk of trafficking.
- The legislation is likely to impact both the children currently in CBP custody and future unaccompanied minors who may enter the U.S.
Reasoning
- This policy directly impacts unaccompanied alien children, focusing on their safety and reducing trafficking risks by specifying custody transfer protocols.
- The program budget appears primarily allocated for managing the transition of custody processes and supporting infrastructure in HHS.
- For U.S. citizens, the policy has indirect implications for those working in related fields like immigration, border security, and social services.
- The well-being of the children is the primary focus, with potential long-term benefits if they are placed in safer environments.
Simulated Interviews
Border Patrol Agent (Texas)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will likely make my job more focused and may help me better protect vulnerable children.
- I am concerned about the additional workload and the need for more training to ensure we handle the transfers properly.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Social Worker (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could enhance the safety and stability of the children I work with.
- There may be challenges due to increased caseloads and the need for more resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Immigration Attorney (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a positive step towards protecting vulnerable children, but its implementation details are crucial.
- I anticipate an increase in cases requiring closer coordination with HHS, which could increase my workload.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
CBP Officer (Arizona)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am supportive of the policy as it aims to protect children, but worry about adequate resource allocation.
- Training needs and procedural clarity would be essential for smooth operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Child Advocacy Lawyer (Florida)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy strengthens safety for unaccompanied children, reducing trafficking risks.
- I foresee challenges in ensuring compliance across various offices and predict some initial resistance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
HHS Administrator (Georgia)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy enhances our role and responsibility in safeguarding children.
- I am concerned about the budget covering the projected increase in custody transfers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
NGO Worker (Virginia)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy will provide better stability and security for unaccompanied children.
- NGOs like ours will need to coordinate closely with government agencies for effective implementation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Teacher (New Mexico)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could lead to more stable and prepared children joining our school system.
- However, there may be initial disruptions as custody transfer systems are set up.
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 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Illinois)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aligns well with current data showing successful outcomes when children are placed in safer environments.
- My concern lies in operational hurdles and ensuring that all stakeholders are effectively coordinated.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Community Organizer (Colorado)
Age: 36 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the policy as it prioritizes child welfare and safety.
- I hope it includes measures to integrate children into communities post-custody efficiently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $60000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $75000000)
Year 2: $63000000 (Low: $47250000, High: $78750000)
Year 3: $66150000 (Low: $49612500, High: $82687500)
Year 5: $72765000 (Low: $54573750, High: $90956250)
Year 10: $95707875 (Low: $71780906, High: $119034844)
Year 100: $3739635624 (Low: $2804726718, High: $4674544529)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring that facilities managed by HHS can accommodate an increased number of children without compromising on safety and health standards.
- Coordination between CBP and HHS needs to be efficient to minimize the time children spend in CBP custody.
- Potential need for legislative reviews or guidelines to regulate the transfer process comprehensively.