Bill Overview
Title: Prioritizing the Removal of Migrants Act
Description: This bill directs the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize immigration enforcement actions relating to certain groups of non-U.S. nationals (aliens under federal law), including those who (1) were apprehended in the United States after entering unlawfully after November 1, 2020, (2) have been convicted or charged with any criminal offense, (3) are deportable or removable on grounds related to crime or security, or (4) have abused any public benefits program.
Sponsors: Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22]
Target Audience
Population: Non-U.S. nationals residing unlawfully in the U.S. and involved in criminal or public benefits abuse
Estimated Size: 3000000
- This bill impacts non-U.S. nationals present in the United States who have entered unlawfully after November 1, 2020.
- It includes non-U.S. nationals who have been convicted or charged with any criminal offenses.
- It also affects those non-U.S. nationals categorized as deportable or removable based on criminal activity or security issues.
- Additionally, it impacts non-U.S. nationals implicated in abusing public benefits programs.
- The global migrant population is substantial, with millions of people residing in countries that are not their birth countries.
- In the United States, unauthorized immigrant population size is estimated to be approximately 11 million, many of whom may be subject to the criteria described in the bill.
Reasoning
- The population affected by this policy primarily includes non-U.S. nationals residing unlawfully in the United States who meet specific criteria related to recent unlawful entry, criminal activity, and abuse of public benefits programs.
- The U.S. unauthorized immigrant population is estimated to be around 11 million, but this policy targets a subset estimated to be about 3 million people.
- Given budget constraints, the policy will not impact all individuals immediately due to enforcement and resource limitations, and some individuals may not be apprehended or removed in the near term.
- Current U.S. economic and social contexts influence the perspectives of both directly and indirectly affected populations, and different community groups have varying levels of exposure and response to immigration policies.
- The wellbeing impact of this policy can vary significantly among individuals, especially between those who are directly impacted and those who are not.
Simulated Interviews
Undocumented worker (California)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fear that this policy will separate me from my children, which makes my life very uncertain and stressful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 8 |
Construction worker (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As I am a lawful permanent resident, I am concerned about my family's situation but less directly affected personally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Digital marketer (New York)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about my colleagues who might face family disruptions, though I am not directly impacted.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Small business owner (Florida)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe in following the law and think this policy may help correct some unfair practices, though it might initially impact my business.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
College student (Arizona)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy makes me anxious about my future and being able to stay in the U.S.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Teacher (Illinois)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the impact this policy will have on my students and their families.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Healthcare worker (New Jersey)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy won't affect individuals like me who are in a gray area but have been contributing to the community positively.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Agricultural worker (Arizona)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy scares me as I don’t know how it will affect my job or family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Lawyer (Nevada)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about my clients' welfare and the additional work this policy may bring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Restaurant worker (Georgia)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy threatens my livelihood and my ability to support my family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 2: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 3: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 5: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 10: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 100: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)
Key Considerations
- The estimated 3 million affected individuals represent only a fraction of the overall unauthorized immigrant population.
- Prioritizing removal according to specified criteria will require additional resources for effective implementation.
- Economic and social impacts stemming from reduced labor force participation should be carefully assessed.