Bill Overview
Title: Safe Zones Act of 2022
Description: This bill makes changes to procedures relating to seeking asylum, including by requiring the Department of State to establish safe zones in which an individual may apply for asylum. The State Department must establish at least three safe zones along the U.S.-Mexico border and one safe zone in Guatemala.
Sponsors: Rep. Gonzalez, Vicente [D-TX-15]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border and in Guatemala
Estimated Size: 5000
- The bill impacts individuals seeking asylum in the United States, particularly those from Central America and Mexico.
- Safe zones will be established on the U.S.-Mexico border and in Guatemala, directly affecting asylum seekers in these regions.
- The DHS reports tens of thousands of individuals seek asylum at the U.S. border annually, predominantly from Central American countries.
- In 2021, over 100,000 people sought asylum at or near the U.S.-Mexico border.
Reasoning
- The Safe Zones Act primarily impacts individuals currently outside the United States, specifically asylum seekers from Central America and Mexico. These individuals are represented in the simulated population to gauge potential well-being changes.
- Direct impacts on American citizens may be limited to those working in legal, border security, or government roles related to immigration. Consequently, these individuals represent a smaller portion of the population affected by this policy.
- The budget constraints suggest that while a significant investment is planned, the target population at the U.S.-Mexico border is vast, and resources may be stretched thin, affecting the intensity and duration of positive outcomes.
- The diversity of perspectives is necessary to understand both those directly impacted (asylum seekers) and those indirectly impacted (American personnel in related roles).
Simulated Interviews
Border Patrol Agent (El Paso, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the safe zones could streamline the asylum process and improve safety both for seekers and border agents.
- There might be an increase in paperwork and responsibilities as people's claims are processed at these zones.
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 |
Immigration Lawyer (San Antonio, TX)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The establishment of safe zones could reduce the number of people entering dangerous situations to claim asylum.
- It might make my job more predictable as processing becomes more centralized.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Asylum Seeker (Guatemala City, Guatemala)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If I can safely apply for asylum here in Guatemala, it reduces my need to undertake a perilous journey.
- I fear the zones might be overwhelmed and my case could be delayed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Public Health Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about how increased processing at borders might bring health challenges for populations on both sides.
- The policy might alleviate some stress on local health systems if it prevents dangerous crossings.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
NGO Worker - Immigration Services (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safe zones might improve efficiency in processing asylum claims and reduce risks for migrants.
- However, I'm concerned about the resource availability and whether zones will cope with demand.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Aspiring Asylum Seeker (Juárez, Mexico)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Creating a safe zone might finally provide a door to safety for my family and me without risking our lives.
- Without this policy, we remain in limbo with fear and uncertainty.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Community Organizer (McAllen, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I welcome efforts to make asylum processes safer, but we need transparency in how these zones will operate and be resourced.
- Community involvement in planning is crucial to avoid repeating past failures.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The budgets appear sufficient but linking costs directly to better outcomes remains to be seen.
- The implementation success will depend heavily on interagency coordination and collaboration with NGOs.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Volunteer - Immigration Rights Group (Dallas, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safe zones are a partial solution, they won't address root causes of migration but may help reduce immediate risks asylum seekers face.
- Resources could be diverted from direct relief efforts, posing challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Human Resources at a detention facility (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safe zones may relieve pressure on facilities like ours, allowing for more humane conditions and operations.
- There might also be employment implications as staffing needs change.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $400000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $450000000)
Year 2: $250000000 (Low: $225000000, High: $275000000)
Year 3: $250000000 (Low: $225000000, High: $275000000)
Year 5: $250000000 (Low: $225000000, High: $275000000)
Year 10: $250000000 (Low: $225000000, High: $275000000)
Year 100: $250000000 (Low: $225000000, High: $275000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill requires significant coordination with foreign governments and local jurisdictions in Guatemala.
- There will be challenges in staffing and equipping these safe zones, especially in terms of recruiting personnel with appropriate language skills and experience.
- The legislation could face political opposition based on international relations and immigration policy debates.