Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/9141

Bill Overview

Title: Visitor Visa Wait Time Reduction Act

Description: This bill requires the Department of State to report to Congress on the average waiting time to get a visitor visa interview at each diplomatic or consular post.  For each post where the average waiting time is longer than 300 days, the State Department must temporarily reassign personnel at that post to shorten the waiting time.

Sponsors: Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27]

Target Audience

Population: People applying for visitor visas to the United States

Estimated Size: 1000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Small Business Owner (Chicago, Illinois)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The long wait times have affected my business, leading to cancellations.
  • This policy could positively impact my business if it leads to more European tourists visiting the States.
  • However, I'm concerned about temporary personnel reassignment causing issues elsewhere.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 4

Software Engineer (San Francisco, California)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The visa process is extremely stressful for my parents visiting me from abroad.
  • If this policy helps them get here more easily, it would be a massive relief.
  • I hope the State Department's reporting leads to more long-term solutions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 5 4

Nurse (Houston, Texas)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm not directly affected but community members have shared concerns about delays.
  • Policies that reduce such barriers are usually welcomed in our community.
  • I think it'll help our local economy if visitors can come more easily.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 4

Startup Founder (Seattle, Washington)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The visa backlog has been a pain point in managing international relationships.
  • This policy could be beneficial to my operations if it indeed reduces wait times.
  • Hopefully, this will mean ensuring streamlined processing without sacrificing thoroughness.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 5 3

Financial Analyst (New York, New York)

Age: 41 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Shortening visa wait times is a positive for my family visits.
  • If it works, this policy would remove a significant source of stress about timing.
  • I hope the logistic shuffling required doesn't disrupt other operations.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 4

Retired (Miami, Florida)

Age: 57 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Though I don't need a visa, I work with people who do, and it's often a bottleneck.
  • This could benefit the tourism industry which has been hit hard recently.
  • I hope it considers long-term changes beyond just temporary staff assignments.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 4 4

University Student (Los Angeles, California)

Age: 22 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Visa processes affecting family visits can be quite intimidating and lengthy.
  • This could make it easier for my parents to come for graduation.
  • I just hope it's not just a short-term fix leading back to the same issues.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 5 4

Research Scientist (Boston, Massachusetts)

Age: 36 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Reduced delays would help foster international collaboration.
  • This policy addresses a critical hurdle for academic exchange.
  • The reporting aspect makes me optimistic for transparency improvements.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

High School Teacher (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

Age: 48 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Current wait times strain the planning of family visits.
  • Shorter wait times would improve our family dynamics greatly.
  • I fear this policy might just be a temporary fix though.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 5 4

Retired Diplomat (Atlanta, Georgia)

Age: 62 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I understand the burden of visa delays from my career.
  • While reassignment can help, it's often a temporary solution.
  • It's crucial to also address other factors contributing to delays.

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)

Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $16000000)

Year 3: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $16000000)

Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $13000000)

Year 10: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations