Bill Overview
Title: Protect American Taxpayer Dollars from Illegal Immigration Act
Description: This bill prohibits expending federal funds for legal settlements to individuals who violated certain laws relating to the proper time and place to enter the United States, if the settlement pertains to claims based on the lawful detention of such an individual as part of a family unit after the individual's entry into the United States at the southern border after January 20, 2017.
Sponsors: Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who entered the US at the southern border unlawfully after January 20, 2017 as part of a family unit
Estimated Size: 50000
- The bill mentions individuals who violated laws relating to entry into the United States, specifically those entering unlawfully at the southern border after January 20, 2017. This group primarily includes undocumented immigrants from Latin American countries and possibly other regions who are detained as part of family units.
- The bill prohibits federal funds for legal settlements pertaining to claims based on the lawful detention of these individuals. This would mean individuals and families who might be seeking settlements for reasons such as family separation or other detention-related issues are directly impacted.
- Due to the focus on the southern border, this legislation predominantly affects people who entered the United States via the Mexico-U.S. border.
Reasoning
- The estimated global population impacted by this bill includes approximately 8 million individuals who entered the U.S. at the southern border unlawfully since January 20, 2017. However, the actual group directly interacting with the U.S. legal system or making claims is smaller.
- Of the estimated 50,000 individuals more directly impacted in the U.S., this number includes undocumented individuals potentially affected by detention-related lawsuits. U.S. citizens might primarily be affected indirectly—legal workers assisting these individuals, or families with undocumented members.
- Because the policy has a determined budget of $0, it does not allocate resources to aid or compensate any impacted individuals. This means that U.S. citizens' taxpayer money is preserved in federal funds, aligning with fiscal policies without direct everyday impact on most Americans. The potential emotional or social ramifications could indirectly alter wellbeing, particularly for directly impacted families.
- The distribution considers typical examples, including undocumented individuals, human rights advocates, and American citizens with undocumented family members, to cover a range of scenarios and perspectives.
Simulated Interviews
Human rights lawyer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy limits our ability to secure settlements for clients, potentially causing harm by legitimizing prolonged detentions.
- It diminishes the hopes of families seeking justice for separation incidents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Undocumented immigrant, day laborer (Houston, TX)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy just makes it harder for families like mine to get any justice or support.
- It feels like we're being ignored and left helpless.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 3 |
U.S. citizen with undocumented relatives (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I understand the need to protect taxpayer money, this policy seems harsh on families who have already suffered.
- I worry about my own relatives and their ability to cope.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Border patrol agent (San Diego, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this help ensure funds are used appropriately and dissuade frivolous claims.
- It helps us enforce the law without fear of unjust settlements.
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 |
Social worker (El Paso, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could discourage families from seeking legal recourse, impacting their emotional wellbeing.
- Could make my job harder as more families are frustrated and fearful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Taxpayer with no direct connection to immigration issues (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the policy because it ensures my tax dollars aren't used to fund settlements I don't agree with.
- Doesn't impact my daily life directly, so I'm neutral overall.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Immigration lawyer (Miami, FL)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This restricts potential remedies for past injustices.
- Our legal options to protect clients and their families are becoming limited.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Advocate for immigrant rights (New York, NY)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step back for human rights, dissuading families from pursuing justice.
- It affects our organization’s ability to support those in need and challenge unlawful detentions.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Journalist covering immigration issues (Dallas, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy may reduce the material and stories available for highlighting injustices experienced by such families.
- It signals a continued hardline stance at the expense of those seeking recourse.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Retired, former public school teacher (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the rationale to safeguard taxpayer money, but this policy seems a bit uncompassionate.
- Doesn't really change anything for me directly, but I hope families are supported in other ways.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $0 (Low: $0, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $100000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $100000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $100000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $100000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $100000000, High: $500000000)
Key Considerations
- The primary objective is prohibiting expenditure on settlement claims, which directly impacts legal financial commitments involving certain detained immigrants.
- The act impacts federal budget allocations, offering potential indirect savings rather than new spending or revenue generation.
- There are potential legal challenges associated with limiting legal settlement options, which could have unforeseen fiscal consequences.