Bill Overview
Title: Neighbors Not Enemies Act
Description: This bill repeals provisions authorizing the President to apprehend and remove from the United States the citizens of a particular nation, if the United States has declared war against that nation or that nation has threatened an invasion against the United States.
Sponsors: Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI]
Target Audience
Population: Citizens from nations potentially hostile to the United States
Estimated Size: 100000
- The bill pertains to the treatment of citizens from countries that might be considered hostile towards the United States.
- In particular, this impacts citizens from nations with which the United States is at war or that have threatened the US.
- The affected population would include any individuals from these nations living legally in the United States.
- Globally, this would affect citizens of countries declared as enemies by the US, particularly those capable of migration or currently residing in the US.
- Given geopolitical dynamics, the declaration of war against nations is relatively rare, so the global population directly impacted may not be large.
- The ability to apprehend or remove citizens from potentially hostile nations could deter travel to the US from these nations.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy is not large, considering it affects only those from countries deemed hostile by the US, and especially during wartime scenarios. This makes the direct impact of the policy relatively rare.
- The proposed policy is intended to ensure citizens from these countries feel safer and not unfairly targeted if tensions arise, potentially improving their wellbeing.
- Because the policy primarily impacts non-citizens, particularly those from countries with political tension with the US, the concern for civil liberties and equal treatment in immigration policy may also improve public sentiment.
- The fiscal constraints suggest that the policy would not require extensive resources to implement, as enforcement of apprehension and removal is costly and operationally intensive.
- We must ensure a variety of perspectives to accurately capture the views of both directly affected persons and general US citizens on civil liberties.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy makes me feel more secure in my residency here.
- I hope this reduces any unnecessary targeting of individuals based on geopolitics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Graduate Student (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think passing this policy would remove a lot of anxiety for international students like myself.
- It's comforting to know there are legal protections in place.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Houston, TX)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial for us to feel safe and secure, especially as business owners.
- This policy reassures community members who travel to and from some of these nations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
University Professor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with protecting civil liberties and maintaining America's image as a welcoming nation.
- It is important for academic collaboration with scholars from countries that have strained relations.
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 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Military Officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I understand the concerns, I believe the policy might undermine necessary security measures in certain situations.
- However, it’s crucial to balance security with civil rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Tech Startup Employee (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy would definitely increase peace of mind for families like mine.
- I worry about the negative impacts decisions like these can have on public perception though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Tech Consultant (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- International trust is key to business, and this policy could strengthen relationships with our partners overseas.
- I rarely feel impacted directly by such policies, but I'm pleased with how it can facilitate easier collaboration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Doctor (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will help calm fears of unwarranted deportation for many families.
- It’s not just about me, but my patients and community too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Immigration Lawyer (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The ethical implications of removing these provisions are crucial in my line of work.
- This could provide significant peace of mind to many of my clients who are worried about these policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Journalist (New York, NY)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Revoking such power has broad implications for how we treat international situations.
- From a human rights perspective, this move is beneficial and might influence public opinion 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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $35000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $35000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- Long-term impacts on immigration and foreign relations policies.
- Potential legal challenges from residents affected by international policies.
- The impact on national security assessments and resources.
- Political and civil liberties debates arising from the repeal's social impacts.