Bill Overview
Title: Afghanistan Vetting and Accountability Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to verify the personal and biometric information and conduct in-person vetting of each individual, other than a U.S. citizen or member of the Armed Forces, evacuated from Afghanistan during a specified time period. An individual who has not provided such information and undergone in-person vetting may not receive any federal means-tested public benefit. The bill also requires the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify all intelligence products relating to the withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Afghanistan.
Sponsors: Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]
Target Audience
Population: Afghanistan evacuees who are non-U.S. citizens or non-military members evacuated during U.S. withdrawal
Estimated Size: 76000
- During the evacuation from Afghanistan, tens of thousands of individuals were transported out of the country to various nations, including the United States. This population includes a range of people such as Afghan nationals who assisted the U.S. military or government, their families, and others at risk from the Taliban.
- The bill focuses on those who have been evacuated from Afghanistan. The legislation mandates DHS verification of these individuals, excluding U.S. citizens or military members, indicating a primary impact on Afghan evacuees.
- According to reports, around 120,000 people were evacuated from Afghanistan during the U.S. military withdrawal, though not all will have been brought to the United States directly.
- The bill impacts those who may not be able to access federal means-tested public benefits without verification and vetting, potentially affecting their economic security and integration into the host country.
- As the bill requires declassification of intelligence products, its impact might also extend to policymakers, researchers, and the public interested in the strategic, operational, and tactical outcomes of the withdrawal.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects Afghan evacuees in the United States who are non-U.S. citizens or military members. These individuals are likely to need federal means-tested public benefits to support their resettlement and integration.
- The enforcement of personal and biometric verification processes might delay or hamper access to necessary support, particularly for those who have yet to complete these procedures. This delay could lower their wellbeing scores, especially in the short term.
- The broader impact of the policy, such as the declassification of intelligence reports, may not directly affect the wellbeing of evacuees, but it might impact public opinion and contextual understanding.
- The budget constraints suggest careful management of resources, which could affect the efficiency and speed of implementing the policy, impacting the target population's access to benefits temporarily.
- In the larger population, U.S. residents might not experience a direct impact on wellbeing, but perceptions and opinions might form based on humanitarian, security, or community support considerations.
Simulated Interviews
Afghan refugee (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need for security checks, but the delay impacts my ability to support my family.
- I am worried that without access to benefits, we will struggle to manage daily expenses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Community Resettlement Volunteer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could create unnecessary hurdles for people who already face significant challenges.
- It's important to prioritize human compassion in these processes.
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 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired intelligence analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Declassification is critical for transparency and accountability, but the vetting process should not obstruct humanitarian aid.
- Managing public perception is key to ensuring support for evacuees.
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 (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There is already a level of trauma that evacuees are dealing with; adding bureaucratic stress might worsen their situation.
- It's vital that they are not left for long without necessary support.
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 | 8 | 8 |
Restaurant Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am hoping for a better life here but not having benefits makes it hard to build a future.
- Every process is taking so long, and I feel stuck.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Software Engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring security is important, but I hope it is balanced with humane treatment of evacuees.
- I support measures that are fair and just for people who helped our troops.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about how this will affect my family who still need support to adjust.
- Education is my key to a better life, but financial constraints make it difficult.
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 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Refugee Advocate (Boston, MA)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might slow down critical aid processes.
- We need a balance that respects both security and humanitarian needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
High School Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems more complex than necessary; our students need stability and support.
- Our community is ready to help, but policies sometimes make it hard.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Small Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need to ensure evacuees can stand on their own feet and contribute to society as soon as possible.
- Security and support are not mutually exclusive; we have to find a better way.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $65000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $80000000)
Year 2: $60000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $75000000)
Year 3: $55000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The need to conduct thorough and effective vetting to ensure security and compliance with U.S. laws.
- The administrative burden and costs associated with processing the large number of evacuees.
- Potential implications on public sentiment and international relations.
- Ensuring the declassification and release of sensitive information does not compromise national security.