Bill Overview
Title: Human Rights Violators Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes additional statutory grounds for barring a non-U.S. national ( alien under federal law) from admission into the United States, including for participating in female genital mutilation. The bill also addresses other issues, such as establishing the Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Center to coordinate efforts to bar foreign human rights abusers from entering the United States and support efforts to remove such individuals from the United States.
Sponsors: Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]
Target Audience
Population: Non-U.S. nationals who have committed human rights violations
Estimated Size: 5000
- Non-U.S. nationals who have committed human rights violations will be impacted as they may be barred from entering the United States.
- Victims of female genital mutilation who are seeking asylum or entry into the U.S. on grounds of persecution may be positively impacted by more stringent measures against perpetrators.
- The establishment of the Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Center will have an operational impact on U.S. immigration and law enforcement agencies.
- There may be an indirect impact on human rights organizations working globally as this legislation sets a precedent for the U.S. stance on human rights violators.
Reasoning
- The policy directly impacts non-U.S. nationals who are human rights violators by preventing their entry into the U.S. This will not directly impact the general U.S. population but might indirectly influence segments involved in human rights advocacy and immigration services.
- The bill's financial limits mean it cannot address all potential human rights cases globally, and so its effects might be limited to high-profile cases.
- Statistics show that only a small portion of the U.S. population could be tangentially affected, such as through employment in related government agencies or sectors.
- Victims of human rights offenses, such as those seeking asylum due to FGM, could see an improvement in conditions if stricter measures on violators are enforced.
- The establishment of the Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Center could enhance organizational operations, impacting government workers and international collaborations.
- Overall, the policy represents a symbolic strengthening of U.S. human rights positions, which could positively influence international perceptions.
Simulated Interviews
Immigration Lawyer (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy sends a clear message against human rights abuses.
- May aid in protecting clients who are victims seeking asylum.
- Concerns about implementation effectiveness given budget constraints.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Human Rights Activist (New York, NY)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a positive step against FGM and other abuses.
- Coordination efforts are key to its success.
- More global cooperation is needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Government Employee (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Operational changes could streamline or complicate processes.
- There's a learning curve in adapting to the new policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Business Owner (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Unlikely to be directly affected by the policy.
- Supports human rights initiatives broadly.
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 |
Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Was unaware of the specifics but supports human rights.
- Raises interest in human rights topics in her classes.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Glad to see steps being taken against global abuses.
- Hopes it leads to increased local awareness and education.
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 |
Tech Professional (Austin, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Potential concerns about employee visa processes.
- Generally supportive of policies against human rights violators.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Focusing on FGM is crucial for women's safety worldwide.
- Potentially powerful model for tech initiatives against such abuses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Law Enforcement Officer (Denver, CO)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased workload expected with oversight changes.
- Training and resources will be crucial to managing impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
NGO Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could aid in further protection for victims.
- Needs careful implementation to truly benefit those in need.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $140000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $170000000)
Year 3: $130000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $160000000)
Year 5: $120000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $150000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $130000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $80000000)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of the Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Center in achieving its objectives will significantly influence the policy’s outcomes.
- Coordination with international counterparts and organizations might augment or complicate enforcement efforts.
- Ensuring compliance with human rights and legal standards in the expanded measures against violators is crucial.