Bill Overview
Title: Reverse Entry for Migrant Offenders and Violence Expulsion Act
Description: This bill establishes under statute that a conviction for certain crimes related to kidnapping or sexual abuse shall be grounds for (1) barring an individual from entering the United States, and (2) deportability. (Under current law, convictions for certain crimes, including crimes involving moral turpitude, are grounds for inadmissibility and deportability.)
Sponsors: Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals worldwide with convictions for kidnapping or sexual abuse
Estimated Size: 50000
- The bill affects individuals with convictions for crimes related to kidnapping or sexual abuse, specifically non-citizens.
- It impacts non-citizen individuals due to deportability and entry restrictions.
- Under current law, crimes involving moral turpitude are already grounds for inadmissibility.
- There are global implications since it potentially impacts people worldwide who might have been seeking to enter the US.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily targets non-citizens residing in the U.S. with convictions for specific serious crimes such as kidnapping or sexual abuse.
- While the overall number of such individuals might be relatively low compared to the entire immigrant population, the impact on those affected could be significant due to deportation risks.
- The cost of implementing the policy will involve legal processes, deportation logistics, and potentially deterring minor offenders as well.
- Given a target budget of $100,000,000 USD in the first year, the policy implementation can cover legal and operational expenses, but it needs to remain effective beyond cost constraints.
- The selected interviewees include a mix of individuals directly impacted, legal experts, and unaffected citizens to understand the policy's broader implications.
Simulated Interviews
Construction Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I made a mistake, but I've served my time. This policy doesn't give people like me a chance to prove they've changed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 8 |
Immigration Lawyer (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy increases my workload significantly. It makes it harder for non-citizen clients to reform and stay in the US.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 8 |
College Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that policies like this could affect my friends and family negatively, even those who want to reform.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Public School Teacher (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems harsh. We need to focus on rehabilitation, not just punishment and expulsion.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Retired Police Officer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support this policy because it strengthens our borders and safety. We must prioritize citizens' safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Social Worker (San Diego, CA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could break apart families and has damaging long-term effects on children.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 8 |
Retail Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 20 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm constantly worried about new policies affecting my status and my friends' abilities to live here peacefully.
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 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 9 |
Tech Entrepreneur (Denver, CO)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could limit the pool of global talent we have access to. It's crucial to find a balance between security and opportunity.
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 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 9 |
ICE Agent (Dallas, TX)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law helps us do our job more effectively by having clear grounds for entry denial.
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 |
Community Organizer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is another hurdle for immigrants trying to better their lives in the US. We should focus on integration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 3: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 5: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy affects a targeted subset of non-citizens with specific convictions, potentially impacting their deportability or inadmissibility status.
- Additional resources will be required for enforcement and processing activities, contributing to a substantial annual cost.
- While the savings may partially offset costs, they are uncertain and subject to long-term effects.
- The bill reinforces current immigration policies concerning the inadmissibility of individuals convicted of serious crimes.