Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Immigrant Gold Star and Military Families Act
Description: This bill limits the deportability of certain relatives of current and former members of the Armed Forces. Certain grounds of deportability shall not apply to a qualifying non-U.S. national ( alien under federal law) who is (1) the spouse, widow or widower, parent, child, or sibling of a member of the Armed Forces or a veteran; or (2) eligible for a Gold Star lapel button (for certain immediate relatives of a member of the Armed Forces who died while serving). A qualifying non-U.S. national is one who (1) has not have been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three misdemeanors; and (2) is not a threat to national security or public safety.
Sponsors: Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]
Target Audience
Population: Non-U.S. national relatives of U.S. Armed Forces members
Estimated Size: 250000
- The bill will primarily impact non-U.S. nationals, specifically relatives of military personnel, including current and former members of the Armed Forces.
- These include spouses, widows or widowers, parents, children, and siblings of members of the Armed Forces or veterans.
- The bill also includes individuals eligible for a Gold Star lapel button, which applies to certain immediate relatives of those who died while serving.
- The bill only affects qualifying individuals who have no severe criminal background and are not threats to national security or public safety.
- The target population is limited to those connected to the U.S. Armed Forces, impacting global military families and not the general immigrant population.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily benefits relatives of the Armed Forces who are at risk of deportation. These groups often face unique challenges, including constant mobility and uncertainty over their future immigration status. Their wellbeing is likely to improve significantly if they feel secure from deportation.
- The target population for this policy is relatively small, but the impact on them is potentially life-altering, as it addresses key issues of family unity and legal security.
- Given the limited budget, the policy's reach must be focused and effectively managed to maximize its impact on the wellbeing of affected individuals. This means prioritizing cases where the threat of deportation is imminent.
- This simulation includes a diverse range of perspectives from people potentially impacted by the policy, considering variables like military rank, family relations, current immigration status, and past experiences with the immigration system.
Simulated Interviews
Military Spouse/Teacher (San Antonio, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm always anxious about my status here. This policy would help us feel more secure and allow me to focus on building my career and family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Veteran Affairs Officer (San Diego, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy recognizes the sacrifices our family made. While I don't face deportation directly, it assures me that my sisters, who live abroad, won't be barred from visiting.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Nurse (Fayetteville, NC)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With the current laws, I constantly worry about deportation. The policy would eliminate the stress so I can focus on my nursing career.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Civil Engineer (Columbus, OH)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relatively secure in my status, but this policy would help my wife and me plan our future in the U.S. more confidently.
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 | 6 |
Retired (Hawaii)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This offers peace of mind. It’s hard enough coping with deployments and sacrifices. Worrying about staying close to family shouldn’t add to it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
College Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The stress of potential deportation after college is terrifying. This policy would provide a clear future pathway.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Community Organizer (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My husband served his country, and this policy would honor his legacy, assuring our children and I can remain in the U.S. without fear.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Entrepreneur (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill would allow me to focus on my business without the added stress of maintaining my immigration status.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Software Developer (El Paso, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The constant anxiety over my residency status impacts my work and personal life. The policy would provide much-needed stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Retired Military Officer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy reassures my grandchildren's future in this country. We’ve given a lot, and these protections are a relief.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $21000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $26000000)
Year 3: $22000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $27000000)
Year 5: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's main purpose is humanitarian, aligning deportation policies with the military service of family members.
- Resource allocation for verifying eligibility and processing exemptions could strain existing systems if not adequately addressed.
- The affected population, while considerable, contributes positively to social and economic outputs, balancing direct costs of policy implementation.