Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4964

Bill Overview

Title: Justice for Angel Families Act

Description: This bill expands the allowable uses of state compensation payments for crime victims to include certain expenses for angel families. Angel family refers to the immediate family members of any individual who is a victim of homicide committed by (1) an individual who is unlawfully present in the United States, or (2) a member of an international criminal organization involved in the unlawful trafficking of controlled substances. The bill also reestablishes the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement Office within the Department of Homeland Security.

Sponsors: Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]

Target Audience

Population: Immediate family members of homicide victims killed by unauthorized immigrants or international traffickers

Estimated Size: 10000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

School teacher (Phoenix, Arizona)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could offer much-needed financial support, as current compensations barely cover the surface of our grief and adjustments.
  • I appreciate the focus on families like mine, though I wish there were also long-term support measures in place.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 5 4
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 4

Retired (San Antonio, Texas)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 3

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe this policy is a step in the right direction to ensure justice and aid for families affected directly by immigration-related crimes.
  • However, measures should be balanced not to stigmatize communities.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 3
Year 2 4 3
Year 3 5 3
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 5 3

Student (Miami, Florida)

Age: 28 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 3

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 1/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I am hopeful but cautious about this policy. Any support is welcome, but will it address our long-term needs?
  • Resources to understand and navigate the legal complexities of our situation would be invaluable.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 3
Year 2 5 3
Year 3 5 4
Year 5 6 4
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 5 3

Healthcare worker (New York, New York)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's a crucial policy to mend neglected gaps in our system, and will likely ease financial burdens.
  • Yet, it shouldn't stop at financial aid; holistic psychological and social support is equally important.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 5

Software engineer (Seattle, Washington)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 20/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I sympathize with affected families but worry about the broader implications of focusing on crime-related immigration policies.
  • It's important that this does not foster division or perpetuate negative stereotypes.

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 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Social worker (Chicago, Illinois)

Age: 48 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm hopeful this policy can bridge support gaps for those needing it most, but any restrictions should be handled carefully.
  • My concern is the scapegoating of broader immigrant communities.

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 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Immigration lawyer (Los Angeles, California)

Age: 39 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policies like this are crucial for justice but must be implemented with care to avoid inflating anti-immigrant sentiments.
  • It does however, symbolize recognition for the victims who often drown in neglect.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Retired nurse (Detroit, Michigan)

Age: 65 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 18/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see the value in supporting families impacted by crime, but wonder about other victims not covered by this policy.
  • Policies should be comprehensive and target multiple facets of victim support including mental health resources.

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 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 6 7

Police officer (Houston, Texas)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I can see this policy providing stability and justice for families who have suffered greatly from immigration-related crimes.
  • Emphasis should also be placed on community awareness and proper resource allocation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 5

Freelance journalist (Denver, Colorado)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 16/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I understand the importance of targeted support for affected families, but broader discussions on immigration reforms must continue parallelly.
  • This policy should lead by example, ensuring the needs of grieving families are prioritized over political narratives.

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 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)

Year 2: $20500000 (Low: $15500000, High: $25500000)

Year 3: $21000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $26000000)

Year 5: $22000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $27000000)

Year 10: $24000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $29000000)

Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)

Key Considerations