Bill Overview
Title: BOSS Act
Description: This bill provides statutory authorization for the Operation Stonegarden program from FY2022 through FY2025. (Operation Stonegarden provides grants to enhance the border security capabilities of state, local, and tribal governments.)
Sponsors: Rep. Gonzales, Tony [R-TX-23]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals living near or working in US border areas
Estimated Size: 38000000
- The BOSS Act aims to provide statutory authorization for Operation Stonegarden, meaning it affects all the state, local, and tribal governments that participate in the program.
- Grants are given to enhance border security capabilities, hence people involved in implementing and benefiting from border security will be impacted.
- The bill is likely to impact individuals living in border communities due to changes in security measures.
- Law enforcement agencies and personnel are directly impacted as they will receive support to enhance their operations.
- Operation Stonegarden's effects go beyond the US as it involves cross-border implications, impacting neighboring country citizens regarding security.
Reasoning
- The population targeted by the policy includes individuals living or working near US border areas, especially those in border security and local law enforcement.
- The policy primarily impacts state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies along the border since they will receive grants to enhance border security capabilities.
- While the policy targets improvements in security, effects on general citizen wellbeing can vary and depend on perceptions of increased safety versus concerns over increased enforcement activities.
- Considering costs and overall reach, not everyone in border areas will see significant change, as enhancements might not be visible to all.
- Some individuals, especially those in tribal or rural areas, might see more direct effects if local enforcement capabilities are notably increased.
Simulated Interviews
Border Patrol Agent (El Paso, Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The enhanced capabilities from the grants are likely to provide us with better resources, which can improve patrol efficiency.
- Overall, I feel safer knowing that my team will have the support needed to handle tough situations.
- I'm optimistic that the enhancements will also help reduce illegal activities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Local Police Officer (Buffalo, New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The funding will improve our collaboration with border security, which is beneficial.
- I believe it will enable us to adequately respond to security demands in our area.
- I'm apprehensive about potential increased tension in our community, but hopeful the benefits outweigh the negatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
School Teacher (Yuma, Arizona)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Community safety is important, but I'm worried about the atmosphere of increased enforcement.
- School relations with local security can improve, but I'm cautious about effects on the students.
- I hope this means better security for our kids but am wary of increased patrol activity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Retired (San Diego, California)
Age: 57 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The changes likely mean more security presence, which may impact local tranquility.
- Older residents possibly divided in opinions; some emphasize safety while others less happy with disruptions.
- While I'm not heavily impacted, I prefer a more peaceful environment over increased patrols.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
NGO Worker (Tucson, Arizona)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The funding raises concerns over the treatment and perception of migrants in our area.
- Increased security could mean more challenges for the communities I work with.
- This may lead to more strict policies that negatively impact migrants' wellbeing.
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 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Brownsville, Texas)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased security may decrease cross-border commerce, affecting my business.
- While security is crucial, I hope it doesn't deter customers.
- I'll monitor the effects closely; any significant negative impact would force me to rethink business strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Tribal Community Leader (Nogales, Arizona)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our tribal lands have unique challenges with border security.
- I'm apprehensive about any potential infringements on tribal sovereignty.
- Though support for security is beneficial, it must respect tribal laws and plans.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Logistics Manager (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efficiency and ease of cross-border transport could be affected by strengthened security measures.
- Enhanced security might lead to more checks, impacting delivery schedules.
- Balancing security with operational efficiency is key for my line of work.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
College Student (Laredo, Texas)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expanded security initiatives might open new career opportunities post-graduation.
- However, I'm conflicted over the emphasis on heightened security given my academic interests in diplomacy.
- Student life may not change drastically but families involved in security could experience shifts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Fisherman (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased security can sometimes mean more regulation, which impacts my work.
- Fishing activities already encounter enough scrutiny; more security measures are a double-edged sword.
- I hope it won't interfere with fishing season transit and cross-border permits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $125000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $127500000 (Low: $102000000, High: $153000000)
Year 3: $130000000 (Low: $104000000, High: $156000000)
Year 5: $135000000 (Low: $108000000, High: $162000000)
Year 10: $145000000 (Low: $116000000, High: $174000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $240000000)
Key Considerations
- The statutory authorization provides predictability in funding but does not guarantee increases in funding level year-on-year.
- Changes in national security policy priorities could affect future funding or program continuity.
- Fiscal allocations must consider the potential need for increased administration or oversight costs associated with expanded operations.
- The impact of the policy should be measured alongside other security initiatives to gauge its effectiveness and efficiency in border security.