Bill Overview
Title: Short-Term Detention Standards Act
Description: This bill requires U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to make every effort to ensure that apprehended individuals are given access to appropriate temporary shelter, bathrooms and shower facilities, water, appropriate nutrition, hygiene, personal grooming items, and sanitation needs. Currently, CBP is only required to make every effort to provide food and water. The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office must carry out regular and unannounced inspections of CBP processes and share such information with Congress. CBP may not prevent Members of Congress or staff from accessing CBP facilities for oversight purposes, nor may CBP make temporary modifications to alter what a visiting Member of Congress may observe.
Sponsors: Rep. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI-8]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Estimated Size: 5000
- The bill involves U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its operations.
- Apprehended individuals by CBP are primarily migrants and individuals crossing the border illegally or seeking asylum.
- These individuals are usually found at the U.S. border, implying both U.S. and Mexican citizens could be detained, although primarily it impacts non-citizens.
- The bill improves conditions for those under CBP apprehension, thus directly affecting these individuals' welfare.
Reasoning
- The primary population affected by the policy consists of non-citizens apprehended by CBP. This includes migrants and asylum seekers crossing U.S. borders, who will experience improvements in temporary detention conditions.
- Due to the specific focus on individuals apprehended by CBP, U.S. citizens are less directly affected, except in rare cases where they might be detained.
- The budget allocated for the policy will primarily be used to enhance facilities and services within CBP detention centers to improve the living conditions of detainees.
- Understanding the potential impact of softer detention standards allows for a broader analysis of human rights implications and humanitarian concerns.
- While persons in traditional U.S. populations are not directly impacted, their perspectives can provide insight into the societal and political commentary surrounding the policy.
- Not all apprehended individuals will experience significant changes in wellbeing; some may already have good access to resources, while others may see tangible improvements.
- The overall wellbeing improvement depends on how effectively the facilities are improved and utilized within the defined budget constraints.
- Indigenous and border-adjacent communities may experience indirect impacts, such as changes in local economies or heightened political activity.
Simulated Interviews
Customs and Border Protection agent (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a CBP agent, my job revolves around ensuring the safety and wellbeing of detainees. This policy makes my job easier by providing clearer guidelines and resources.
- I believe the regular inspections will help maintain transparency and improve our processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Asylum seeker (Tijuana, Mexico)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am relieved to know that I'll have access to basic necessities during my detention. Things like showers and proper food make a big difference in how I feel.
- This policy gives me some hope for a more humane process while I await my asylum decision.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 3 |
Immigration rights activist (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in the right direction towards respecting basic human rights in detention centers.
- I'm concerned about the implementation and accountability, but regular inspections could help ensure compliance.
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 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Human rights lawyer (San Diego, CA)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Transparency and additional resources for detainees are crucial elements of this policy.
- Legal advocacy will be more effective when basic detainee welfare is addressed directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Congressional staffer (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation will allow for greater oversight and better effectiveness of the detention system.
- I expect visiting CBP facilities under these new rules will provide clearer insights for future legislative needs.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Migrant farm worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I was detained before and it was tough not having basic things. If they follow through, this policy will make it less horrible for others.
- I'm cautiously optimistic but concerned about how they will actually implement it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Public health researcher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy addresses essential health needs that are often unmet in detention facilities.
- Access to sanitation and nutrition could drastically improve detainee health outcomes.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Border community resident (El Paso, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving detention conditions is important for both detainees and community relations.
- There might be economic impacts if these changes necessitate local job growth to support policy implementation.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
University student studying social justice (Chicago, IL)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's vital that humane treatment becomes the norm for detainees.
- While this policy is a start, it’s just one piece of broader immigration reform needed.
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 |
Legislative policy advisor (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy represents a crucial balance between security and humane treatment.
- I'm optimistic about its potential but aware of the operational challenges ahead.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $750000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $900000000)
Year 2: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $700000000)
Year 3: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $700000000)
Year 5: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $700000000)
Year 10: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $600000000)
Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $500000000)
Key Considerations
- The deterrence of illegal immigration may reduce the number of apprehensions over time, which could influence future costs.
- The need for regular inspections increases the administrative and operational costs.
- The bill's intent to provide dignified and safe conditions could improve diplomatic relations and public perception.
- The long-term demographic trends and immigration policies may affect the number of individuals apprehended and detained.