Bill Overview
Title: Humanitarian Standards for Individuals in Customs and Border Protection Custody Act
Description: This bill imposes requirements and standards related to the care of aliens in U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody. CBP must conduct an initial health screening of each individual in custody to identify those with acute conditions and high-risk vulnerabilities and to provide appropriate healthcare. CBP must conduct the screening within 12 hours of each individual's arrival at a CBP facility, and within 6 hours for certain priority individuals such as children and individuals with disabilities. The bill imposes various requirements related to providing such screenings, such as providing interpreters, chaperones, and mental health treatment when necessary. CBP must ensure detainees have access to drinking water, toilets, sanitation facilities, hygiene products, food, and shelter. The bill imposes certain standards relating to such requirements, such as the minimum amount of drinking water for each detainee and the acceptable temperature range of the shelters. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must enter into memoranda of understanding with various government agencies to address instances when surge capacity is necessary. The DHS Office of the Inspector General must conduct unannounced inspections of ports of entry, border patrol stations, and detention facilities and report the results to Congress. The Government Accountability Office must assess CBP's management of such facilities, whether CBP and DHS processes are in compliance with this bill's requirements, and the behavior of CBP personnel in carrying out this bill. DHS shall publicly release on its website, on a quarterly basis, aggregate data on complaints of sexual abuse at CBP facilities.
Sponsors: Rep. Ruiz, Raul [D-CA-36]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals in U.S. Customs and Border Protection custody
Estimated Size: 0
- The bill aims to improve conditions for individuals in U.S. Customs and Border Protection custody, targeting non-U.S. citizens seeking entry or currently detained by the CBP.
- It establishes standards to ensure their health, safety, and well-being during custody through proper screenings and providing necessary resources such as food, water, and medical care.
- There is a significant number of individuals detained by CBP annually who will be affected by these changes, as the U.S. has substantial inflows of migrants and asylum seekers.
- In recent years, hundreds of thousands of people have been detained at the U.S. border each year, suggesting this is a large target population.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy is mainly individuals detained by the CBP, often migrants and asylum seekers who are not U.S. citizens. Thus, many of the general U.S. population may not be directly affected by the policy.
- However, U.S. citizens working within CBP or related organizations may experience changes in work conditions or policies.
- A focus on different demographic representations across the population will highlight indirect impacts or perspectives on the humanitarian and operational changes in border policies.
Simulated Interviews
Customs and Border Protection Officer (San Diego, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy will improve conditions for migrants which is necessary.
- The additional oversight and healthcare provision is a positive step, although it means more responsibility on us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Immigration Lawyer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could greatly improve the lives of my clients if implemented effectively.
- I'm hopeful about the provisions for mental health and translation services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Healthcare Provider (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving healthcare access at the border is essential.
- This policy might ease some of the pressure on local clinics who see released detainees in poor health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Houston, TX)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is long overdue; the conditions have been a humanitarian concern.
- I volunteer with families who have suffered, and these changes could prevent such suffering.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
School Teacher (El Paso, TX)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhancing the facilities and services at detention centers is necessary for moral and practical reasons.
- I teach many children who have been through these systems, and improving conditions early can ease their transitions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Human Rights Activist (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy partially addresses the critical issues we've been raising for years.
- It’s encouraging to see oversight mechanisms like inspections included.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
University Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The implementation of this bill will be crucial for its success.
- It sets a strong precedent for how we should humanely treat individuals at the border.
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 | 7 | 5 |
Local Shop Owner (Brownsville, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems good, but I’m worried it might not be enough if the numbers crossing rise again.
- Better conditions might lead to fewer local tensions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Government Auditor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 47 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The requirement for audits and data release improves transparency significantly.
- It’s critical that compliance is monitored effectively for success.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step forward but requires strict adherence to its guidelines.
- Ensuring funds are utilized properly will be crucial.
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 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $205000000 (Low: $155000000, High: $260000000)
Year 3: $210000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $265000000)
Year 5: $220000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $275000000)
Year 10: $240000000 (Low: $190000000, High: $300000000)
Year 100: $400000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $450000000)
Key Considerations
- The scale of the target population significantly affects operational and logistical planning for screening and care.
- Potential legal and human rights implications of not meeting the outlined standards could create liabilities.
- Interagency collaboration may become complex and requires careful planning and administration.
- The number of detainees can fluctuate based on broader immigration policy and enforcement actions, impacting cost projections.