Bill Overview
Title: Securing the Border for Public Health Act of 2022
Description: This bill authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to restrict migration and imports from foreign countries to prevent the introduction of illicit drugs into the United States. Current law authorizes HHS to restrict migration and imports from foreign countries to prevent the introduction of communicable diseases. Under this bill, HHS may also restrict migration and imports from a country if HHS determines that introduction of certain controlled substances (e.g., opiates, stimulants, or fentanyl-related substances) from that country poses a risk to public health. HHS must consult with the Department of Justice in making the determination.
Sponsors: Rep. Lesko, Debbie [R-AZ-8]
Target Audience
Population: People potentially migrating to the US from countries identified by HHS as drug sources
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill will affect migration and import regulations, which means migrants and individuals involved in cross-border trade may be impacted.
- HHS will have increased authority to restrict immigration if controlled substances from a region pose a threat, affecting potential migrants.
- Drug-producing countries or regions that have individuals intending to migrate to the US may see their populations directly impacted.
- It targets the prevention of drug introduction into the US, directly affecting drug traffickers and users who benefit from such illegal activities.
- The legislation indirectly affects broader populations by aiming to reduce drug availability and potential overdoses.
Reasoning
- This policy is primarily aimed at managing migration and import control to mitigate drug trafficking, specifically targeting illicit drugs. It may have significant implications on individuals involved in migration, trade, and consumption of drugs, as well as indirectly influencing local economies and communities in proximity to borders.
- Given the budgetary constraints, the policy must effectively prioritize regions with high drug influx risks and tailor migration restrictions to maximize impact while minimizing disruption to legal migration and trade flows.
- Considering the scale of potential drug issues and the targeted population, we are assuming a fraction of the population directly impacted by this policy is small relative to the entire US population, but significant among targeted residents and migrants connected to high-risk regions.
- We need to include individuals not directly targeted by the policy to assess overall changes in public perspective and understanding of wellbeing impacts.
- The explicit focus on drug control implies that individuals with issues such as addiction or those in recovery might experience more indirect benefits or consequences from this policy.
Simulated Interviews
Customs Officer (San Diego, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think any policy that can curb drug trafficking is beneficial.
- This policy might make my job slightly more complex with additional checks, but I support it if it leads to less drug entry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Logistics Manager (Dallas, TX)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My concern is that this may inadvertently delay import processes, even for legitimate goods.
- While reducing drug trafficking is important, supply chain efficiency might be impacted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Community Health Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any policy that helps reduce drug abuse has my support.
- I am hopeful that this will lead to a decrease in new cases of addiction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (El Paso, TX)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried that this might deter my customer base if migration is significantly restricted.
- Reduction in illegal drugs is good, but I need my business to survive.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Federal Agent (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhancing our ability to restrict drug influx is essential.
- This policy aligns with our goals to secure the nation's health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Immigration Lawyer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy may create additional challenges for my clients seeking asylum or migration due to perceived health risks.
- While drug prevention is important, we must ensure we do not unfairly restrict those in genuine need.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
University Student (New York, NY)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm interested in how this policy balances drug control and human rights.
- This could be a major topic for my thesis on international policies.
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 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy can reduce drug availability and make communities safer.
- My main worry is that it might be too limited in scope or mis-executed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Addiction Counselor (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While reducing drug entry is crucial, there should be a parallel focus on rehabilitation and treatment.
- Policies should not only aim to restrict but also enable access to help.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy can be a significant step if implemented effectively, balancing control with humanitarian concerns.
- Continual evaluation will be essential to adjust approaches based on outcomes.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 2: $41000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $51000000)
Year 3: $42000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $52000000)
Year 5: $44000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $54000000)
Year 10: $48000000 (Low: $38000000, High: $58000000)
Year 100: $64000000 (Low: $54000000, High: $74000000)
Key Considerations
- HHS will have expanded powers which requires monitoring its use to ensure efficient and balanced implementation.
- Potential international relations impact due to restricted trade and migration agreements.
- Litigation costs from stakeholders affected by increased restrictions might arise.
- Impacts on cross-border trade and local economies, especially around border areas, need consideration.