Bill Overview
Title: BUILD IT Act
Description: This bill requires the federal government to transfer, upon request, materials associated with the construction of a barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border to the governments of the states along that border (i.e., Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas). The transferred materials must be used to construct a barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Sponsors: Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-2]
Target Audience
Population: Residents of U.S.-Mexico border states
Estimated Size: 34000000
- The legislation affects states with a border touching Mexico, specifically Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.
- The act involves transferring construction materials for building border barriers, indicating potential infrastructural and environmental changes.
- Effects may include changes in migration patterns, impacting local economies and social dynamics.
- Border security efforts may be bolstered, affecting immigration and law enforcement procedures.
- Residents in these states may experience changes in local ecosystems, traffic, and land use due to construction.
Reasoning
- The BUILD IT Act primarily affects residents of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas, who are in proximity to the U.S.-Mexico border. Our simulated population distribution focuses on people living directly on or near the border as they will experience the most direct impact from this policy.
- Considering the policy budget limitations and implementation timeline, we are primarily examining short-term impacts (1-5 years) and potential longer-term effects (10-20 years).
- The target population includes diverse socio-economic backgrounds, occupations, and interest groups to reflect different perspectives.
- While some residents might see infrastructural benefits or enhanced security, others may experience disruptions to their daily lives or have environmental concerns.
- The Cantril Wellbeing Score serves to quantify how these impacts would translate into perceived life quality over time.
Simulated Interviews
Rancher (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am worried that the construction will cut through parts of my land, limiting access to water sources for my livestock.
- On the other hand, I see potential benefits in terms of security for my property.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Environmental Scientist (Arizona)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The construction could negatively impact local wildlife migration patterns.
- I'm advocating for thorough environmental assessments before any work begins.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 8 |
Border Patrol Agent (New Mexico)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stronger barriers could help us manage illegal crossings more effectively.
- I'm supportive because it could mean a safer community and job stability for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Small Business Owner (California)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The barrier might discourage tourists from visiting, impacting local businesses.
- However, I do support anything that could make our area safer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Construction Worker (Texas)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The job could provide steady work for me and others in the area.
- I do have concerns about safety and environmental impacts, though.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired (New Mexico)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm mainly concerned about the noise and disruption the construction might bring.
- I don't perceive security issues, so the barrier seems unnecessary for my area.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
College Student (Arizona)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The barrier could be a blow to my local community's inclusivity efforts.
- I worry it sends a negative message to our neighbors and myself who are of Hispanic descent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 9 |
Software Engineer (California)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could increase the value of real estate near border towns with improved security.
- Personally, I think the money could be better spent on technology solutions.
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 |
School Teacher (Texas)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the possible increase in fear among our students and their families.
- Additional barriers might worsen the already challenging school environment for these kids.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Lawyer (New Mexico)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new policy could introduce more legal work due to increased regulations and potential disputes.
- However, fewer crossings might mean less business for clients involved in cross-border trade.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 2: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $200000)
Year 3: $50000 (Low: $25000, High: $100000)
Year 5: $10000 (Low: $5000, High: $20000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The policy's cost is primarily seen as offset by reductions in federal material storage liability and costs.
- State governments must effectively manage and utilize transferred resources to build any barriers.
- If not managed well, the transfer could lead to significant materials waste.
- Possible environmental concerns related to barrier construction may arise, necessitating state-level assessments.