Bill Overview
Title: Enhancing DHS Drug Seizures Act
Description: This bill addresses various issues related to border security. For example, the bill authorizes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to waive reimbursement for the salaries of DHS employees providing training to foreign-vetted law enforcement or national security units under an agreement with the Department of Defense; authorizes U.S. Customs and Border Protection to provide air and marine support to foreign governments for certain operations, such as an operation to stop illegal drugs from entering the United States; and makes it a crime to destroy or significantly damage physical or electronic devices (e.g., fences or cameras) used by the federal government to control a U.S. international border with the intent to achieve certain goals relating to securing financial gain and breaking federal laws.
Sponsors: Rep. Flores, Mayra [R-TX-34]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by international and US border drug trafficking enforcement
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill focuses on enhancing the capabilities of DHS to combat illegal drug trafficking across the US borders.
- It involves international cooperation, suggesting that operations to stop drugs at foreign borders will impact foreign nationals working in law enforcement and security sectors.
- US citizens living in border areas may be affected due to changes in border security operations.
- Individuals or groups engaged in trafficking drugs into the United States will be directly impacted by increased enforcement and penalties.
- DHS employees and other related US federal agencies will experience operational changes.
Reasoning
- The policy mainly impacts specific groups including DHS employees, residents near borders, and individuals involved in drug trafficking.
- DHS employees may face operational changes and an increased workload due to enhanced training and coordination with international agencies.
- Residents near borders might experience heightened security measures, potentially affecting daily life and cross-border activities.
- The wellbeing of individuals involved in drug trafficking is likely to decrease due to tightening enforcement and new criminal penalties.
- Those not directly involved, like residents far from borders and unrelated industries, will likely see minimal to no impact.
Simulated Interviews
Border Patrol Agent (San Diego, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will increase our efficiency in drug seizures, but it means more workload and training obligations.
- I support the policy as it strengthens our border security.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Local Business Owner (Nogales, AZ)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about any disruptions to cross-border trade.
- Heightened security often leads to delays which hurt my business.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Student (Laredo, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased border control could complicate my travel and impact my schooling.
- I understand the need for security but hope it won't drastically affect my schedule.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Project Manager at DHS (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with our strategic goals to curb drug trafficking.
- Increased responsibilities may lead to stress, but it's crucial work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Truck Driver (El Paso, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Tighter security could delay my deliveries, affecting income.
- Safety is important but so is efficiency; hoping for smooth implementation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Law Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy may impact the legal landscape I hope to enter.
- Interested to see how it balances security with international law and human rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Community Organizer (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 35 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased enforcement often brings community tension.
- Hope the policy supports humane treatment around enforcement areas.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support any measures to secure our borders against drugs.
- Worried about potential misuse of increased enforcement powers.
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 |
Small Farm Owner (Brownsville, TX)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about labor shortages if border policies tighten.
- I hope the policy also considers the economy of border areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Drug Rehabilitation Counselor (McAllen, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could potentially reduce drug availability, helping my clients.
- Concerned about how enforcement actions might lead to community distress.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $62000000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $43680000, High: $64160000)
Year 5: $58291776 (Low: $47198217, High: $69385219)
Year 10: $67386996 (Low: $54500933, High: $80273059)
Year 100: $107846013 (Low: $87122657, High: $128937480)
Key Considerations
- Substantial upfront costs for expanding border operations and technology.
- Potential savings through reduced demand on federal systems impacted by drugs.
- Economic impacts from more secure borders potentially influencing trade.