Bill Overview
Title: Combatting International Drug Trafficking and Human Smuggling Partnership Act of 2022
Description: This bill statutorily 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.
Sponsors: Rep. Guest, Michael [R-MS-3]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by international drug trafficking and human smuggling
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill focuses on combatting drug trafficking and human smuggling, which are global issues affecting millions of people.
- The primary populations affected are countries that are major sources of human trafficking and drug production or distribution.
- Citizens of the United States are directly impacted by policies aimed at reducing drug trafficking and human smuggling.
- Enhanced support to foreign governments by the U.S. could affect communities in those partner countries, especially those vulnerable to drug trafficking and smuggling operations.
Reasoning
- The target population size is large; thus, I will include a mix of individuals who are directly and indirectly affected by the policy. This includes people in impacted communities, law enforcement, healthcare professionals, and unaffected groups.
- Given the budget constraints, the initial impact may be limited, concentrating on areas with the most intense trafficking activity. Over time, the broader effects will ripple out.
- I will simulate a range of people using different professions, socioeconomic backgrounds, and geographic locations to understand diverse impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Border Patrol Officer (El Paso, TX)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the Act will strengthen our ability to combat illegal activities at the border.
- Better collaboration with foreign governments could mean fewer drugs on our streets.
- Still worried about the budget - it might not stretch far enough.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Public Health Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing the influx of illegal drugs could dramatically lower addiction rates.
- Policy seems promising but it's crucial to ensure consistent implementation.
- I hope resources are allocated sustainably over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Immigration Attorney (Miami, FL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could reduce human trafficking, leading to fewer clients in trauma.
- Hopeful that resources will enhance victim assistance programs.
- It might be hard to track the direct impact on trafficking based on this Act alone.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any policy reducing drug sales is good for business safety.
- Skeptical about long-term effects without community engagement.
- Improvement is primarily hoped in decreased crime and better neighborhood environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's important for future law enforcement strategies to include international collaboration.
- I'm optimistic this Act will provide case studies for future studies and responses.
- Funding effectiveness will depend on persistent corruption monitoring in partner nations.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired (Seattle, WA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't perceive much direct impact from this policy on my daily life.
- It's good to see efforts against drugs and smuggling, but skepticism remains about efficiency.
- Will there be measurable outcomes to justify long-term spending?
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 |
Social Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Favorable effects of this policy might slow down youth involvement in drug-related activities.
- There's a need for more community-focused interventions alongside this policy.
- Long-term impacts on household stability may vary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Farmer (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This Act seems a bit far removed from our rural concerns.
- Indirect impact might be positive if it reduces drug-related issues among local youth.
- Money might be better spent on community programs attacking root causes of addiction.
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 |
Police Officer (Houston, TX)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Partnerships could improve intelligence and operations.
- Success hinges on foreign cooperation and proper implementation.
- Impact on street-level crime may take years to materialize.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
College Student (San Diego, CA)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this are important globally but challenging to measure effectively at the local level.
- Intrigued by the economic impact of stopping drug flows into cities.
- Hope this leads to broader social reforms and education strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $153000000 (Low: $123000000, High: $183000000)
Year 3: $156000000 (Low: $126000000, High: $186000000)
Year 5: $162000000 (Low: $132000000, High: $192000000)
Year 10: $171000000 (Low: $141000000, High: $201000000)
Year 100: $230000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $260000000)
Key Considerations
- The dependency on effective partnerships with foreign governments and their willingness to cooperate.
- Potential fluctuations in costs based on geopolitical changes or increased threat levels in partner nations.
- Variability in savings and impacts due to unforeseen domestic or international crises affecting crime rates.