Bill Overview
Title: Continuing Safe Essential Travel Across our Border Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from requiring any essential critical infrastructure worker to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to engage in essential travel between the United States and Mexico or between the United States and Canada.
Sponsors: Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]
Target Audience
Population: Essential critical infrastructure workers engaged in US-Canada and US-Mexico travel
Estimated Size: 3000000
- Essential critical infrastructure workers are those involved in industries and services that are crucial to the functioning of a country, such as energy, health care, transportation, food production, and others.
- The bill specifically targets workers who need to travel between the United States and its neighboring countries, Canada and Mexico, indicating the need for cross-border operations.
- Many industries like transport and logistics, agriculture, manufacturing, and others have multinational operations that require travel between these countries.
- Restrictions or requirements on these workers could have operational impacts on both national and individual economic levels due to the interconnected nature of these industries across borders.
- By prohibiting vaccine requirements for this specific group, the bill potentially impacts policies related to public health and safety concerns for cross-border travelers and those they interact with.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy includes essential critical infrastructure workers who need to travel between the US and its neighbors, Canada and Mexico. These workers may include roles in transportation, logistics, agriculture, manufacturing, and related sectors that require physical presence across borders.
- Costs are restricted by the budget of $5,000,000 in the first year and $45,500,000 over 10 years, which limits the scale and scope of the policy's implementation. This budgetary constraint necessitates focusing on high-impact areas or sectors.
- The policy impacts are varied because not all essential critical infrastructure workers might be opposed to vaccination -- some may support it, while others could experience significant relief or concern regarding the lifting of the mandate.
- The wellbeing response to this policy change could vary depending on individuals' views on vaccination, their roles in industries, and their personal health considerations.
Simulated Interviews
truck driver (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been worried about the idea of being forced to get the vaccine just to continue working; this law relieves that pressure.
- Cross-border travel is a key part of my job, and not having this restriction helps keep things simpler for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
agricultural scientist (California)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a scientist, I'm not against vaccinations, but I appreciate having the choice, especially when my work takes me to regions with varying COVID-19 policies and healthcare systems.
- This decision supports the freedom necessary for my cross-border work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
IT specialist (New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wasn't personally affected by vaccine mandates since I already chose vaccination, but I understand some of my colleagues might feel validated by this policy.
- The policy doesn't impact my travel much, but it has been a topic in company discussions.
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 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
nurse (Michigan)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see both sides; as a healthcare worker, I understand the importance of vaccines, but respecting personal choice is also vital.
- Whether crossing borders for work or not, these discussions reflect a broader debate in public health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
farm owner (Arizona)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Keeping my workers flexible regarding vaccination is vital; it's about respecting their needs and ensuring operations run smoothly.
- Vaccine restrictions could hinder operations, so I support this law.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
logistics coordinator (California)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our job requires constant adaptation to border and transport regulations.
- This policy lifts one more hurdle, but vaccine status was never a huge worry for me personally.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
manufacturing executive (Illinois)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In manufacturing, time and efficiency are critical, and reducing bureaucratic barriers is beneficial.
- There are still broader health implications of the policy that concern me, but from an operational view, it's positive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Bioscience researcher (Washington)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't directly impact my research or travel.
- I'm already vaccinated and so are my colleagues; the policy is not a major influence for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
fisheries manager (Maine)
Age: 48 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cross-border policies dictate a lot of what we do; vaccine mandates weren't a big issue for our crews, though.
- Many of our interactions are by regulation rather than personal health decisions, so the policy is insightful.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
supply chain analyst (Ohio)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Streamlining and reducing restrictions are always a plus from a supply chain perspective.
- This policy adds a layer of flexibility, but the broader economic impacts are what I consider most for wellbeing.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 2: $4800000 (Low: $2800000, High: $7800000)
Year 3: $4700000 (Low: $2700000, High: $7700000)
Year 5: $4500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $7500000)
Year 10: $4300000 (Low: $2300000, High: $7300000)
Year 100: $4000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy shift could lead to increased cross-border travel for business purposes, benefiting interconnected industries.
- Possible public health concerns if the lack of vaccine requirements leads to increased transmission rates.
- Potential regulatory and operational changes required by Homeland Security to manage the policy effectively.
- Communication with Canadian and Mexican governments to align or address differing entry requirements.