Bill Overview
Title: Securing America's Ports of Entry Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to increase the number of CBP officers to specified levels. If CBP does not adequately increase personnel, the Government Accountability Office must report on CBP hiring practices.
Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: People passing through U.S. ports of entry
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill directly involves U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which employs over 60,000 people, including CBP officers and support staff.
- CBP officers are stationed at various U.S. ports of entry, which include airports, seaports, and land border crossings across the country.
- Approximately 330 million people reside in the United States, and many of them may be impacted indirectly by increased CBP officers through enhanced security and potentially improved processing times at ports of entry.
- Current statistics show millions of people, including U.S. citizens and tourists, pass through U.S. ports of entry daily; they may experience changes in wait times and inspection processes due to new staffing levels.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers by potentially increasing their numbers and adjusting workloads. This can affect their job satisfaction, which is a component of Cantril wellbeing scores.
- People who frequently travel internationally or reside near ports of entry in border states may notice changes directly related to the policy. These include shorter wait times, more thorough checks, or better resource allocation at checkpoints, which could affect their overall travel experience.
- Residents in border areas or those involved in international trade might view the policy's impacts through varied lenses. Improved border security may enhance local safety perception but could add administrative overhead.
- A maximum budget of approximately $9 billion over ten years is significant but may not be sufficient to drastically change operational capacity given that CBP has over 60,000 employees and handles millions of entries annually.
- The policy's real impact on the general American populace will likely be low, except for those in specific roles or frequent international travelers.
Simulated Interviews
CBP Officer (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If we get more officers, that means less overtime for me and my colleagues, which is great. I've had to work extra shifts and it's exhausting.
- I'm supportive of the policy, as long as the hiring process is streamlined and efficient.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Local Business Owner (Tucson, Arizona)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With more officers, I hope for smoother logistics but I worry about potential increases in bureaucratic procedures.
- Border delays have been costly for my business in the past, this policy could help, but only if implemented correctly.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Teacher (El Paso, Texas)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My main concern is safety. More officers might mean better security, which is reassuring.
- I often travel to Mexico to visit family, so efficient border processing would be welcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Customs Officer (Buffalo, New York)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe increasing staffing is essential. During my service, we were often stretched thin.
- Reflecting on my career, more officers would have meant less pressure and safer operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate efficient travel. If this policy means shorter wait times at airports, that's beneficial to me.
- My international trips are often tight on time, so any improvement is significant.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (Miami, Florida)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't travel much these days, but I hope increased staffing can manage the local airport traffic better.
- My neighborhood feels congested with all the travel activity, so any positive change would be welcome.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Transport and Logistics Manager (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efficient cross-border operations are vital to my work. Better staffing should positively affect business operations.
- There have been delays in shipping; hopefully, this policy can counteract inefficiencies.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Border Patrol Officer (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The workload can be intense, so more manpower would directly benefit my job satisfaction and reduce personal stress.
- I support any initiative that could ease the pressure off current officers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
University Professor (San Diego, California)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased staffing could mean an interesting case study for my work on international relations.
- Personally, I appreciate any policy that enhances travel efficiency.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Nurse (Houston, Texas)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The prospect of improved border crossing times is appealing as I frequently travel for my volunteer work.
- Security and safety are always a priority, so I hope the policy positively impacts this.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $750000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 2: $800000000 (Low: $550000000, High: $1050000000)
Year 3: $850000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $1100000000)
Year 5: $900000000 (Low: $650000000, High: $1150000000)
Year 10: $1000000000 (Low: $750000000, High: $1250000000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's impact is heavily dependent on effective hiring and deployment of new personnel.
- There could be administrative challenges in scaling up operations at multiple ports of entry.
- Political considerations include public and legislative support for increased spending on border security.