Bill Overview
Title: Humanitarian Standards for Individuals in U.S. Customs and Border Protection Custody Act
Description: This bill imposes requirements and standards related to the care of aliens in U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody. CBP must conduct an initial health screening of each individual in custody to identify those with acute conditions and high-risk vulnerabilities and to provide appropriate healthcare. CBP must conduct the screening within 12 hours of each individual's arrival at a CBP facility, and within 6 hours for certain priority individuals such as children and individuals with disabilities. The bill imposes various requirements related to providing such screenings, such as providing interpreters, chaperones, and mental health treatment when necessary. CBP must ensure detainees have access to drinking water, toilets, sanitation facilities, hygiene products, food, and shelter. The bill imposes certain standards relating to such requirements, such as the minimum amount of drinking water for each detainee and the acceptable temperature range of the shelters. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must enter into memoranda of understanding with various government agencies to address instances when surge capacity is necessary. The DHS Office of the Inspector General must conduct unannounced inspections of ports of entry, border patrol stations, and detention facilities and report the results to Congress. The Government Accountability Office must assess CBP's management of such facilities, whether CBP and DHS processes are in compliance with this bill's requirements, and the behavior of CBP personnel in carrying out this bill. DHS shall publicly release on its website, on a quarterly basis, aggregate data on complaints of sexual abuse at CBP facilities.
Sponsors: Sen. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals in U.S. Customs and Border Protection custody
Estimated Size: 0
- The bill focuses on individuals who are in CBP custody, which would primarily include immigrants and asylum seekers entering the United States at the border.
- The bill specifically mentions 'aliens,' which under U.S. legal terminology typically refers to non-citizens who are present in the United States.
- CBP handles a significant number of individuals entering the U.S. at borders annually, especially at the southern border.
- This population includes adults, children, and individuals with specific needs (e.g., disabilities), suggesting a wide range of people are impacted.
Reasoning
- The policy directly affects individuals in CBP custody, who are primarily non-citizens, as it sets standards for their treatment. The wellbeing of these individuals is likely to see a direct impact due to improved conditions in custody.
- The policy's impact on U.S. citizens stems from ethical considerations and taxpayer involvement. Changes in border management can indirectly affect citizens.
- The fiscal budget indicates the policy aims to significantly improve the living conditions of 1.5 million individuals, a substantial number indicating moderate impact on the relevant population and low impact on the broader U.S. population.
- Different perspectives in the interviews capture both those unaffected in daily life and those ethically invested in immigration policies.
- The budget constraints are expected to cover initial health screenings, infrastructure improvements, and regulatory compliance but are limited in scope to direct CBP activities.
- The policy's focus on ethical and humane treatment aligns with public interest, suggesting general public support among those who are aware.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (Austin, Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe it's important to treat every person humanely, regardless of their status.
- This policy seems like a humane step forward for how we handle immigration at the border.
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 |
Border Patrol Agent (El Paso, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a Border Patrol agent, I'm concerned about how the new requirements will change my job.
- The policy sounds good, but it will need adequate resources to be truly effective.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Immigration Lawyer (San Diego, California)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is crucial for the safety and dignity of individuals in CBP custody.
- Proper implementation will require vigilance and possibly additional training for staff.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Teacher (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a taxpayer, I care about how our border policies reflect our national values.
- This policy aligns more with humane treatment, which is reassuring for my peace of mind.
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 |
CBP Facility Worker (McAllen, Texas)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think our facilities will need a complete overhaul to meet some of these standards.
- I'm hopeful that the policy will improve work conditions for us as well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
College Student (New York, New York)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad we're moving towards more humane treatment of detainees.
- Policies like this show that change is possible and necessary.
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 |
Social Worker (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 51 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step forward in ensuring basic rights for everyone, including non-citizens.
- It could greatly improve the stresses I see among those worried about relatives in custody.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Journalist (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's essential that we cover the impacts of this policy broadly and hold CBP accountable.
- Public awareness can improve its implementation and acceptance.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Advocate for Immigrants (Miami, Florida)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I welcome the measures for more humane treatment, which could relieve some threats the detained face.
- It's crucial that the policy is fully funded and properly enforced.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Truck Driver (Houston, Texas)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think about policies like this much, but they seem okay as long as they don't slow down border processes.
- I work near the border, so efficiency is key for my daily routine.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1200000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1500000000)
Year 2: $1100000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1400000000)
Year 3: $1050000000 (Low: $850000000, High: $1350000000)
Year 5: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 10: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1300000000)
Key Considerations
- Implementation of the health screenings and facility improvements will require coordination with medical and logistics partners.
- Risks related to human rights and litigation require serious consideration, as previous standards have led to lawsuits.
- Training and compliance monitoring for CBP and DHS personnel in new standards could be challenging.
- The policy requires significant investment in infrastructure and human resources, but has the potential to improve outcomes and efficiency in border management over time.