Bill Overview
Title: Transnational Criminal Organization Illicit Spotter Prevention and Elimination Act
Description: This bill provides for criminal penalties for certain conduct that interferes with U.S. border control measures. Specifically, a person who knowingly transmits the location or activities of law enforcement with the intent to further a crime related to immigration, customs, or controlled substances may be imprisoned for a maximum of 10 years. A person who knowingly damages or destroys a device deployed to control the border or port of entry may be imprisoned for a maximum of 10 years. Additionally, the bill provides for enhanced punishment for carrying or using a firearm in connection with certain criminal immigration violations such as assisting a non-U.S. national ( alien under federal law) who is inadmissible due to a felony conviction.
Sponsors: Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved with transnational criminal organizations affecting U.S. border control
Estimated Size: 30000
- The bill primarily targets individuals involved with transnational criminal organizations who participate in illegal activities related to U.S. border control.
- This includes people who act as 'spotters', communicating the location or activities of U.S. law enforcement to assist in smuggling or other border-related crimes.
- Individuals who intentionally damage or destroy U.S. border control equipment are also targeted.
- People involved in smuggling or trafficking of controlled substances across the U.S. border will be affected.
- These activities are not limited to U.S. borders and might involve international actors, affecting individuals worldwide who are part of criminal networks.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a very specific group of individuals who are directly involved in activities related to transnational criminal organizations and border-related crime. This ensures the impact is significantly high on those individuals but may not affect the general population at large.
- Given the specificity of the policy, many people in the US will experience no direct impact. However, those involved in criminal activities related to border control may face significant legal risks.
- Considering the budget and the scale of law enforcement activity needed for effective implementation, the target group is relatively small, estimated at 30,000 individuals within the US.
Simulated Interviews
Law enforcement officer (Tucson, Arizona)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will aid us significantly in reducing illegal activities at the border.
- It will allow us to prosecute those who interfere with our operations more effectively.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Border patrol agent (El Paso, Texas)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The additional legal tools at our disposal will act as strong deterrents against illegal smuggling operations.
- It should help in reducing tampering with our surveillance equipment.
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 | 8 | 5 |
College student (San Diego, California)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems well-intentioned but might over-penalize minor infractions.
- I'm concerned about its impact on innocent bystanders who might unintentionally get involved.
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 |
Immigration attorney (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could lead to increased fear and mistrust among immigrant communities.
- We need to ensure it does not infringe on the rights of those not involved in criminal activities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Defense contractor employee (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill will increase demand for advanced surveillance technologies, which is great for our business.
- It's an opportunity to improve border security effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Local politician (Houston, Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law might cause unintended harm to communities who feel targeted by increased law enforcement activity.
- We must ensure clear lines of communication and protect civil liberties.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Community organizer (New Mexico)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We fear this policy will increase distrust between immigrant communities and law enforcement.
- Increased penalties could disproportionately affect marginalized communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Tech entrepreneur (Texas)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This presents an opportunity for us to expand our business by developing cutting-edge solutions for border control.
- We must ensure technology balances security needs and personal privacy.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired border patrol veteran (Nogales, Arizona)
Age: 64 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation is a positive step towards strengthening our border security.
- However, it could strain community relations if not implemented carefully.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Social worker (McAllen, Texas)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the broader impact on families residing in border areas.
- It's critical to address the root causes of immigration, not just increase penalties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $475000000 (Low: $375000000, High: $575000000)
Year 3: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)
Year 5: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)
Year 10: $350000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $450000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Focus is on transnational criminal organizations involved in cross-border illegal activities.
- Resources allocation for border control and legal enforcement may be significant due to enhancing penalties.
- Potential deterrence impact on illegal activities and use of firearms during offenses.
- Monitoring and assessing the long-term effectiveness of criminal deterrence will be critical.