Bill Overview
Title: A bill to require the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to identify and conduct recurrent vetting of evacuees from Afghanistan found not to be properly vetted before entering the United States.
Description: This bill requires U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct recurrent and periodic screening and vetting of all evacuees from Afghanistan who were paroled into the United States under certain operations. The screening and vetting must include consulting all law enforcement and international terrorist screening databases.
Sponsors: Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: People evacuated from Afghanistan to the United States who were not properly vetted
Estimated Size: 123500
- The bill specifically targets evacuees from Afghanistan who were not properly vetted before entering the United States.
- These individuals were paroled into the United States under specific operations such as evacuation during or after the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.
- The focus is on those evacuees already in the U.S., not on potential future evacuees or those who may seek entry.
- Estimates of evacuees from official reports suggest the U.S. evacuated over 123,000 individuals during the fall of Kabul and shortly thereafter.
- Only a subset of these would require recurrent vetting under the new legislation.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a specific segment of the population: evacuees from Afghanistan who were not properly vetted during their entry into the United States under certain operations.
- Given the estimated cost and budget constraints, the policy will affect only a subset of the total number of evacuees: approximately 123,500 individuals were evacuated, but not all are in the U.S. or require additional vetting.
- The budget constraints imply that while the policy can provide considerable resources for screening, it needs to be efficient to cover the expected timeframe and number of people.
- The individuals impacted by the policy might have differing opinions based on personal experiences, concerns about privacy, and their mental wellbeing.
- In addition to evacuees themselves, other U.S. citizens may have opinions on this policy, particularly those in areas with significant populations of evacuated Afghan individuals.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (California)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need for security, but the recurrent screenings make me anxious.
- I have started to build a new life here and constant vetting feels disruptive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Translator (Virginia)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's important for safety, but I hope it doesn't create more hurdles for us.
- Should be balanced: safety with respect.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Student (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Recurrent checks are okay if they help keep communities safe.
- Hope it doesn't affect my studies here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Activist (New York)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the impact on mental health and community relations.
- Screenings might feel like an invasion of privacy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Small Business Owner (Florida)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Uncertain how the screenings will affect business and customer base.
- Mixed opinions from community members.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Policy Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the necessity for security screenings, but we must ensure they are done humanely.
- Policy implementation should protect without discriminating.
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 |
Teacher (Michigan)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Many students are worried about added screenings affecting their families.
- I hope it enhances security without adding stress to students' lives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Nurse (Illinois)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe in the need for safety, but I fear for the anxiety it might cause my community.
- The policy could help make us feel safer if done correctly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Construction Worker (New Jersey)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security is important, but I hope it doesn't remind us of harsh past experiences.
- Focus should also be on community building.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Librarian (Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the psychological toll on evacuees.
- Screening should be done in the least intrusive way possible.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $25000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $25000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $0, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- Operational challenges in vetting large populations efficiently and effectively.
- Potential international relations considerations in coordination with foreign databases and partners.
- Managing public perception and security confidence in the immigration process.
- Ensuring equity and transparency in the vetting process to protect against discrimination.