BORDER SECURITY AND THE ROLE OF

Transcription

1 BORDER SECURITY AND THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES BORDER PATROL By Zach Fields INTRODUCTION In the early morning hours of December 11 th, 2006, a team of 6,500 Mexican federal law enforcement officials moved in on the state of Michohacán when President Felipe Calderón declared war on organized drug crime across the nation. Before Mexico s war on drugs, large cartels had operated rather freely near the U.S. Mexico border for decades, gaining turf and exercising claims for legitimate control of drug business in certain regions. However, starting in late 2006 when the Mexican government targeted many highlevel leaders in large cartels, the drug trade splintered into dozens of smaller organizations which have since constantly competed for control over profitable regions of drug control along the border. As a result, some 86,000 people have been killed in the last seven years of the drug war in Mexico, and an estimated 1.6 million have been displaced. Most of this violence has been centered near the Mexican border with the United States in communities like Juárez, just across the border from El Paso, Texas. From 2008 until 2010, Juárez was the murder capital of the world and some days saw the slaughter of twenty or more individuals, many of whom were often unrelated to the drug trade in any regard. Meanwhile, year after year, El Paso made the list of the safest cities in the United States with populations over 500,000 topping the list for three straight years from 2010 until With soaring violence in Mexico occurring just under a mile away from the downtown city center of El Paso, the United States 19 th largest city, it may come as little surprise that the struggle for safety at home led many Mexican citizens to flee for refuge in the safe-haven of America. People left Juárez with the hope that their families might enjoy the safety and political freedoms that they would have had all along if they had been born a few thousand feet to the North. At the center of this difficult and often very emotional debate is the policy of the United States government surrounding border security enforcement. The many possible angles of the debate complicate the issues for government bureaucrats and elected officials on a daily basis. As an example of the highly emotional nature of the topic, this briefing easily could have begun with the story of past al Qaeda movements along the U.S. Canadian border, something often cited by proponents of tighter border security controls. In either case, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which includes the United States Border Patrol (USBP), and operates under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security, makes up the largest group of federal law enforcement officials of any agency in the United States. There are currently over 21,000 border patrol agents spread out over the U.S. border, most of whom 1

2 work along the 1,954 mile border with Mexico. As members of the National Security Council, it your job to consider the role of the United States when it comes to border security enforcement and how we can better tow the line of reasonable security precautions in the wake of major immigration reform at home. Stepping outside of the typical immigration debate focusing on a path to citizenship, this briefing will consider, among other things, the U.S. s role in preventing drug and human trafficking, the construction of the border fence, monitoring individuals suspected of terrorist activity along the border, and failed preventative action against drug traffickers such as Operation Fast and Furious. Remember throughout this discussion, and the many discussions on the topic to follow, that the issue is one that is quite complex, but one which requires constant vigilance from a security standpoint if the NSC overlooks the smallest aspects of border security, it could have devastating consequences for the safety of the American public. That being said, a last notable quote to consider before delving deeper is one from Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas who argued that the border becomes more and more dangerous in one s consideration the further you are from it. EXPLANATION OF THE PROBLEM Historical Background Originally centered in El Paso, Texas, and home to many major border security efforts today, the United States Border Patrol draws its storied past to 1904 with the institution of the mounted guard, so named because it operated exclusively on horseback. Despite their proximity to Mexico, the mounted guard also extended their reach West to California and prevented the spread of Chinese immigrants. In 1915, the United States Congress established a separate group of border officials known as mounted inspectors with jurisdiction extending beyond that of their predecessors. Yet, these early groups had limited roles and were relatively small organizations with only subsidiary federal funding. Indeed, for the vast majority of our nation s history, the federal government had no specifically designated law enforcement agency to deal with securing the border and capturing those who crossed illegally. It was not until May 28 th, 1924 that the Border Patrol was formally established. Early on, the Border Patrol operated out of two central offices along the Canadian border in Detroit, Michigan and along the Mexican border in El Paso, Texas. Though more recent efforts have been largely directed at enforcement along the latter border, in the 1920s and 30s the bulk of funding and enforcement was focused on the former, mostly to prevent the spread of Canadianproduced alcohol during Prohibition. Today, though the U.S. border with Canada is more than twice as expansive as its border with Mexico, the ratio of Border Patrol agents stationed along the Southern border with that of the North is slightly more than nine to one. Under the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, federal efforts for immigration and border security were extended with the creation of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). While the INS introduced new potential to the law enforcement efforts of securing the border, it did not come without its fair share of controversies. In May of 1954, for instance, the INS Director Joseph Swing began the initiative known as Operation Wetback, influenced largely by the Mexican Government s frustration with illegal crossings by workers into the United States due, in part, to the efforts of the Bracero Program. Before the operation s initiation, American media outlets had also been reporting increased crime rates and health problems in areas with alleged increases in illegal immigration. The 2 BORDER SECURITY

3 operation was alleged to have violated the civil rights of Mexican immigrants who were detained and deported. While historians disagree on the exact number of immigrants who were deported or voluntarily left the United States as a result of Operation Wetback because media reports were often exaggerated to indicate higher numbers of detentions, current estimates suggest that approximately 1.3 million undocumented immigrants were deported. The operation was mainly centered in the farmland of California, Arizona, and Texas, but extended its reach as far as Kansas City and Chicago. The program was groundbreaking for border security efforts for two very significant reasons: First, it was the first major effort by law enforcement officials to not only prevent illegal crossings at the border, but to go after undocumented immigrants already working inside of the United States a change which would greatly influence the direction of modern border security efforts. Second, though media reports were often unreliable, the local and national attention given to the efforts of the INS and the Border Patrol with Operation Wetback plastered deportations and illegal immigrant arrests across the front pages of newspapers all across the country. Put simply, the program unethical and abusive though it may have been changed the public perception of the importance of border security and bolstered Congressional and public support for Border Patrol efforts to a large degree. With the more liberal policy years of the early 1960s, however, during which both chambers of Congress enjoyed Democratic supermajorities, political action related to immigration shifted quickly from the policies of the past. With the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Congress struck down the restrictions placed on many immigrants under the old Emergency Quota Act. Under existing law to that point, immigration quotas blatantly favored immigrants from Northern and Western Europe, and unfairly impacted immigrants from Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Southern and Eastern European nations. It was a total transformation of American Immigration policy, one that replaced a system of quotas with a preference system that took an immigrant s skills and family ties to the United States into account. While immigration policy of the period was changing, however, border security efforts remained steadfast with ever increasing funding and personnel in the Border Patrol and INS. In 1980, the Immigration and Nationality Act was specified further when President Jimmy Carter signed the Refugee Act. With the Act, immigration quotas were amended to include a more specific definition of refugees given the changing geopolitical implications of Cold War era efforts to offer freedom and protection to those suffering under oppressive regimes and inhospitable conditions. Before 1980, an American definition of refugees was largely limited to those fleeing from communist regimes, but Senator Edward Kennedy, the author of the legislation, argued that broad steps needed to be taken to show a moral vision to the rest of the world by setting up a more consistent system by which people who were suffering could be granted asylum on the shores of the United States. Eventually, in a display of the changing federal mentality of issues along the border toward one of amplified law enforcement, the INS was transitioned to fall under the umbrella of the U.S. Department of Justice rather than the Department of Labor. Increasingly, the government of the United States became interested in heavy federal investment in both the prevention of more undocumented crossings and the detention and deportation of illegal aliens already residing in the U.S. Setting the stage for the modern debate on immigration and border security policy, Congress passed the Immigration Control and BORDER SECURITY 3

4 Reform Act in Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 During his reelection campaign in 1984, President Ronald Reagan advocated for total immigration policy overhaul. As a result of his efforts and careful politicking in the Republican-controlled Senate and Democratcontrolled House, the Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1986 (IRCA) enacted a number of important changes to existing policy. On the one hand, the legislation provided amnesty on a large scale by legalizing immigrants who entered the United States before January 1 st, 1982 and agreed to pay back taxes, a penalty fine, and admit their guilt. This process granted just over 3 million immigrants legal status. On the other hand, IRCA also gave law enforcement officials further power to find undocumented workers by requiring employers to attest to their workers immigration status with annual I-9 forms and made it illegal to hire undocumented workers. Until that point, many farmers and ranchers near the border had been able to hire undocumented workers at horrendously low wages without fear of legal retaliation as their workers couldn t go to anyone to complain about poor working conditions and low pay due to their residency status. The existing laws at the time actually prohibited harboring undocumented immigrants but didn t impose any penalties on those who employed them with twisted logic, existing law, for example, would cause a man who harbored his undocumented brother to face serious criminal charges whereas there would be no penalty for an employer who hired thousands of undocumented workers. With IRCA in 1986 and thereafter, individual employers were far less likely to hire undocumented workers for fear of the legal penalties of doing so if discovered. Further bolstering law enforcement officials role in detaining and deporting undocumented immigrants, IRCA also allowed officers to question non-nationals who were suspicious to determine whether they had identification and whether that identification was forged. Proposition 187 in California took these issues from IRCA a step further, as people were questioned regularly about their residency status without much cause for the interview. These portions of IRCA and Proposition 187 drew widespread criticism for what many believed to be federal violations of civil liberties for Mexican Americans who were suspected for being undocumented simply because of their ethnic ties to our neighboring nation to the South. Operation Hold the Line In 1993, El Paso Border Patrol Sector Chief Silvestre Reyes altered existing USBP law enforcement operations with the institution of Operation Hold the Line. With the program, border patrol resources would be largely redirected back to preventing undocumented immigrants from crossing the border at the front lines, drawing away from the trend of rounding up undocumented persons already living in the country started by the INS policies of past decades. Under the Operation, border patrol agents were deployed to rural areas along the U.S.-Mexico border within eyesight of each other where they would be able to quickly identify and apprehend those involved in illegal crossings. As goes the common saying, the best defense is a good offense, so the Operation was meant to prevent the need for apprehending undocumented workers residing in the United States by ending the guessing with border patrol officers watching the crossing itself. The program was widely considered a major success and quickly decreased illegal crossings near El Paso, Texas. Praised by President Clinton for his efforts as the Border Patrol 4 BORDER SECURITY

5 Sector Chief, Silvestre Reyes retired from the USBP and was overwhelmingly elected in 1996 to represent the 16 th District of Texas, home to El Paso, as a Democratic Member of the House of the Representatives where he served until While the Operation unquestionably reduced crossings near El Paso, however, it has come under criticism for only pushing the dilemma of undocumented crossings to new places along the border in, for example, rural New Mexico and Arizona. Following the Reyes model, the San Diego Border Patrol sector implemented Operation Gatekeeper soon after Hold the Line proved to be working on a large scale. Congressional action resulted in an increase of boots on the ground to be deployed directly to the border. Further, the San Diego sector began to use surplus military landing pads as a makeshift border fence with Mexico for the 13 mile area from the coast to the mountains. Once again, the program proved to be successful at deterring crossings near the Operation s center, but apprehensions in parts of Eastern California and Arizona increased as immigrants looked to new rural territory that was less monitored by the USBP. Tucson s Sector Chief initiated a similar program to Hold the Line in an effort to curb the increase in undocumented crossings in Arizona known as Operation Safeguard. In short, the 1990s were a time of policy return to the law enforcement efforts of the past along the border Border Patrol sectors across the Southwest returned to the concept of simply deploying officers to the front line to physically prevent undocumented crossings. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 With the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Congress specified a number of crimes which would mandate the detention of a person residing in the country without documentation. Up until the passage of this legislation, law enforcement officials had been given wide discretion when it came to detaining and removing persons suspected of illegal immigration, but with the Act, Congress specified circumstances under which a person would be detained and removal proceedings would begin. Further, the Act specified the amount of time a person who was removed from the U.S. would have to reside in their home country before visa or pardoning processes could begin. While the Act faced a number of Constitutional challenges over the past two decades, the Supreme Court has largely upheld the legislation as constitutional but has slightly altered law enforcement agencies ability to detain someone for a long period of time without removing the person from the country. In sum, the Act specified existing laws and bolstered law enforcement powers of detention and removal. Border Security Post 9/11, the End of the INS, and the Birth of ICE September 11 th, 2001, dramatically changed national security policy. No longer was securing the border simply a matter of preventing undocumented workers from getting into the country and becoming incorporated into society without the legal processes; suddenly, it was a matter of preventing potential terror cells from infiltrating our shores. Overnight, the borders were completely frozen and new operations were designed to better protect the public and screen individuals who were entering the country via a number of channels. Given the changing nature of the role that border security would play and the law enforcement agencies that would address it, the INS was disbanded and the Department of Homeland Security created the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) to handle, like the USBP, on border-related law enforcement issues. BORDER SECURITY 5

6 Whereas in the past, the INS and USBP would split their attention between interior enforcement (apprehending those who had already entered the country illegally) and enforcement at the actual border, the new split agencies were given more stable roles. Specifically, ICE deals with interior enforcement and the detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants while CBP primarily works at border checks and ports of entry to prevent individuals from entering the country in an unauthorized manner. The USBP, of course, maintains a wide jurisdiction when it comes to border security enforcement and interior investigation into undocumented immigrants. As mentioned, each of the three agencies now falls under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security, created after 9/11 to act as the executive enforcer of domestic security policy from acts of terror. Reflecting the larger changes evident in the Border Patrol after the terrorist attacks of September 11 th, in November of 2005, the USBP crafted a mission strategy with the objective to apprehend terrorists and terrorist weapons illegally entering the United States topping the list above the more traditional mission to deter illegal entries through improved enforcement. Curbing Cartel Violence and Operation Fast and Furious Related to the newfound difficulties of border security associated with potential national security threats from terrorism is the threat of Mexican cartel violence along the border. As mentioned at the beginning of this briefing, with the Mexican Government s efforts to dismantle several of the largest cartels in the nation, rampant violence overtook the largest border towns as smaller cartel organizations vied for influence and control of ports of entry. On the one side, cartels supplied narcotics to a massive consumer base in the United States; on the other, American guns were purchased and illegally channeled to Mexico via cartel-paid straw buyers. Given the huge role that cartel violence began to play along the border from , the federal government approved a series of state and local law enforcement operations designed to locate high-level cartel ammunitions dealers by gunwalking, with (in an ideal situation) the chance to gain enough evidence for an eventual indictment. Gunwalking was originally a concept which involved guns purchased by the Arizona Field Office of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Under the concept, law enforcement agencies would provide weapons and ammunition to gun dealers in the United States who agreed to participate in the operation and when cartel straw buyers purchased the weapons, the agency would slowly track their movements to gain intelligence and evidence about the whereabouts of major gun trading amongst those involved in the cartel trade. When enough evidence was available, the U.S. Attorney would prosecute the offending gun dealers in the case and the guns would be recovered. Past efforts of the strategy had mixed results with, for instance, Operation Wide Receiver, which led to several indictments and arrests of straw dealers but also resulted in a number of firearms being lost when they walked. Regardless, given the major criticisms of agencies like ATF in the past of only targeting low-level gun deals, a meeting of Congressional and law enforcement officials from the Southwest on October 26 th, 2009 at the Department of Justice resulted in a call for law enforcement officials to target high-level gun dealers to Mexican cartels. Largely as a result of that meeting, Operation Fast and Furious was set up with the Arizona Field Office of ATF with 2,000 firearms to be traced to high-level dealers beginning on October 31, 2009, just several days after the meeting at the Department of Justice. The operation was 6 BORDER SECURITY

7 directed by Bill Newell, the special agent in charge of the Phoenix field division. Immediately, straw purchasers began to amass large amounts of firearms, and the largest buyer would end up buying nearly 600 weapons from dealers participating in the Operation throughout the area. Named after the popular film franchise, the Operation eventually earned its household name of Fast and Furious because many of the purchasers worked out of an auto repair shop and street raced frequently. Early in the operation, however, things began to deviate from the plan. Rather than immediately apprehending individuals evidence had been collected, ATF waited for the guns to walk higher up the chain of the sale, trying to get as close to high-level cartel members as possible before the arrests were made. Unfortunately, because many of the firearms were being tracked for so long in so many different locations, only just over 700 have been recovered. Further, of the 2,000 firearms used in the operation, 179 have been found at crime scenes in Mexico and 130 in the United States. To put it mildly, the operation resulted in the loss of firearms and amounted to U.S. taxpayer dollars funding weapons and ammunition that ended up in the hands of criminals linked to Mexican drug cartels, both here in the United States and across the border. In perhaps the most tragic of cases, on December 14 th, 2010, USBP agent Brian Terry was patrolling a mountainous area with fellow agents when they encountered suspected undocumented immigrants. After firing off beanbag guns, the immigrants responded with gunfire and killed Agent Terry on site. The men were arrested and the guns apprehended, and within two hours of the arrest and Terry s death, they had been traced back to one of the Phoenix stores used in Operation Fast and Furious. The Operation has subsequently been the topic of heated debate in Washington, as many ATF agents involved have since made statements suggesting that many in the law enforcement community voiced serious concerns with the operation from the beginning, warning that it could have devastating consequences if the guns were not more closely followed. After Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Committee Oversight and Government Reform, requested additional documents related to the Operation from Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama claimed executive privilege for the first time in his administration. On a vote along party lines thereafter, Eric Holder was censured by the U.S. House of Representatives for what Republicans argued was a failure to assist in the investigation related to Operation Fast and Furious. Recent Developments Apart from the misgivings of the ATF Gunwalking scandal that has overtaken Operation Fast and Furious, security enforcement along the border has grown into the 21 st century very quickly. Today the USBP has over 21,000 agents and is quickly transforming itself to be better prepared for the security issues of the future. With several unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) colloquially known as drones, which monitor the borders from above around the clock, and former military sonar-type technology which can identify tunnels dug beneath the border, it is no wonder that the USBP has become the focus of so much public attention. But even as the USBP turns to using new technology to monitor the border and move along the 2,000 mile expanse with Mexico, some features of the past have stuck; back in style for the border patrol is the use of mounted patrolmen who are more easily able to get through some of the rough mountainous terrain of the Southwest on horseback. Needless to say, you can think of just about any form of surveillance or transportation, and the USBP is BORDER SECURITY 7

8 probably employing it for the border security problems of today and those of the future. Perhaps the largest public expenditure related to border security over the last decade, however, came with the passage of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 on September 29 th, With the Act, Congress granted funding for a border fence (actually a set of fences) to be constructed along 700 miles of the U.S. Mexico border, amounting to roughly 1/3 of the total length of the border. The fence was focused on areas known to attract high numbers of illegal crossings, with particular attention paid to urban areas where border crossings were common in the past. Construction of the barrier continues today, even as it has been the subject of political and social ridicule as several practical issues have arisen with the location of the fence, creating what many have termed no man s land in the U.S. south of the fence. Further, the fence has recently served as a powerful and emotionevoking visual to those fighting for new immigration laws this year. Congressional Action By this point, you have probably seen the media blitz that has been associated with the new immigration legislation that passed in the U.S. Senate as this briefing was going to print. Hashed out by the Gang of Eight which includes four Democratic Senators (Sens. Bennet of Colorado, Schumer of New York, Menendez of New Jersey, and Durbin of Illinois) and four Republican Senators (Sens. Flake and McCain of Arizona, Graham of South Carolina, and Rubio of Florida). The legislation, termed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, has turned heads around the country for being a comprehensive and controversial bill, which is certainly anything but apathetic in its approach to the plethora of immigration-related issues in the United States today. The legislation, in short, would change existing immigration law to adopt a meritbased point system for applicants seeking legal residency, strengthen border security efforts, remove per country green card quota limits, create an INVEST visa which would allow foreign entrepreneurs to remain in the U.S., the allotment of 25,000 new visas and green cards for STEM students, the creation of a W visa for temporary workers, and (perhaps most controversially) offers a path to citizenship for those persons which crossed into the country illegally without documentation before December 31 st, Those residing in the U.S. without documentation would have to go through a process by which they pay a penalty fee, pay back taxes, go through a background check to insure that they have no disqualifying criminal record and would then be able to gain their citizenship if the USBP and CBP are able to meet a number of security goals along the border, including stopping 90% or more of all illegal crossings. To assist in this considerable effort (as 90% apprehension is significantly higher than current or past levels recorded by the USBP), the legislation also provides extensive financial support to the USBP, CBP, and ICE even proposing to expand the Border Patrol to 40,000 agents over time, twice the current levels. Lastly, the legislation also provides for an E-Verify system that would prevent those without legal status from working in the United States as employers would check their employees on an online system of legal residential workers. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the legislation would reduce the federal fiscal deficit by $700 billion by 2033, and the Social Security Administration noted that the legislation would increase revenue by $276 billion while costing only $33 billion over the next ten years. The legislation as amended, S.B. 744, easily passed in the Senate by a vote of but shows little hope at this point of passing in the House of Representatives, 8 BORDER SECURITY

9 assuming that Speaker John Boehner decides to bring the bill to a vote in the first place. The high-stakes nature of the legislation has pitted several lawmakers respective political futures against each other, perhaps most notably Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a popular conservative amongst the Tea Party movement. Should the Republicans in the House reject the legislation, some argue they may well be doing a great deal of damage to future potential presidential candidates in 2016 who have advocated for some sort of immigration reform of this nature, such as Senator Rubio and Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Seemingly every major political figure of our generation is stepping into the fray on this fight, with heavyweights such as Bill Clinton suggesting that passage of the legislation remains somewhat possible. FOCUS OF THE DEBATE Conservative View Perhaps needless to say, the conservative view on the topic of border security tends to be rather hard-lined, as with most issues that touch upon national security. While many Republicans have recently argued for a path to citizenship (notably the aforementioned Senator Rubio and Former Governor Jeb Bush), most continue to hold that there can be no policy of amnesty for people who entered into the U.S. without legal documentation. From a border control perspective, however, nearly every Republican agrees that additional steps must be taken to secure the border and that further resources should be given to the USBP, CBP, and ICE so that the apprehension, detention, and deportation rate for illegal immigrants can be increased to levels nearer 100%. As with any policy, there are obviously exceptions to the broad conservative view that the majority holds, as many hard-line conservatives such as Texas Governor Rick Perry also opposed the construction of the border wall or fence. In the GOP Presidential primaries of 2012, immigration was a topic of heated debate, with seemingly every candidate trying to move to the right of their opponents to appease a conservative Republican base. The aforementioned Governor Perry came under fire, notably, for a program which he began in Texas which provided state funding for tuition for the children of undocumented immigrants across the state essentially a mini DREAM Act of sorts. The interest group perspectives are many, but most commentators aligned with the conservative platform for the U.S. have argued extensively against the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 suggesting that it doesn t deal with the real issues of illegal immigration and perhaps is somewhat counterproductive for law enforcement agencies as it provies new funding while simultaneously granting citizenship to many of those who the agencies are seeking in the first place. Conservative lawmakers who have cried foul about the legislation include Senator Ted Cruz and radio commentator Rush Limbaugh. Notable conservatives in the media who have endorsed the recent legislation proposals include Fox News commentator Bill O Reilly. In short, the conservative view on border security remains one of a tough stance for more enforcement, but the conservative view on other issues related to immigration is less consistent across the board. Many suggest that this may be the result of the Election of 2012, as the Hispanic vote was largely Democratic in races across the nation. Liberal View Though the liberal view on immigration is also one that is not wholly consistent across the nation, it certainly more unified than the BORDER SECURITY 9

10 current changing conservative perspective. Liberals in America want major immigration reform that includes some sort of a path to legalization or a path to citizenship and they want to know that those who have set down roots in our society will have the potential to become legal residents via a system or process that they can go through for coming to the U.S. without documentation in the first place. Several years ago, liberals in the U.S. were very supportive of the DREAM Act and argued that as a nation we must provide higher education opportunity to the children of illegal immigrants, as they often didn t make the decision to cross into the U.S. without documentation themselves. Overwhelmingly, Democrats in Congress support the legislation recently passed in the Senate and are calling for Speaker Boehner to bring it to a vote on the House floor. The liberal view on border security is somewhat more divided, however, than the consistent hard-line stance that conservatives have taken. It is true that many liberals in Congress favor tougher border security enforcement measures and want to ensure that individuals cannot cross into our country illegally (though mainly from a national security standpoint, rather than one which considers the impact that nonviolent immigrants would have on our society). Former Representative Silvestre Reyes (D-16, TX), a former El Paso Border Patrol Sector Chief under President Clinton, is a prime example of a loud liberal voice who has long argued for additional border security enforcement funding. During his 16-year tenure in Congress, Congressman Reyes was the only former USBP agent serving in the House of Representatives and often argued for border security issues. His perspective is one that is shared by many of his liberal colleagues he believes that a path to citizenship is a practical and necessary step for those residing in the U.S. without documentation, but he also believes that smarter 21 st century technology is necessary for the USBP to continue to secure the border. Liberals were largely against the construction of the border fence arguing that it was an archaic, and even iron curtain-esque symbol that served more as a visual message to be sent to Mexico and to conservative voters in the Northern U.S. than it was a pragmatic solution to security issues being faced along the border. The liberal view is one that is ever-evolving, but at this point it seems to hold true to many of the larger ideas expressed in the legislation passed in the Senate this summer. On the more extreme left, of course, there are those who advocate for an openborder policy, but that remains an outlier opinion to the majority of liberal thinkers, commentators, and lawmakers. Presidential View President Obama s view is one that has proven quite consistent with the liberal majority. He has long advocated for sensible comprehensive immigration reform that includes some sort of a path to legalization or citizenship while also addressing new security issues along the border for the modern era. When the President argues for reform like the legislation recently passed in the Senate, he often does so from a perspective of economic benefits for the United States; he regularly mentions small business owners who are recent immigrants, noting the potential economic gains for our society with the additional jobs and more prosperity that he believes come along with sensible immigration reform. He was a supporter of the DREAM Act and advocates for the extension of additional visas and green cards to students who have gone through American universities or have experience in STEM fields of work. Of course, as Commander in Chief, President Obama has also often argued for enforcing our borders with additional security potential and the reasonable expansion of law 10 BORDER SECURITY

11 enforcement agencies where necessary. As he has argued with many facets of national security, he believes that the USBP, ICE, and CBP should modernize with technology for the 21 st century. Insofar as this is the case, and he argues for more boots on the ground, he actually advocates for border security policy that is not unlike his predecessor. Many liberals in the media have criticized the President for his extensive enforcement of deportation law as he has deported far more undocumented immigrants during his tenure in office than did George W. Bush. Interest Group Perspectives Center for American Progress Perhaps unsurprisingly, the CAP opinion on immigration largely fits with the liberal viewpoint outlined above. The Center strongly supports the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, arguing that it will provide an economic boost for the United States and that the contributions of immigrants will more than pay for any costs of the legislation in the first place. The Center for American Progress points to the rising tide of public support for comprehensive reform, the election results of November 2012, and the most secure border we have had in a decade as reasons to act on immigration and border security reform today. While the Center doesn t advocate for the expansion of border security and law enforcement agencies to a large degree because it points to significant evidence that the border is already more secure than it has been in some time, it supports the efforts aimed at increasing law enforcement potential in the Act of 2013 because it recognizes the political necessity to couple immigration reform with further promises about increases to security options and personnel. CAP argues that reform like the Act of 2013 is the right thing to do economically and morally. The Heritage Foundation Perhaps on the direct opposite side of the political spectrum is the Heritage Foundation. The Foundation has published an array of reports that contend that the economic costs of amnesty policy could be great and damaging to the American economy. As such, the Foundation is ardently against the Gang of Eight legislation and argues against any Congressional action that includes a path to legalization or a path to citizenship. The Foundation is so loudly against the proposed legislation, in fact, that it departs from the traditional conservative support for increased border security by arguing that the bill essentially writes a check to law enforcement agencies that will bounce in years to come and that the legislation doesn t provide any real increase to border security efforts. The aggressive campaign by the Heritage Foundation has been subject to political controversy with many on the left such as Rachel Maddow suggesting that the reports the Foundation have been publishing note blatantly that the children and grandchildren of immigrants will not be as intelligent as white children and will therefore be a burden on society. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS While the potential solutions to the many issues dealt with along the U.S.-Mexico border are many, these are a few of the larger solutions suggested by those in the media, those in large American think-tank institutions, and those in Congress. Increase Border Security Funding, Enhance Border Patrol Capabilities Perhaps the most common sense solution to the issues faced along the border is a Congressional decision to increase the funding that USBP, ICE, and CBP receive each year, BORDER SECURITY 11

12 pouring additional finances into the agencies and providing them with new and innovative ways to ensure that undocumented immigrants are not able to cross the border and are apprehended if they do. With the recent addition of the use of drones and sonar technology, security along the border has already developed into the 21 st century to a significant degree, but there are many steps yet to be taken for reasons of pure finance. This is a solution, ironically perhaps, often advocated by conservative lawmakers who believe that funding increases to the Border Patrol are necessary in the modern era to ensure the national security of the U.S. Worth considering as a facet to this solution is the fact that the U.S. Border Patrol is already the largest federal law enforcement agency in America with over 21,000 agents. Critics to the solution would argue that throwing money at the problem doesn t create real results and that the border is already more secure than it has been in some time, with reports indicating that undocumented crossings have decreased significantly in recent years. Increase Efforts Like Operation Hold the Line One of the most successful efforts in the last two decades remains the model of then Sector Chief Silvestre Reyes in Perhaps increased funding isn t necessary given the new legislative proposals in the Senate, as those residing in the nation illegally would have a new path to legalization and citizenship. With the interior enforcement handled under new law, this solution would involve putting as many boots on the ground along the actual border as necessary to eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants to an even higher degree. With increased protection along the actual borders, the opportunity for undocumented crossings will be eliminated and national efforts can focus instead on improving the lives of those who have already come onto our shores or through our ports of entry. Maintain Current Border Security Funding Levels, Implement 21 st Century Policy with Mexico As noted, undocumented immigration apprehensions are at their lowest levels since the 1970s according to some reports. Many point to the fact that there is no net gain of illegal immigrants from Mexico happening over the past several years. Given these successes at border security enforcement, it isn t reasonable to increase funding or change current strategy. Congress should work to deal with those residing in the U.S. as it sees fit, but shouldn t concern itself with the unnecessary exploit of attempting to rework a system of security that is already working to a great degree. If anything, the progress to be made is with our dealings with our neighboring government in Mexico. As educational and workplace opportunities continue to improve in Mexico, fewer people will be driven to come across the border illegally and prosperity will be shared between our countries with the free trade policies of NAFTA. We should continue to encourage cross-country investment and should continue to assist Mexican universities and businesses as they grow into the modern global economy. Further, given the surge of illegal immigration concurrent with the influx of drug war violence in Northern Mexico, our law enforcement agencies should assist in training their counterparts in Mexico. If they are able to keep their own security problems under control, fewer people will seek to come across the border illegally and the legal immigration process can continue as intended. QUESTIONS FOR POLICYMAKERS Given what you have now learned and reviewed, the task is yours, members of the 12 BORDER SECURITY

13 National Security Council, to determine how best the United States can craft its border security agenda for the future. The weight of this enormous job cannot easily be overstated, as the very wellbeing of the American people depends on your ability to carefully sift through the plethora of arguments on the subject to come up with a plan that is both legally and morally just for those who are seeking a better life in our nation and one that is appropriately rigid to ensure that those who would harm American citizens both by threat of violence and by economic burden are not able to cross onto our shores without the proper legal documentation. The CBP and Border Patrol make up the largest group of federal law-enforcement agents in our legal system, and it is also up to you to determine if and how they should cut back, expand, and modernize for the 21 st century. Questions to consider as you take on the mantle of crafting new policy solutions include: Why should the U.S. defend its borders in the first place? What level of investment is the nation willing to make for adequate security enforcement? What constitutes adequate security enforcement in the modern era? Should the USBP focus its efforts on internal enforcement and the apprehension and deportation of undocumented persons, or should efforts be concentrated along the physical border, as Operation Hold the Line suggested in the 1990s? How should profiling be used when attempts at apprehending undocumented persons makes it relevant and necessary? What are the best methods of security enforcement along the border; should certain people be let through if they don t pose a serious threat? While these questions certainly don t exhaust the issues that will be discussed at the classified meetings of the NSC to follow in January, considering topics like these can help to prepare you for what is to come. CONCLUSION From the Reform Act of 1986 to Operation Hold the Line, border security is a political topic that has been debated at length over the last several generations of American diplomats. As the House debates whether to consider the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, law enforcement agencies across the country wait for new policy initiatives and executive orders about how best to secure the U.S.-Mexico border (and all of its borders, for that matter). The topic is one that inspires emotionally intense responses from people across ideological groups, and it is one that will only be dealt with adequately from a public opinion standpoint when treated with levels of both pragmatic realism and political finesse. The next threat to our great nation may well attempt to penetrate the borders of this country, and it is necessary to ensure that we are not attacked again as we were in Yet, as violence rages on in Northern Mexico, we must also pause to consider the moral and humane response to offer those who seek only to live peacefully and without fear of harm in a nation that purports to advance human rights freedom for all. GUIDE TO FURTHER RESEARCH For more information about border security policy, visit the CBP s website at or look through one of the books that I referred to throughout the writing of this briefing, most notably The Fence: National Security, Public Safety, and Illegal Immigration Along the U.S.-Mexico Border by Texas Tech s Robert Lee Meril and The Closing of the American Border: Terrorism, Immigration, and Security Since 9/11 by Edward Alden. The resources related to immigration reform and border patrol are seemingly endless online so please look to YouTube, and even Wikipedia for worthwhile overviews of many of the most BORDER SECURITY 13

14 pressing issues that will be discussed in committee. A basic understanding of the information will certainly be helpful to you upon arrival in San Francisco, so it is encouraged to keep up-to-date with the Immigration Reform Bill of 2013 as it is considered by Speaker Boehner and the House of Representatives. Please, take in the many views that you hear about the topic in your hometown and your school, as every perspective is valuable for those who advise the President. If you would like to have more access to information or need any help with further research, please feel free to contact me at josephzacharyfields@college.harvard.edu. GLOSSARY Customs and Border Protection (CBP) The largest agency under the Department of Homeland Security, and the largest federal law enforcement agency in the United States, CBP has the duty of maintaining safe borders, apprehending those who are in the U.S. without proper documentation, and protecting the U.S. from potential threats which seek to infiltrate our shores United States Border Patrol (USBP) The USBP falls under the purview of CBP and includes some 21,000 agents with the sole responsibility of maintaining a secure border and seeking out illegal immigrants Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) A large policy effort endorsed by President Ronald Reagan which provided amnesty for those who entered the United States illegally prior to 1982 and which also made it illegal to hire undocumented workers immigration. It called for more boots on the ground and required USBP agents in the El Paso region to monitor the border within eyesight of the next agent, ensuring constant patrol along the Juarez border. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) The largest investigative agency related to border security, it was initiated after the attacks on 9/11 and has the duty of enforcement and removal operations internally and of investigating matters related to immigration for the Department of Homeland Security Operation Fast and Furious Also known as the ATF Gunwalking Scandal, it involved a U.S. law enforcement operation to trace guns up the ladder of cartel suppliers in Mexico to high-level leaders so that ammunition trafficking could be stopped. Unfortunately, many of the guns to be traced were lost after they walked with low-level dealers and have since been used in violent crimes along the border The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 Legislation proposed by the Gang of Eight in the United States Senate which calls for increased funding for the USBP, doubling the number of agents within CBP, a path to citizenship for those here without documentation, an e-verify system for employers to check the status of their workers, and increased visas for students and STEM experts, among other things Operation Hold the Line A large Border Patrol strategy initiated by El Paso USBP Sector Chief Silvestre Reyes in the 1990s which maintained that stopping undocumented at the borders is the best way to deter illegal 14 BORDER SECURITY

15 GRAPHIC A GRAPHIC B APPENDIX Since 9/11. New York, NY: Harper Collins, Print. Broyles, Bill. Desert Duty: On the Line with the U.S. Border Patrol. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, Print. Bush, Jeb, perf. "Jeb Bush on Immigration Reform.". Television. < HQ6Wc>. Clinton, Bill, perf. "Immigration Reform: Clinton Things Immigration can Pass in GOP Tea-Party House.". Web. 1 Jul < mcm>. Cruz, Ted, writ. Perf. Rush Limbaugh.. Radio. < Mg3w>. "El Paso Juarez Border Fence.". Web. 1 Jul < gjy>. Goth, Brenna. "Border security faults may be result of poor analysis." Republic [Phoenix, AZ] , n. pag. Web. 21 Jul < es/ border-security-pooranalysis.html>. Hughes, Slobhan. "Republicans Say Bill Needs Tough Border Security." Wall Street Journal [New York, NY] , n. pag. Web. 21 Jul < publicans-say-tough-border-security-neededin-immigration-bill/>. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alden, Edward. The Closing of the American Border: Terrorism, Immigration, and Security "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.". Web. 1 Jul < 3DpA>. BORDER SECURITY 15