Border Enforcement
in the 21st Century ABOUT THE PROJECT
The Institute for the Study of International Migration, with the support of the MacArthur Foundation, is organizing a series of public presentations, as well as expert roundtables that address the multiple challenges of immigration reform. The aim of the project is to inform debate on immigration reform, with a focus on addressing the challenges of implementation
Report on an experts’ roundtable Georgetown University, Washington D.C.
SUMMARY A strategy of complete control – The movement of people and goods across America’s borders confronts border enforcement with multiple tasks. All serious observers agree that controlling illegal movement is paramount; nevertheless, defining “operational control” as 100 percent interdiction raises problems. “Effective control” of the border, defined as the achievement of persistent surveillance and the apprehension of 90 percent of illegal crossers, is more realistic only to the degree it can be measured. It is not possible to seal the border against illegal migration and diversion of resources to that end may conflict with other enforcement demands. An emphasis on perfect operational control of illegal entries can undermine the strategic deployment of resources to detect and combat security threats. The border is no longer “out of control” as it arguably was in the early 1990s, as evidenced by the significant resources now available to enforce cross-border activities and significant declines in illegal entries over the past decade. These facts are not sufficiently acknowledged by policymakers and are not fully understood by the public. A strategy of comprehensive management – Border management is a stronger framework for marshaling the various elements of border enforcement. Achieving maximal security is best achieved by targeting realistic and achievable goals. “Comprehensive management” should be that goal instead of “operational control.” The Department of Homeland Security should be charged with the efficient and effective deployment of resources to best secure the border. More effective enforcement should also seek to upgrade current international involvement and cooperation between countries. The US should pursue greater collaboration with Mexico in managing trade and human mobility at the border, illegal entries, the return of Mexican migrants, transit migration from other countries, and crime control. Better data are needed – Advanced analytics might identify segmented risks along the border and can help focus agency resources where needed. More readily available data and metrics can help the agency deploy its resources and assure the public that it is meeting its goals. Researchers and agencies should collaborate more to maximize information sharing and increase programmatic effectiveness. Protecting the rights and safety of migrants – The treatment of deported migrants and the protection of their safety and human rights must be a top priority. Ongoing evaluation efforts should be carried out on the quality of life, safety, and effects of border enforcement on the general wellbeing of border communities. The research community needs to create metrics that can accurately and credibly measure wellbeing. The CBP’s Mexico City Relocation Project provides one example of how to do relocation well. At the same time, Mexico needs to commit more resources towards receiving returnees in a humane and effective manner.
i
Facilitating secure cross-border movement – International travelers and trade represent billions of dollars to the nation: facilitating this movement is in the nation’s interest and enforcement is central to ensuring national security. Officials have made significant progress in managing the movement of goods and people at the border. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative has been instrumental in modernizing our trade and facilitating crossings at legal points of entry. The Initiative employs different strategies to deal with different kinds of travelers, such as the Trusted Traveler Programs and the Ready Lane - Radio Frequency Identification. The development of international trade should be a focus of border security in the dialogue with Mexico and other stakeholders. By placing emphasis on economic competitiveness and development, a platform of mutual interest can be established where border security can be a key pillar. Targeting resources at ports of entry – Budgets need to expand at legal Ports of Entry to reflect the increased traffic associated with international trade and border crossers where CBP should strive for 100 percent inspection rates. U.S officials should have the flexibility to shift resources between the Border Patrol and inspection authorities within and across corridors. Facilitation and control are two sides of the same coin. Data collected at POE’s can be used in more effective ways. The thoughtful use of analytics can allow for a better allocation of financial resources.
ii
STRATEGIC VISION, ENFORCEMENTAND SECURITY AT THE BORDER Compared with a record 1.6 million in 2000 and 1.2 million in 2005, border apprehensions are currently near a historic low. Still, there were 364,768 apprehensions by the US Border Patrol in Fiscal Year 2012 and an additional 262,769 removals by ICE. Despite these statistics, public opinion polls and political rhetoric reinforce a perception that swathes of the border remain “uncontrolled.” To a large degree, that perception can be attributed to the difficulties of measuring effectiveness and to disagreement over what border control entails. For example, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 defined the objective of increased border enforcement as zero illegal entries. But an objective of 100 percent control over entries, while laudable in theory and one guarantee of security may not be practicable or possible to adequately measure. Used as a core strategic principal and organizational metric, the “zero entry” standard may even be counterproductive. A successful strategic principal should be one that can be effectively implemented and reliably measured. In contrast, “border management” may be a more useful strategic principal than border control because it reflects the realities confronting the Department of Homeland Security, e.g., the complexities of effectively interdicting illegal migrants and contraband, and efficiently facilitating the orderly movement of legal entrants and cross-border trade. The flow of undocumented migrants has become more dynamic due to greater numbers being smuggled in, shifting between points of entry, and diversification of countries of origin. In response, removals from the border region have increased along with interior removals, and different types of return are being employed. The recent surge of Central American migrants attests to the challenge of allocating resources given evolving facts on the ground and the difficulty of 100 percent control. Additionally, illegal immigration is not restricted to land borders, necessitating control of all forms of movement into the United States. The largest volume of illegal migration occurs between the legal ports of entry often in open terrain along the southern land border. Some illegal migrants, of course, attempt to enter through legal land and sea ports along with large volumes of commuters and goods. In fact, the volume of legal traffic and trade through all ports dwarfs the volume of illegal traffic and contraband between ports. Approximately 40 percent of the illegal resident population initially enter the country as legal temporary visa holders and overstay the time allotted on their visa. In other words, strategies that rely on conventional border control are insufficient; the defense of the American’s borders requires a strategic plan that addresses multiple points of entry and many kinds of cross-border movements.
1
MIGRANT RETURNEES AND BINATIONAL COOPERATION As exhibited by bi national frameworks to address numerous criminal activities such as human trafficking, labor, and sexual slavery, Mexico can be a valuable partner for the US Customs and Border Patrol. It has been suggested that bi-national enforcement measures should be put in place in particular high-risk areas; however, bi-national cooperation and funding obstacles remain. The increasing number of unaccompanied minors is one subject that has inspired cross border cooperation. The number of unaccompanied minors crossing the border into the US has more increased sharply over the past few years— numbers are expected to rise to perhaps 70,000 this year. Some of these children cross the border to reunite with parents who are legally or illegally residing in the United States. Others may be motivated by a lack of safety in the home country. Increasingly, unaccompanied minors are passing through Mexico from other Central American countries. The region has its challenges associated with gang violence, drug trafficking and gender based violence, making Mexico an unsafe transit state for these minors. Many Central American female migrants expect to be raped as a part of their journey. While the US has endorsed media campaigns in Guatemala to raise awareness of the dangers, fear of violence along the journey does not always act as a deterrent for people who are oftentimes fleeing violence in their own countries. Mexico has made recent improvements; however, it is still unsafe for transit. In 2011, Mexico passed legislative reform to decriminalize the presence of illegal migrants. Previously, undocumented migrants found present in Mexico could face a prison sentence of up to 10 years. Generally, Mexico has high deportation rates of Central Americans that are comparable to the United States. The CBP has worked closely with the Mexican government on immigration issues, and efforts have been made to assist Mexico in managing its southern border more effectively. Managing the Mexican southern border can, in turn, limit the number of migrants continuing into the United States. At the same time, the nature of Mexican migration has evolved. Today many migrants are returning to Mexico, in part due to improvements in border enforcement, but also due to removals from the United States. Those who return are remaining in Mexico for longer periods before attempting to re-migrate. Many appear to be intact families, often with US-born children, who may never re-migrate to the United States. These returnees are creating new challenges for Mexico. Ironically, the returnees often lack documentation and their use of domestic transportation, given security concerns, is oftentimes restricted. Additionally, Mexican officials are also reluctant to provide schooling and other services for those without documentation, further complicating matters for returnees. The number of returnees, thus, represents an additional challenge to data tracking with consequences for Mexico as mentioned. It also creates 2
additional challenges for the US in terms of managing cross-border migration, and fulfillment of obligations to US citizens living abroad. Stepped up repatriation from the US, both voluntary and involuntary, has impacted migration flows. The implementation of different programs has shown some success in limiting re-migration of those removed, but is also associated with new problems. Mexico has complained that some illegal entrants are transferred to the Mexican side of the border in the middle of the night, placing them in danger. Migrants have testified that they are returned to Mexico without their belongings, leaving them without basic resources and limited prospects of travelling away from the border. In 2008, the Alien Transfer and Exit Program (ATEP) was introduced, which transfers illegal entrants back to the Mexican side of the border far away from the original point of entry. The objective is to impede re-contact with smugglers, replace them closer to their original communities and increase costs of attempting a re-migration. However, the program may return the migrant to unfamiliar communities with no resources, raising concerns about human rights. Removal of illegal residents from within the United States adversely impacts some US immigrant communities by separating and displacing family members, demanding an appropriate balance between security and human rights obligations. Collaboration has been established with several Central American countries, including Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Mexico, in order to provide a safe return to the country of origin. Working with consulates with repatriation pilots has proven to be of some success, though not equally in all of these countries. Collaboration with El Salvador has been complicated as the state has not been able to establish how many individuals they can receive weekly. In Mexico, the Immigrant Repatriation Initiative flies returning Mexicans directly into Mexico City where the returnees go through a lengthy repatriation process with local authorities. The goal is to encourage the returnee to remain in Mexico; however, the primary target group is individuals with criminal backgrounds. Importantly, repatriation projects provide for a safe return. Ultimately, international collaboration would be an ideal corner stone of comprehensive border management. Collaboration should not only be focused on repatriation but also on preventative measure against initial migration. Elevating humanitarian goals addresses Mexico’s concerns over treatment of its citizens and is most likely to effectively control re-migration. IMPROVING DATA AND METRICS In an ideal world, there would be comprehensive data on all entries across the borders. Instead available data are limited in ways that make it difficult to measure the efficiency of enforcement. Available data often have errors, may not be available on a timely basis, may not be readily shared between actors, and they have limited breadth 3
or geography. At the border, the greatest challenge is counting border crossings that do not result in an apprehension. Reliable measures of enforcement efficiency must rely on latent indicators and indirect measures. Another challenge is data access and institutional reluctance to share data. This limits access to data and limits evaluation research. Lack of transparency erodes trust. Targeted enforcement efforts are also called for in response to evolving patterns of entry. The CBPs deterrence programs implement consequences, such as criminal prosecution, on recidivist or repeat illegal border crossers. Whatever enforcement methods are employed should be evaluated to assess what works best and protects human rights. Evaluation and metrics need be integral to planning and innovative analytic tools should be developed. Different approaches might be piloted and scaled up when promising. Reliable data and measure should be part of a modern approach to evaluation metrics. Accurate data should be shared among the government and, in some cases, nongovernment actors involved. The executive branch should actively encourage data sharing, as well as, encouraging government and non-government research. An active program of research, one that involves non-public experts, can promote trust and accountability. By involving the research community, analytic observations will be more powerful in securing buy in from the American public. Of course, the greatest challenge to improved metrics is how to gauge movement between legal ports of entry. Illegal migration that does not result in an apprehension is mostly unobserved; therefore, there is no perfect way to measure it. There have been innovations and improvements in collecting information and ways of gauging movement. Unfortunately, there is no current technology that can reliably and affordably capture movement over thousands of miles of border, in often inhospitable environments. FACILITATING CROSS-BORDER MOBILITY AT LEGAL PORTS The challenges of logistics, infrastructure and security at US ports of entry are magnified by the importance of facilitating legal migration and trade with our largest trading partners on our borders and beyond. When the ports are well and securely managed people, traffic and goods flow with minimal disruption and are effectively screened. Ensuring security at the ports requires screenings of hundreds of thousands of individuals and transported goods. On a typical day, the CBP processes through its 328 ports of entry roughly 660,000 land travelers and 270,000 private vehicles. It seizes 12,000 pounds of drugs and $4.7 million dollars of products with Intellectual Property Rights violations. On a daily basis, the CBP identifies 137 individuals with suspected national security concerns 4 Â Â Â
and intercepts 48 fraudulent documents. Ensuring security at the legal ports of entry is a major challenge given the significant volume of cross-border traffic and trade. Getting the enforcement balance right has significant impacts on economic growth, as well as, protects the homeland from cross-border movement wherever it occurs. Resources allocated to the border between ports of entry may compete with resources available at the ports. Fences and the deployment of agents between ports of entry will deflect some migrants and criminals to attempt the legal ports of entry. At the same time, there is substantial pressure to process cross-border traffic at the ports in as timely a fashion as possible, which can limit the prospects of catching illegal entrants or contraband. That may itself encourage some increase in attempted illegal entry through the ports. In short, the end goal of security at the border must address the tension between allocating resources between ports and at the ports of entry. There has not been an adequate assessment of an optimal resource allocation across the border. Proposed immigration reform, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform trust fund with a budget of 49.3 billion, would allocate almost 85 percent of border security funds for enforcement between ports of entry and an additional 19,000 border patrol agents. While the bill allocated funding for the hiring of 3,500 Customs and Border Protection agents, the overall mix does not allocate resources to adequately address the mission along the border and at the ports. For example, after 9/11 rigorous security measures were implemented to ensure national security which caused increased waiting time at the ports of entry and that, in turn, generates new security problems. Prior to 9/11, an experiment at selected ports of entry addressed tradeoffs between inspection times and detection. Conducted by the then Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the experiment found that if immigration inspectors were allowed to work without time constraint they would stop twice as many attempts at illegal entry. Staffing up could address some of the bottlenecks more inspection time would generate, but without the necessary infrastructure enhancements problematic delays at the ports will remain. Proposed reform measures place greater resources on fencing instead of staffing and improvement of infrastructure at the ports when both are required to ensure security. Limited space and access limits the number of CBP agents who can work at each port and the volume of traffic they can efficiently screen. Increased efficiency in screening at the ports is an indisputable boost to US economic growth. It is estimated that building one additional lane for traffic at a major port of entry could save up to 25 million dollars. And each inspector is associated with approximately 2 million dollars annually for the US economy. Beyond economic gains, efficient screening is essential to ensuring security at the border.
5 Â Â Â
New strategies and technologies, which require resources to implement, are helping to address the goal of more efficient and secure processing through ports. Developments include the transfer of technology to the processing and inspection of travelers. At the San Geronimo and Chihuahua border ports; there have been trials with avatar kiosks that replace CBP agents. While a completely unmanned system at the ports is not tenable, the goal is a system that is more efficient and effective. By moving away from a one-to-one review, to a system where one agent processes several entrants using kiosks, available resources can be marshaled to entrants flagged for greater scrutiny. The border crossing process can be faster for those who are already known to the authorities. There have been fast track implementations both at airports and land ports of entry that have improved timely processing, permitting more time to be spent on higher-risk border crossers. There have also been significant improvements in the quality of identity documents required, including biometrics, which has increased efficient inspections. High quality, digital documents and biometrics reduce the need for manual, individual screening and enhance reliable identification. These technologies, of course, require strategic vision, ongoing evaluation, and initial investments that pay off over the longer run. Collaboration between corporate stakeholders is a venue for effective management of trade at the border. The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) extends the US zone of security to the point of origin and allows for better risk assessment and targeting, freeing CBP to allocate resources to inspect more questionable shipments. While trade membership agreements may be vulnerable to shell companies that exploit their trusted status to export illicitly, that threat can be managed. Partnerships offer clear advantages for members such as supply chain security criteria and incentives like expedited processing. Large importers such as General Motors have signed up since C-TPAT’s inception, but many others have been hesitant to join— close to half of all importers are still not members. The available benefits apparently are too limited. One benefit that could encourage membership would be a fast track guarantee; however, due to the limited number of inspectors, that guarantee cannot be made. There has also been effective international cooperation to ensure security and efficiency for entries and exits processing. Bilateral trade cooperation between Mexican authorities and US government agencies help identify legitimate farm shipments. While Mexico has reportedly experienced some challenges with its protocols between customs and military checkpoints, it is independently taking steps to strengthen its efforts to raise the visibility of the trusted trader programs. The current relationship with Mexico primarily focuses on border security; however, the Mexican government would like to widen the scope of the relationship and to strengthen the economic relationship. 6
MOVING FORWARD Policymakers would do well to think strategically about America’s goals at its borders. Security is a necessary priority; however, it cannot be the only priority. Borders should not be thought of only as a protective wall against the potential threat of illegal migration; they must also be secured against importation of instruments of crime or terror, contraband or illegal trade. At the same time, huge volumes of tourists, workers and business travelers and legal trade of all sorts must be facilitated. Managed well, our borders can be as secure as possible and a source of tremendous economic growth. Meeting the challenge of facilitating movement that we want to encourage, while controlling illegal migration and securing the border, requires keeping the larger mission foremost. As reform of America’s immigration system moves forward, stakeholders should keep in mind that all the challenges at the border are interdependent. Resources should be optimally allocated to meet those goals because doing so is the best way to realize the economic benefits of our borderlands while ensuring our security.
7
APPENDIX: ROUNDTABLE AGENDA AND LIST OF EXPERTS
8
Institute for the Study of International Migration, Georgetown University
Border Enforcement In the 21st Century Thursday January 30th, 2014 8:15am – 1:30pm Georgetown University Harris Building, Room 1300 3300 Whitehaven St. Washington D.C. 20007 This invitation-only roundtable will address the implementation and impact of border enforcement on the migration of unauthorized workers, as well as, the safety and facilitation of cross-border movement of persons and trade. All discussions about immigration reform include a renewed emphasis on border control and management. Meeting those challenges will require more than money, it will need strategic thinking about the deployment of human resources and implementation of technologies. This meeting will address what we have learned from recent enforcement and principles to guide future challenges. MEETING AGENDA 8:15 AM – 9:00 AM Continental Breakfast 9:00 AM – 9:15 AM Introductions 9:15 AM – 10:45 AM Border Enforcement: Getting the Right Balance Border apprehensions are at an all-time low, albeit they show a small rebound recently. How effective is the current enforcement regime and can we measure "control"? What have we learned about the right mix of personnel and technology on the border? What are the best strategies going forward, more agents and current approaches or smarter border enforcement? 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Legal Ports of Entry: Facilitating Cross-Border Mobility Legal ports of entry manage millions of cross-border transactions annually, but face significant challenges to orderly, secure and timely management of the flow. What have we learned from efforts to improve legal border crossing? What more is needed in terms of funding, infrastructure and technology to improve management at legal ports of entry? 12:30 PM – 1:30 PM Summary Discussion: Working Lunch 9
LIST OF EXPERTS Edward Alden, Council of Foreign Relations Sharon Bissell, MacArthur Foundation Jerome Bjelopera, Congressional Research Service Daniel Carroll, US Department of Labor Keith Cozine, St. John’s University Elyse Golob, University of Arizona Ana Hinojosa, US Customs and Border Protection Michael Huston, Department of Homeland Security Donald Kerwin, Center for Migration Studies of New York Rey Koslowski, University at Albany, State University of New York Agustin Escobar Latapi, CIESAS Occidente Woody Lee, US Customs and Border Protection Lindsay Lowell, Institute for the Study of International Migration Tara Magner, MacArthur Foundation Victor Manjarrez, University of Texas at El Paso Phil Martin, University of California at Davis Susan Martin, Institute for the Study of International Migration Doris Meissner, Migration Policy Institute Maureen Meyer, Washington Office on Latin America Emilio Morales, University of Texas at El Paso David North, Center for Immigration Studies Jay Nunamaker, University of Arizona Heather Reilly, Deloitte Consulting Bryan Roberts, Econometrica, Inc. Marc Rosenblum, Migration Policy Institute Lisa Seghetti, Congressional Research Service Suzanne Shepherd, US Customs and Border Protection John Whitley, George Washington University Soonhwa Yi, World Bank
10