SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS Tables
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
BORDER SECURITY AND DETERRING ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1997
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m., in room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Lamar Smith, Sonny Bono, William L. Jenkins, Edward A. Pease, Christopher B. Cannon, and Melvin L. Watt.
Also present: Representative Silvestre Reyes.
Staff present: Cordia A. Strom, chief counsel; Edward R. Grant, counsel; Judy Knott, staff assistant; and Martina Hone, minority counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SMITH
Mr. SMITH. The Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims will come to order.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have an opening statement. Then I'll recognize Mel Watt for his remarks, and then we'll get to the first of our three panels today.
Illegal immigration burdens our social services, harms employment prospects, lowers wages for tens of thousands of American workers, and brings crime and disorder to communities across the country. Bad as these effects are, they do not paint the full picture. Increasingly, the failure to secure our borders threatens our national security.
A growing number of illegal aliens who cross our land borders arrive under the auspices of sophisticated alien smuggling operations, often connected to organized crime. The day of the lone coyote is giving way to a more sophisticated era in which illegals are ferried by highway from staging areas near the border to employment across the United States. People in Colorado, Nebraska, Maryland, and Georgia no longer need to go to the border to see this problem; the border is coming to them.
Our porous border also facilitates drug smuggling. The Mexico-United States border rapidly has become the world's largest drug smuggling corridor. Approximately 70 percent of all cocaine and up to 80 percent of all marijuana entering the United States is coming from Mexico, in addition to 30 percent of the heroin.
At the border, the cartels spread an atmosphere of violence, intimidation, and corruption. The truckdrivers and port runners employed by the drug cartels to bring large shipments into the United States must use either fraudulent documents or legitimate documents obtained by fraud to cross the ports-of-entry.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Through other violations of our immigration laws, Mexican drug cartels are able to extend their command and control into the United States. Drug smuggling fosters, subsidizes, and is dependent upon continued illegal immigration and alien smuggling.
The crisis deepens when we consider the failures of Federal law enforcement to combat these problems. The core of this breakdown is the absence of an integrated, coordinated approach to law enforcement at the border. The statistics tell the story. The INS' well-publicized border initiatives have achieved more cosmetic than real effect. As the chart to my right illustrates, the problem has not declined, but merely shifted. The INS reported an astounding 1.5 million border apprehensions in fiscal year 1996. In parts of Texas, apprehensions have doubled in the last 2 years. Apprehensions in Texas now exceed the apprehensions in California.
In 1996, the Immigration Act required the hiring of 1,000 new Border Patrol agents each year until fiscal year 2001. Regrettably, the administration's budget only calls for hiring 500 new agents in 1998. The INS' commitment to interior enforcement also is a matter of words, not deeds. Congress has provided funding through fiscal year 1997 for many than 2,000 INS investigators. However, current INS staffing levels fall 260 short of the appropriated positions. Even worse, the administration's 1998 budget calls for hiring only several dozen new investigators, less than 20 percent of the figures authorized in the 1996 Immigration Act.
Spending on drug interdiction itself after inflation, in fact, has declined by 39 percent in the last 4 years. Antidrug smuggling efforts also are insufficient. The administration's national drug strategy has made a decided shift away from interdiction and law enforcement, and, not surprisingly, the Mexican cartels are able to move increased shipments of cocaine and other drugs into the United States.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Last Sunday's TV program ''60 Minutes'' and articles in other newspapers, including the New York Times, suggest that corruption contributes to the flow of illegal drugs and illegal aliens. Prior hearings on border security have focused almost exclusively on the Border Patrol, border fences, and other deterrents to illegal immigration. The current crisis is such that our focus must extend to other aspects of immigration enforcement and to other Federal law enforcement agencies. These agencies must be given a single-minded mission: to dramatically curb the entry of illegal aliens and narcotics across our land borders. The Nation expects an unswerving commitment by these agencies to their primary responsibility as law enforcement agencies. I believe the entire Congress would favorably consider legislation necessary to remove any impediments to this mission, but the will and purpose to accomplish this mission must first come from the administrators and supervisors within the agencies themselves.
Unfortunately, it is increasingly clear that the current leadership of the INS has demonstrated that it is not up to the challenge. The latest revelations regarding the naturalization process prove that the agency's leaders apparently are incapable of ensuring that field offices comply with agency policy. The INS' No. 3 officer, in charge of field operations, has departed under a cloud of suspicion.
Responsibility for enforcement is scattered throughout the INS organizational chart with law enforcement officers frequently supervised by managers who have no law enforcement experience. This status quo cannot continue. At this hearing and beyond, we will look for specific commitments to dramatically change the way the INS carries out its law enforcement mission. That mission already has been revolutionized by the 1997 Immigration Act. That act will remain unenforced until the President and the Attorney General insist upon a significant magnitude of change in the way the INS conducts its business.
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I will now recognize the ranking minority member, Mel Watt of North Carolina.
Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The timing of this hearing is accidentally fortuitous, if you can be fortuitous accidentally. I think the ''60 Minutes'' segment last Sunday night, which I saw, raised some disturbing allegations or possibilities, and I think it's important for us to provide an opportunity for our enforcement agencies to respond to those allegations in a public setting, and I will be looking forward to hearing some of the responses today.
Part of the concern I have is that we are beginning to micromanage the Immigration and Naturalization Service to a point where I think we are becoming counterproductive, and for us to then blame INS for everything that occurs really is not productive or helpful to the cause. A lot of the emphasis on the border was as a result of the policies that we put in place under the immigration bill during the last Congress, and the failure of our appropriators to appropriate any money for internal enforcement, in addition to the money that was already programmed. None of the 600 agents that our immigration bill called for was actually appropriated for internal enforcement. So the notion that we could turn up the pressures at the border and not have that have a result on the interior is just, to me, a disconnect on the part of this committee and this Congress.
Having said that, I don't know what the answers are, unlike some of my Republican colleagues, who seem to believe that they have every answer to every question, but I do think that we ought to give the Immigration and Naturalization Service and our Customs officials some discretion to be able to move around personnel and address issues as they arise, rather than our sitting here in a committee room or in the Congress and saying: put all of our eggs at the border or put all of our eggs at the interior. There needs to be some administrative determination being made on some of these questions rather than legislative judgments being made on a number of these questions.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is obvious to me, however, that those administrative judgments and those bureaucratic judgments can have integrity only if we can trust our personnel out in the field, and so I think accidentally, fortuitously, the timing of this hearing on that issue may be more important than some of the original purposes of the hearing.
I, as you have noticed, have not read an opening statement. Those are just some general observations that I have, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to insert an opening statement in the record at some point, if I get one that I decide that I want to——
Mr. SMITH. This is the point, and without objection, so ordered.
Mr. WATT. And I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Watt.
Are there any other opening statements by any member of the subcommittee?
[No response.]
Mr. SMITH. OK, if not, we'll proceed to our first panel, and our first panel is the Honorable Silvestre Reyes, my colleague from west Texas, the El Paso area.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Silvestre, we welcome you and we look forward to your testimony, and if you'll begin.
STATEMENT OF HON. SILVESTRE REYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know how many others were supposed to be on this panel, so it makes me a little bit uncomfortable that I'm the only one that showed up. [Laughter.]
But, nonetheless, I'm pleased to be here, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Watt, and the other members of this committee. I think it's very important and vitally important not only to our Nation, but specifically to those of us that represent border communities and border areas.
So I would like to make a couple of comments before I read a portion of my opening statement. And that is, as I explained to you, I did not get a chance to read the minority staff memorandum or the majority staff memorandum before this morning, and there are a number of areas here that I would like to reserve an opportunity to make some written comments on and observations, because I think they're vitally important to the things that we need to be doing on the border and we need to be doing in conjunction with the Federal agencies that are responsible for carrying out the laws of our country. So if I could do that, I would appreciate that.
Mr. SMITH. Right. We'll look forward to any questions that you want to submit or any observations that you want to submit after this hearing.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REYES. Thank you.
And I also want to tell you that I appreciate the opportunity to sit and ask questions of the following panels. As you know, I've been before Congress a number of times in my former job, and I will have to admit that I'm much more comfortable today than I've ever been testifying before a congressional——
Mr. SMITH. Silvestre, if you'll let me interrupt you for a minute, you may be the first person who has been here a number of times before this very subcommittee as a witness, now testifying as a Member of Congress. I don't know if that's precedent or not, but we appreciate it all the more.
Mr. REYES. And I don't know if it's a precedent, but I know it's a lot better situation today than it's ever been. [Laughter.]
So let me just make a few comments, and then I have taken an opportunity to highlight a few areas that I would like to make some general observations on, and then I've got a few recommendations, and then I would be glad to answer any questions. I see a number of my colleagues here, and I would be happy to do that.
As you know, I spent more than 26 years with the U.S. Border Patrol and INS, and 13 of them as the chief in McAllen and El Paso, and I know from personal experience that the policies adopted by this subcommittee and this Congress will have real-life consequences for our constituents back home, those of us that represent border communities. Today I want to try to help you visualize what's going on along the border between Mexico and the United States.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think it's important to point out that last year 280 million people crossed our border, the border between the United States and Mexico. As you know, there are several Federal agencies that are responsible for enforcing our immigration and drug laws. These include the Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Customs, the Department of Agriculture. Approximately 14,200 Federal agents are responsible in one way or another for patrolling, inspecting, enforcing, interdicting, and implementing the laws that we pass in Congress. That comes down to 1 Federal agent for every 19,700 people crossing the border every year. It's no wonder that we in Congress and those that live along our 2,000-mile border with Mexico feel, and rightfully so, that we have a problem.
Those of you that saw the story on ''60 Minutes'' on Sunday night can understand what we're up against. We must take decisive action to solve our problems along our border. I think the recent vote to decertify Mexico is a perfect example of just how little we understand the border and how important it is to work as a body to stop the drug trafficking.
Half the members of this committee voted to decertify Mexico, despite the number of steps Mexico has taken in the last year to strengthen its efforts to fight the spread of illegal drugs. This was, as you know, Mr. Chairman, a point of some controversy when the issue came up before Congress.
I think that illegal drugs are readily available almost anywhere in the United States. We have not done enough to deter drug use among our Nation's children and in our neighborhoods. Illegal drug trafficking is not just a Mexican problem; it is our collective problem. We need to work with Mexico and foster a cooperative relationship with our neighbors to the south, and we don't want to engage in a combative relationship; that would be very counterproductive. Drug trafficking is not just a Mexican issue. We on the northern side of the border must do more to stem the tide and the demand of narcotics.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Everyone in this room agrees we must do more to stop the flow of drugs into our country. If we don't want drugs in our neighborhoods, we have the responsibility to stop it at our borders. I have been on the front lines in the so-called war on drugs, and I am here today to tell you that we must do more. I agree with the finding of the General Accounting Office in the report to Congress in December 1994 that, despite law enforcement efforts, the flow of drugs continues, and unless Border Patrol efforts become more effective, illegal immigration is expected to increase over the next decade.
If we want to stop drugs from coming across the border into the United States and we want to stop illegal immigration, we have to give our agents the tools and the leadership they need and deserve to do the job. For example, as a way of an example, one Border Patrol sector in Texas has only seven pairs of night vision goggles for 407 agents. As you know, there is widespread public support for efforts to stop drugs and illegal immigration from coming into this country. There is, however, a frustration in terms of the way that we facilitate traffic, legal traffic, between the United States and Mexico. I would like to speak to that a little bit later.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to extend an invitation to every one of you to visit my district, so that you can see for yourselves what our real needs are. But, more importantly, one of the recommendations I would like to make this morning is that you take the opportunity not just to visit my district, but districts all along the border, and that you request that you have access to and take testimony from district directors and chief patrol agents that have to manage the problem of illegal immigration along our borders. I think that only then can you get a factual and accurate picture of the problems that are affecting in this case the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Border Patrol.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think the bottom line in my testimony has to be that we can control our border; we can manage the border, and we can do a much better job. But I think in order to be able to do that, there are a number of things that have to occur. Some of them, obviously, will require some changes as it relates to our laws and regulations, but together I think we can make a significant difference.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reyes follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SILVESTRE REYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee today because one of my primary goals as a Congressman is to call attention to the unique needs of the Southwest border.
As you may know, I spent more than 26 years with the U.S. Border Patrol—13 of them as Chief in the McAllen and El Paso sectors. I know from personal experience that the policies adopted by this subcommittee and this Congress will have real-life consequences for our constituents back home.
Today I want to try to help you visualize what's going on along the border between Mexico and the United States. Did you know that, last year, more than 280 million people crossed that border? As you know, several federal agencies are responsible for enforcing our immigration and drug laws. This includes the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Customs, the Border Patrol and the Department of Agriculture. Approximately 14,200 federal agents are responsible in one way or another for patrolling, inspecting, enforcing, interceding and implementing the laws we pass. That's one federal agent for every 19,700 people crossing the border.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
No wonder we have a problem. If any of you saw 60 Minutes on Sunday night, you understand what we're up against. We must take decisive action to solve these problems!
I think the recent vote to decertify Mexico is a perfect example of just how little we understand the border and how important it is to work as a region to stop the drug traffic. More than half the members of this committee voted to decertify Mexico, despite the number of steps Mexico has taken in the last year to strengthen its efforts to fight the spread of illegal drugs. Would you be as willing to decertify the United States?
Illegal drugs are readily available almost anywhere in the United States. We have not done enough to deter drug use among our nation's children. Illegal drug trafficking is not just a Mexican problem. It is our problem. We need to work with Mexico and foster a cooperative relationship with our neighbors to the south, not a combative one.
Drug trafficking is not just a Mexican issue. We on the northern side of the border must do more to stem the demand for illicit drugs. The good news is the number of people who have used drugs in the last month has declined by almost 50 percent from the 1979 high of 25 million. The bad news is an estimated 12.8 million Americans—about 6 percent of the household population aged 12 and older have—used illegal drugs within the past thirty days.
Everyone in this room agrees we must do more to stop the flow of drugs into our country. If you don't want drugs in your neighborhoods, you have a responsibility to stop it at our borders. I have been on the front line in the so-called war against drugs and I am here today to tell you that we must do more. I agree with the finding of the General Accounting Of rice in its report to Congress in December of 1994. ''Despite law enforcement efforts, the flow of drugs continues, and unless border patrol efforts become more effective, illegal immigration is expected to increase over the next decade.''
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If you want to stop drugs from coming across the border into the United States and you want to stop illegal immigration, you have to give our agents the tools they need to do the job.
For example, did you know that one Border Patrol sector in Texas has only seven pairs of night vision goggles for 407 agents?
Did you know that most of our border patrol agents are stationed in San Diego, which is eight miles from the border? El Paso—the largest international border community in the world—is literally across the road from Mexico and yet less than half of our border patrol agents are stationed there.
There is widespread public support for efforts to stop drugs from coming into the country and to prevent illegal immigration. Last year's welfare reform act and immigration reform act prove that. So we have no excuses. We can talk or we can act. When all is said and done, more often than not, more is said than done.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to extend an invitation to every one of you to visit my district so you can see for yourselves how real the needs are. Members of this subcommittee and members of this Congress should support efforts to provide the agencies with the personnel and the funding they need to do this very important job. We cannot afford to do otherwise.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Thank you.
Let me begin—I guess I have an acknowledgment, an observation, and a question. And the acknowledgment, Silvestre, is that I don't think anyone has ever appeared before our subcommittee who has more firsthand experience than you do, and that's why we especially appreciate your comments.
The observation is that I have never heard before the figures that you mentioned that put in perspective, which is to say that the number of entries that we had into the United States last year actually exceeded the population of the United States, 280 million people. That shows two things. One, the challenge to our Government of trying to know who's coming into the country, why, and for how long, and it certainly points out the extent of the problem as well. The other figure that you mentioned about one Federal agent for every 19,000 entries also shows why we need a lot more resources, a lot more personnel to do the job that we should.
My only question is: What advice do you have for us or what advice would you give the administration? What steps should they take in the next couple of months to try to secure the border?
Mr. REYES. Well, I'm glad you asked that question. There are a number of steps that we can take to become more effective, and I've had an opportunity to answer that question to a number of my colleagues since January, since coming to represent the 16th District of Texas. But, as you can imagine, being a freshman Representative and having to set up an office here in Washington and back in my home district, I have not really had an opportunity to, with any degree of detail, do the kinds of things in written fashion that I think need to be done.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Nonetheless, I would like to offer a number of recommendations for this committee, and in a larger sense for agencies to do a better job in terms of the job that has to be done in order to facilitate the movement of traffic between Mexico and the United States as it increases with the impact of NAFTA, and, more importantly, our ability to do a better job for border communities and for this country in order to monitor illegal immigration and narcotics trafficking.
There are a number of these recommendations that I will follow up in greater detail in the context of explaining why it's necessary, why I think it's necessary based on my 26 or so years of experience, but, more importantly, I want this committee to understand that since being elected a congressional Representative, I have not stopped communicating with my former colleagues in the U.S. Border Patrol and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. I say that so that you understand that there is a willingness and there is great dedication in the agency to do a better job.
There is, however, a tremendous amount of frustration, and one of the first recommendations that I would like you to entertain would be to separate the Border Patrol out of INS. I mention that because the Immigration and Naturalization Service, as I've discussed with a number of you in the past, is an agency that has double priorities that create friction and create an unhealthy competition within the agency.
First of all, it's an agency that has to focus-in on the service side. That means the facilitation of legal immigration, the facilitation of the naturalization process, while at the same time it's charged with enforcing laws that require its agents to monitor the border, to do investigations, to do all detention and removal, all the things that really work diametrically opposed to each other. I think it's practical and reasonable, and from personal experience, an issue that needs to be addressed, so that justice is done to both functions and so that we don't have an inherent competition within the same agency to both do the enforcement side of it as well as the service side.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As I mentioned to you earlier, it's something that I want to and am in the process of further developing, and I think that's a question that you should ask this morning of those that are here, and also keep in mind as you go through the process of hearings.
And I would like to just, as a matter of public record, say that this—the issue of controlling our borders, of managing our borders, and of ensuring that there is a process of everything from naturalization to legal immigration, is not a Democrat or Republican issue; it's an issue of what's good and right for America. We are a nation of immigrants, and we should be looking at our ability to do a better job for our country, and do a better job for those throughout the world that have been playing by the rules, that have been respecting our laws, and are waiting to come in legally.
So, in that context, my first recommendation would be to separate Border Patrol out of INS. Secondly, I would also recommend that we look at consolidation of the responsibility for the inspection process at the ports-of-entry. I think in that context it addresses the two biggest problems that I see that we have on the border today, and that's our ability to monitor and do a good job of monitoring and controlling borders in between those ports-of-entry, and, secondly, the frustration that people feel daily of having a confusing atmosphere at the ports-of-entry in terms of who is participating in the inspection process, who is responsible.
Today we have a situation—and I should ask you: do I—how much time do I have?
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Well, we're actually—I want you to continue, Silvestre, but what you——
Mr. WATT. I'll pick up——
Mr. SMITH. Let me yield to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, and you could follow up under his time, if that's all right.
Mr. REYES. OK.
Mr. WATT. That's fine.
Mr. SMITH. OK. So please proceed.
Mr. REYES. Well, the only other thing that I want to mention is that today there's a tremendous amount of frustration that will continue to build as NAFTA kicks in and we see more commercial traffic and more interaction between the United States and Mexico, because we don't have a single entity in charge of the inspection process. We don't have one agency.
I think that we ought to look at consolidation. I think it makes sense. I think we, as a Congress, need to understand that resources are limited, and we need to do a better job for the taxpayer. And part of what I see as a problem today is that there is too much competition and too much duplication in border enforcement and border inspections.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have a number of different areas that I would like to focus in on as time permits, but why don't I stop there and then answer any other questions that you might have.
Mr. WATT. Congressman, I would be delighted if you have two or three other recommendations that you want to just give us, so we can outline them and have them, and then give us the follow-up justifications or discussion about the points at a subsequent time. Do you have a list of additional recommendations that you wanted to make? If so, I certainly want to get those in the record.
Mr. REYES. Well, I do, and part of it will require, as in talking to many people, will require an opportunity to actually sit down and justify the rationale behind it.
Mr. WATT. I don't know if I have enough time on the clock to give you the justification time, but I sure would like to have the list, if I could have it, if you want to do it now, or you could give it subsequent.
Mr. REYES. Well, I would like to, instead of shooting out all the recommendations here, I would like to actually follow up in writing because I think part of the process with the issue that your committee is charged with, it's a very complex area, and in order to fully understand it, a lot of these points need to be fully developed.
Mr. WATT. And I think the chairman's going to leave the record open, I hope——
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Right.
Mr. WATT [continuing]. For whatever period of time you need to submit detailed recommendations.
Let me zero in, then, on the two recommendations that you have made, because, to some extent, at least on the surface, one could argue that they appear to be inconsistent with each other. One of the—the second recommendation is that we consider consolidation of the inspection function. I take it that inspection function is now done by Immigration—by the INS, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Department of Agriculture, Customs; everybody's got a little piece of that action when it comes to inspecting traffic, and you're saying if that were more coordinated, maybe under one function, then we would have a more efficient process? Is that what you're saying?
Mr. REYES. Well, yes, and I appreciate your question because that really speaks to what I said in terms of the complexity. DEA does not play a role in the inspections process. The ports-of-entry basically come under three agencies. That's Customs, INS, and Agriculture.
Mr. WATT. So who is it out there with the dogs sniffing the trucks? That's not DEA?
Mr. REYES. No, it's not.
Mr. WATT. Oh, is that right?
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REYES. That's Customs—well, dogs actually are a function of Customs, and also INS has dogs on those ports-of-entry, and of course the Border Patrol also has canines, as does Customs Patrol. But, see, that's one of the reasons why I would like to have the time to be able to make sure people understand what the process is.
That's part of the confusion, incidentally, Mr. Watt, that frustrates people as they're crossing the border. The first thing, when you have a complaint at a port-of-entry, is: what agency did the inspection? You have to—in order to find out, you have to ask questions like: what kind of uniform were they wearing, because there's two distinctive uniforms, and that leads to the confusion.
The other part of it is that, although everyone receives cross-training, so that a Customs inspector also verifies the status of the individual in terms of being able to enter this country, their primary focus is on goods and ensuring that the contraband—conversely, INS' inspectors' primary function is to make sure that people have the proper documentation.
I just think that in order to facilitate and to streamline the process, there has to be a consolidation, so that there aren't any questions in terms of who's responsible today. It's not inconceivable that at a port-of-entry you've got three officers in charge, one for each one of those agencies, and they have competing priorities within the scope of their respective agency.
Mr. WATT. But let me go back to your first recommendation, which seems to me to be a little bit inconsistent with this notion of consolidation of functions. If you're going to—we've got all of these agencies operating at the border now, and I take it that recommendation would be to set up a separate agency, a Border Patrol agency, which would add to the diffuse nature of what's going on at the border in one sense. Are you suggesting Border Patrol be taken from INS and given to some other agency or that they be freestanding?
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. REYES. I think the nature of the job that the Border Patrol is so unique that I think they should be their own agency, and there are a number of reasons——
Mr. WATT. But wouldn't that require a bunch of coordination with what other people are doing, too——
Mr. REYES. Well——
Mr. WATT [continuing]. In the same way that this inspection process does?
Mr. REYES. Well, remember what I said in terms of there's two areas of concern. There's in between the ports-of-entry, which is largely today the responsibility of the Border Patrol, and at the ports-of-entry themselves. And in my recommendation, as it gets fully developed, I make some recommendations in the context of having one agency in charge of all enforcement activities in between the ports-of-entry, which would mean consolidation of some assets out of some other agencies assigned to the Federal agency responsible and taking the lead for monitoring and enforcing the laws in between those ports-of-entry. Consolidation of the inspection process at the ports-of-entry would be separate and apart. You're talking about two different activities, in essence, and it's a very complex issue because there are agencies that work for the Department of Justice and agencies that work for the Department of Treasury and then the Department of Agriculture. So in that context, we're going to have to radically change the way we look at the ability to facilitate commerce, goods, and people through our ports, as well as the way we monitor our borders.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I think, realistically, that has to occur as we move toward a global economy and we move toward doing, hopefully, a better job of monitoring the border against narcotics trafficking and the other issues that affect the national security of our country.
Mr. WATT. The chairman has been very gracious in extending the time, and I want to join the chairman in saying we welcome you to the Congress to help us try to solve some of these problems, and I'll be looking forward to receiving your written recommendations and to hearing your thoughtful analysis of these issues as we go forward, based on the experience you have in the field. I think that will be invaluable.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. REYES. And I should say that, you know, I don't presume to tell you that I have all the answers. A lot of these issues will fully have to be developed in consultation with the agencies that I mentioned, and, obviously, I think that we need to look at the border in the context of 1997 and not 1910, 1911, as far as some of the laws that go back that affect our inspections process today.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Watt.
And you may not have all the answers, but you've got a lot of good suggestions, Silvestre.
Let me recognize other members who may have questions for you as well. The gentleman from California, Mr. Bono.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Silvestre, thank you for coming and testifying. It's very apparent how detailed you have studied this issue, and being limited with time.
Just mentioning the separation of the Border Patrol out of the INS, isn't that conflict somewhat outrageous? I know you described it as a problem, but doesn't it at times get ridiculous? Aren't the Border Patrol sometimes prohibited from doing their job, which is preventing illegals crossing the borders, because of the structure of the situation with the INS? Would that be a fair statement?
Mr. REYES. That would be a fair statement, and there are a number of reasons for that, but, again, one of the fundamental reasons is that you have an agency that is expected to do both the service side of it and the enforcement side. I don't think we have been as effective, and certainly we have not been as efficient, as we should be. I think that part of the problem that we have seen over the course of the last few years has been that, even though the Congress has been very emphatic and very specific about their concern in terms of addressing illegal immigration, there have been equal and competing priorities that have contradicted with those priorities out of Congress. And you've got one agency with one individual in charge that is trying to balance both issues, and it's just—it's not fair to the agency; it's not fair to the individual that's having to make those decisions. And I'll tell you, the biggest concern I have is that it's not fair to the agents and the officers and the employees out in the field that are, in most instances, tremendously professional, but in some cases we don't get the type of support and leadership that really they deserve.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BONO. I don't think I covered it in the detail that you have. But I found that the representation, when it was reported back to me, to be incredibly frustrating by the agencies that had jobs to do. They said, ''We are restricted from doing these jobs,'' and not only were they frustrated, but at a certain point the attitude seemed to be, well, we'll pass sometimes, because we know that we won't be effective; we might get in trouble for doing what we're supposed to be doing. It's a huge conflict that, as far as I'm concerned, it gets down to downright stupid.
My question is, when we talk about micromanaging, I don't think anybody wants to micromanage, but when we have systems such as this that are so utterly ineffective and inefficient, is there someone at the INS that says this is not working; shouldn't we change it? Or do we then, in fact, have to sit here and micromanage? The last thing I want to do is micromanage the INS. But when you go down to the border and speak to these people and see the frustration, see the morale drop, and see the inefficiency, what do we do?
Mr. REYES. Well, you know, there are a number of points that you've made with your question, but certainly there is a tremendous amount of frustration within the INS and within the Border Patrol. We have—I think we owe those officers that put their life on the line every day and every night for this country—we owe them more in terms of streamlining, shall we say, the process. That's why I recommended that you take an opportunity to actually go down and speak to the field managers that can actually tell you how they've been profoundly affected and impacted by decisions that sometimes get made in what is commonly referred to in my previous career as ''the void.'' And that can only come if you actually go down there and hear their story and hear their recommendations or actually bring individual people up here that are going to be able to candidly and frankly explain to you why it is that sometimes it appears like we're being very ineffective as an agency. I think it's vitally important that we get information from the field level versus the headquarters level.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BONO. Thank you.
Can I ask the chairman for 2 additional minutes?
Mr. SMITH. Absolutely. Please proceed.
Mr. BONO. Thank you.
I agree; it seems like the frustrating thing for me anyway is, when we do discuss these issues with the agency, and they're not necessarily border members or people on the front line who are really doing the job and can give you a nitty-gritty description, we kind of get this cat-and-mouse game that seems to continue with the INS, and the result is inefficiency. I think it's an excellent suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that we start bringing some of these people up here. They can tell us the actual story that is really going on, rather than an interpretation by the agency administrators who will put their kind of spin on it, and then we all leave here. Thus every year we have the identical INS problems. I presume that's what you're saying—bring the people up here that really deal with this on a daily basis; is that correct?
Mr. REYES. Well, I would be pleased and happy to work with your committee on identifying individuals that need to come up here and tell the story. And I would be happy to also maybe suggest questions that you need to ask, because oftentimes in the process there are parameters that are set for individuals that come up here and testify that inherently limit the ability of a committee or a subcommittee to really understand the issues.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I would again reiterate, I would hope that you do at least a few hearings out in the field. I would strongly recommend that you get an opportunity to hear from business people and community people of the difference between a well-managed, well-run operation that, in the case of Hold the Line, that eroded somewhat because of lack of support in terms of resources.
I think, as I see that graph up there, if you will note that in fiscal year 1995 El Paso arrested 34,586 illegal entrants, and in fiscal year 1997 that figure is quickly approaching doubling, and that is a direct result of lack of support for El Paso, and not only does this reflect more people entering, but it also leads to the erosion of morale by officers that made a terrific impact on the whole region of the border and have not received the support to allow that kind of impact to continue. And there are a number of reasons, and I will—I'm in the process of writing those out for you, but I think—I just that only as an example because, clearly, initiatives and ground-level efforts have been made, are being made, but it speaks to your question that after swimming upstream, you finally throw your hands up and get frustrated, and either accept the consequence that maybe somebody doesn't care; somebody is not going to give you the support that you expected or deserve. Officers retire out of frustration or in some cases they even run for Congress. [Laughter.]
Mr. BONO. Congressman, I can't thank you enough for your testimony. It is so right on, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we look at some of these solutions that the Congressman has mentioned. I know time does not allow, but I don't even think you hit the tip of the iceberg on the NAFTA issues, the problems with the NAFTA, the drug-running that we have to deal with and the amount of drugs that we are now importing into this country to compound this INS problem. I'm sure you could go into great detail. If you could give us a recommendation in that area as well to get it from where it really needs to be heard from, I would appreciate it.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, I concur with you a thousand percent, and thank you so much for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bono follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SONNY BONO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you for holding these oversight hearings. This issue is extremely complex as well as vitally important for my district, California, and the entire Nation. This Congress I serve as both a member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims and the National Security Committee. Recently, I travelled to Bosnia as part of my service on the latter panel. I see a similarity between the events in that part of the world and the circumstances surrounding our southern U.S. border. In my view, the essence of this hearing is about our sovereignty as a country.
The federal government's responsibility in this area is clear and certain. We must be very honest that our actions will affect the public safety in many different ways, some beyond the core scope of this hearing. Border security encompasses illegal entry, drugs, and smuggling, certainly, these are of great concern. This is not, however, the end of the list. In addition, the threat of criminal alien terrorists is another specific reality that we must guard against.
My knowledge concerning border security and these matters comes from a variety of sources. First, my knowledge is personal and arises from being a long-time resident and later a mayor in Southern California. In the past two years, I have also earned an advanced degree in this material at the side of my chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith. He, of course, has done a masterful job in the 104th Congress championing immigration reform. One of the great lessons I carry with me is the failure of some of our trusted public institutions. Unfortunately it is too often the Immigration and Naturalization Service at fault.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Several weeks ago, the subcommittee met to consider the actions of INS relating to the Citizenship USA program. Then, I reminded the INS that they must put the ''I'' back into ''Illegal'' and remain vigilant in border enforcement. The problems revolving around criminal aliens gaining citizenship due to faults with the fingerprinting regulations persist according to the latest KPMG report.
Today, we will learn more about the INS' and other agencies' actions and failures in carrying out their mission and enforce the law. In the 44th Congressional District that I represent, there are many people who are being affected by the changes at the INS. These are individuals who have dedicated themselves to public service and now work in the Border Patrol. Last term, one of Congress' objectives was securing the public safety by authorizing new criminal investigator positions. A charge was brought to my attention that the INS is delaying the hiring of new criminal investigator positions, in order to mask the size of their budgets and create the illusion of efficiency. At the same time, highly qualified personnel are being denied the opportunity to serve in those new investigatory positions. Instead, they are being pressured to relocate to new assignments that generally were reserved for the newest and most inexperienced new recruits. If this is true, it is another example of the mismanagement of resources available to the INS and another of their failure to protect the U.S. public. It is my hope that the INS will soon provide me answers about this policy. In addition, I would appreciate an assessment of the impact of their actions on the public and the public servants who rely on the wisdom of the INS' management practices.
Again, my Chairman I commend of your efforts to hold these hearings and appreciate the opportunity to participate today. I yield back the balance of my time.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Bono.
Congressman Reyes, as you know, Mr. Watt and I are happy for you to join us, and I only wish that you were a permanent member of this subcommittee rather than just a visitor today, but please come forward and join us, and thank you for your testimony today as well.
Mr. REYES. Thank you very much.
Mr. SMITH. Before we get to the second panel, I want to recognize someone who has come into the room in the last few minutes, and he is Congressman Ron Mazzoli, a former Chair of this subcommittee who's in the back of the room; also, a member of the Commission on Immigration Reform.
Ron, we're delighted to have you with us. We're still trying to follow your good example up here.
Would the second panel please come forward, take their seats, and then I'll introduce them.
Our second panel consists of Alan Bersin, U.S. attorney, Southern District of California. He is the Attorney General's Representative to the Southwest Border. Mr. Bersin is accompanied by Donnie Marshall, Chief of Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration, and Thomas Kneir, Deputy Assistant Director of Criminal Investigative Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation; also, George Regan, Acting Associate Commissioner for Enforcement, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service; accompanied by Joseph R. Greene, District Director for Denver, CO; James M. Bailey, Assistant Regional Director for Intelligence for the Central Region in Dallas, TX; José E. Garza, Chief Border Patrol Agent, McAllen, TX, Sector; Louis F. Nardi, Director, Smuggling/Criminal Organization Branch, and Anne Veysey, Employer Sanctions Specialist.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also a member of the panel is Samuel H. Banks, Deputy Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury, and Jonathan M. Winer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, International Narcotics Matters and Law Enforcement Affairs.
We welcome you all, and we will begin with Mr. Bersin.
STATEMENT OF ALAN D. BERSIN, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE SOUTHWEST BORDER ISSUES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. BERSIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. How do you wish to proceed, Mr. Chairman? In terms of the formal statement that has been prepared and will be submitted, I am prepared to do that. How much time will I have for the statement?
Mr. SMITH. All statements by all panelists will be made a part of the record, and we would ask you to summarize that statement in 5 minutes. We have something like 10 or 12 witnesses today. So we want to try to finish up before too late. Thank you.
Mr. BERSIN. Let me then proceed to the summary, Mr. Chairman. I want to start, cover one concept, and then a number of observations, followed by the indication in the manner of Congressman Reyes of recommendation as to the next stage of the border.
But I want to put squarely before the committee a concept of what we mean, and what the committee means, by a border security, which is the subject of the hearing. Mr. Chairman, our border, 1,950 miles on the south, the land border with Mexico, exclusive of the water borders and our land border with Canada, is a shock absorber. The suggestion often made in the Congress and the media in the agencies, and by the public, is that the border is the place where a problem, be it illegal immigration or illegal drug trafficking, can be solved—solved. I suggest to you that our duty and responsibility is to manage the border satisfactorily, to manage it away from the epic of lawlessness that has characterized that border for the 150 years that the American Southwest has been a part of the United States, as contrasted with the northern half of Mexico.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The variables that dictate the flow of illegal immigration into the United States are variables having to do with the economic situation in Mexico, the problems confronted by people in the interior of that country, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the condition of the labor market here in the United States in terms of the willingness and ability of employers to hire undocumented illegal entrants into this country.
You have, on the one hand, the push out of Mexico, as a function of economic conditions there in the villages and in the poor urban areas, and you have the pull into the United States by the labor market's willingness to employ people, often at substandard wages, in the United States. As a consequence, with regard to the issue of illegal immigration, finding myself and my colleagues in San Diego, CA, for much of the last 40 years, the principal corridor for illegal immigration into the United States, as people leave the villages in Mexico, come north on the highways, and increasingly through the air, to the city of Tijuana and then in the past moving through San Diego on their way for the most part to Los Angeles, although to other cities on the west coast and further east in the United States.
We sit there and we are a shock absorber of these factors over which we on the border as citizens, as well as law enforcement persons, have no control, but we can, and it is our responsibility with the resources provided by the administration and the Congress to manage that flow. And as indicated in my statement, I think you will see that in terms of illegal immigration in the San Diego sector and the Arizona sector, and in fact from El Paso to the Pacific, those who say there is no difference in the feel of the border with regard to illegal immigration since Silvestre Reyes started to hold the line and the Border Patrol/INS implemented Operation Gatekeeper in my home and Safeguard in Arizona, those who say there is no difference simply have not been to the border.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I'd be prepared to address these questions as to the next steps with regard to illegal immigration as we look to Texas, but those who say that the crisis has shifted to Texas, I understand that the problems in Texas have become accented, but that's precisely because, as a shock absorber on the border, for the first time we are having an impact; we are having smugglers react to what we are doing, as opposed to the vacuum and the doormat that places like San Diego, Nogales, and El Paso had been in the past.
So I want to leave you with that concept on illegal immigration—that we manage the problem, and for those who say that, well, you're simply pushing the problem, I submit to you that in terms of border law enforcement, that is the concept. We cannot control the number of people who are leaving the villages in Mexico, nor can we control, with the tools presently available on the books and in the statutes, can we control successfully or adequately the employer here, the U.S. employer who is giving work to those people and continuing to draw them out of the villages of central Mexico.
Second issue: the same can be said with regard to the management of illegal narcotics trafficking. The supply from the source countries of South America coming overland, be shipped through the ports-of-entry and across the line on the Southwest border is in response to a demand for the consumption of narcotics in the United States. We on the border have a responsibility, and with the resources that we are getting for the first time in American history, are starting to have an impact in terms of managing that situation. But those who believe that the flow of drugs can be stopped 100 percent at the border are not realistic, given the fact, as it has been said before, perhaps not to this committee, that all of the cocaine consumed in the United States can be brought into this country in one 747 or nine large tractor-trailers, and given the number of tractor-trailers that pass through this border, along with the 280 million people indicated by Congressman Reyes, we are talking about a management problem until we get to the point where we can attack the cartels where they operate in Mexico or we can reduce the consumption of narcotics among our population.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. OK, Mr. Bersin, we're going to need to go on, and I thank you for your comments, and we'll have questions for you; you can follow up then, if that's all right.
Mr. BERSIN. Let me just, if I may——
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
Mr. BERSIN [continuing]. Give you the two areas for recommendation that you may want to follow up in questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH. OK.
Mr. BERSIN. First, we need additional resources that the Congress is providing. The second is we need to have more ability to leverage our resources with local law enforcement, and I'd be prepared to discuss that in greater depth. And, third, we need to continue to refine the statutes in the way that the 1996 act has started, to permit prosecutors and enforcement agents to continue to introduce the rule of law by having a system of sanctions and deterrents in operation at the border that works and functions better.
Mr. SMITH. OK.
Mr. BERSIN. And, lastly, in response to Mr. Watt, I would say that I was the prosecutor identified by Mr. Wallace on ''60 Minutes,'' and I stand prepared and eager to respond to any questions that you may have with regard to that segment.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bersin follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN D. BERSIN, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR SOUTHWEST BORDER ISSUES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to testify about the continuing challenges we face and the efforts we have taken in the area of border law enforcement. In October 1995 when the Attorney General designated me to be her Special Representative for Southwest Border issues, she expressed her desire to develop a coordinated but not monolithic Border Strategy. She emphasized the need to be respectful of, and take into account, the particular and varied conditions along the border. I believe we have made significant progress toward that goal, though much remains to be done.
I know you have areas of particular concern and I want to address those directly and immediately.
1. Smuggling. As you know, the Administration has undertaken a series of operations at various points along the Border designed to deter or apprehend persons who seek to enter this country illegally. The most well-known of these operations have been Hold the Line in El Paso and Gatekeeper in San Diego. There have been others however such as Operation Safeguard in Nogales and Douglas which has served the same purpose.
Each of these operations has been tailored to meet the specific geographical and topographical demands of the regions involved. Thus, for example, Operation Hold the Line took advantage of the flat terrain in El Paso to place visible agents at quarter or half mile intervals along a 20-mile stretch of the border formed by the Rio Grande River. In San Diego however, where the topography is much more rugged and laced with canyons and hills, the placement of agents was more strategically designed. In addition, the San Diego operation combined immediate border visibility with an expanded support infrastructure including stadium-style lighting, portable lights, fencing, night vision scopes and sensors.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These operations were designed to stem the flow of illegal immigration in a systematic and organized fashion. However, it is not enough to make certain areas more difficult for smugglers to penetrate; we must also be prepared to meet the flow of aliens who may be diverted to alternate routes. This controlled approach has been the key to our strategy border-wide.
One of the things we learned from these Operations is that improved control between the ports of entry (including the movement of foot traffic into less hospitable terrain) intensifies pressures at the ports themselves. Both illegal entrants and narcotics smugglers tend to react to more effective line control by attempted entry through the ports, utilizing both vehicular and pedestrian lanes. The lag time may be 120 days or less.
Armed with this knowledge, U.S. Customs Commissioner Weise and former National Drug Control Policy Director Brown in early 1995 announced ''Operation Hard Line,'' a strategy intended to strengthen efforts to combat drug smuggling all along the Southwest Border.
Under Operation Hard Line, additional funding was provided to increase the number of special agents along the Southwest Border and to make capital improvements in port facilities (including the installation of concrete barriers, fixed and hydraulic bollards, permanent lighting and video cameras, and a cargo X-ray system at the El Paso port of entry similar to the one in place at Otay Mesa, California). Operation Hard Line calls for more frequent and intensive roving inspections by Customs Officers in pre-primary areas at ports of entry, more extensive checks by INS officers, an increased number of examinations at port secondary inspection areas, and checks of all commercial vehicles through the use of the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). Operation Hard Line also involves increased participation of the Department of Defense and state and local law enforcement, and cooperation with Mexican law enforcement.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to its impact on alien traffic, Operation Hard Line produced the following results within its first year:
An overall 76% increase in the number of narcotics seizures along the California-Mexico border over the previous year;
Seizure of approximately 459,000 pounds of illegal drugs at Southwest ports of entry (including 51,000 pounds of cocaine), a 24% increase in Customs drug seizures over the previous year;
An increase in drug seizures by Border Patrol and Customs between the ports, including 49% more cocaine and 24% more marijuana over the previous year;
A 125% increase in narcotics seizures in commercial cargo areas at ports of entries;
Seizure of over $6.6 million in currency along the Southwest Border, including San Diego, Phoenix, El Paso, San Antonio and Harlingen.
A 104% increase in arrests related to narcotics smuggling in the Southern District of California alone.
These statistics show the dramatic intertwinement of drug and alien smuggling law enforcement efforts. That is, as we work to resolve the problem of illegal entrants, we also have a significant impact on the smuggling of controlled substances.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The intersection of drugs and alien cases has been enhanced by a Memorandum of Understanding entered into approximately one year ago between INS and DEA. Under the terms of the agreement, the agencies are to share intelligence information and DEA must be contacted on all INS drug seizures. INS has the specific authority to conduct warrantless probable cause searches for drugs at Border Patrol checkpoints and to process the cases. Although INS is not authorized to work proactively on drug investigations, INS officers are cross-designated with limited Title 21 authority to handle reactive drug cases. A small number of INS officers, given plenary Title 21 authority, have been detailed to DEA to assist with drug seizures. The agreement calls for specific asset and forfeiture sharing between the agencies.
The significance of this MOU will be enhanced even further if new checkpoints are added. Currently, Border Patrol is in the process of enhancing its existing operations and is analyzing trends and intelligence to place strategically new checkpoints as the need arises.
There is yet a third way in which the realms of immigration and drug enforcement overlap; it is a sad and ironical interconnection. As a result of the various Operations, and indeed as a measure of their success, persons seeking illegal entry into the United States have had to shift their pattern of migration from areas of easy access to highways and major cities, to areas of rugged and difficult terrain. While this has no doubt deterred many (and rerouted some through the ports of entry as discussed above), others have been willing to take the additional risks involved in a lengthier and more dangerous route of passage. A trip which previously could have been completed in a matter of hours (e.g., from Tijuana to downtown San Diego and then along Interstate 5 to the sweatshops in Los Angeles) now may take 3 or 4 days and involve crossing a rugged mountain range with temperature extremes. Not surprisingly, the cost of passage has as much as trebled in many cases, from approximately $300 to almost $900 per person. Because this increase presents an insurmountable economic barrier to many, some are willing to cover the cost by acquiescing in requests by their smugglers to transport drugs into the United States when they attempt to enter. Thus, especially in the Southern District of California, we have seen a dramatic increase in ''backpacking'' cases, where illegal entrants carry in their backpacks relatively small (20–30 pounds) packages of marijuana or other drugs in an effort to work off the cost of being smuggled into this country. The smuggler is often nowhere to be found, and the courier is left to face alone all criminal liability.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This ruthless and cynical exploitation and manipulation of economic migrants desperate to enter the United States highlights the need to pursue vigorously those who operate alien smuggling operations. As I will discuss further on, our emphasis on these prosecutions has been steadily increasing.
2. Violence and Drugs. Although I understand the Subcommittee has expressed a particular interest in the correlation of violence and drugs in Texas, the problem of course is systemic across the entire border. Just last week at the Calexico Port of Entry in California, two Customs agents were shot, one of them critically, by the driver of a marijuana-laden vehicle who had been ordered to secondary for further investigation. In the exchange of gunfire, the driver was killed.
The regions having the highest rates of violent crime on a per capita basis have been identified at the following locations along the border: McAllen (Texas), San Luis (Arizona), Las Cruces (New Mexico), Calexico (California) and Brownsville (Texas). Tucson, El Paso, Las Cruces, Phoenix and Los Angeles are identified as having the most significant gang-related activity in the southwest region based on the number of armed encounters, assaults on agents, border bandit and drug trafficking activity, and organized gang activity.
We are committed to coordinating our efforts in this area so that the FBI, INS and DEA, in concert with the relevant U.S. Attorney Offices, will confer with local law enforcement agencies in each of the identified sites. The nature of the particular crime problem and the federal resources (FBI Safe Streets Task Forces, DEA Mobile Enforcement Teams, INS Deportation Units) available to assist local police and sheriff departments needs to be examined. Enforcement and prosecution protocols should be negotiated and agreed. A Task Force is already in place in Tucson and another is being worked out in Calexico, California. I am hopeful that this concept can be expanded across the border. On May 15 of this year, an unprecedented meeting will take place in San Diego with the 5 Southwest Border U.S. Attorneys and 16 county and state attorneys. This item is on the agenda.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because the Subcommittee has expressed particular interest in Texas, I do not want to conclude this portion of my testimony without focusing on that area. Much of the violence there, as elsewhere, is the subject of ongoing investigations which cannot be discussed. I can say, however, that in Texas, as well as other areas along the border, individuals suspected of cooperating with federal drug investigators have been murdered. And there are outstanding threats against individuals and agents involved in drug investigations and prosecutions. We are taking every precaution to protect individuals who may be in danger.
To use the Del Rio Border Patrol Sector as an example, and unfortunately not an atypical one, there was a 191% increase in assaults or armed encounters between FY 95 and FY 96. In FY 96 the Sector reported 32 such incidents.
3. Border Patrol Allocation. The allocation of Border Patrol agents is the product of a complex process which takes into account multiple factors. No single factor is determinative, no matter how important. Thus, although the rising number of apprehensions in Texas is a major concern, it must be viewed in the context of our overall strategy.
In the past, unfortunately, allocation decisions were at times based on political concerns rather than strategic ones. We now, for the first time in recent memory, have a comprehensive near-term and mid-term strategy for controlling the border. We understand that there are six or seven corridors of entrance most used by the drug and alien smugglers.
San Diego has always been the largest of these corridors. Almost 50% of all apprehensions of undocumented aliens nationwide were in this region. In raw numbers this translated into the arrest of over 10,000 undocumented aliens per week, 80% of whom entered in one 14-mile stretch east from Imperial Beach.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1994, when we began to review deployment and strategy, we started with this region, believing it vital to deal first with our most difficult problems. We have had notable success. The immediate effect of Gatekeeper was to alter dramatically the entry pattern of undocumented aliens and force them into a much more inhospitable and rugged terrain. We then had to deploy agents to the new area of entry, while not neglecting to keep our reinforcements in Imperial County.
One of the lessons we have learned from studying past strategies is that it is not sufficient to make progress in one area and then move on. The smugglers simply return to their old ways. What made the original route so popular e.g., ready access to highways and the opportunity quickly to reach big cities, will again be a draw. Therefore we cannot simply move agents wholesale from California to Texas in order to deal with the problems in Texas. Instead, we have to reassess strategically and carefully manpower needs so that we do not backslide in one area as we work to handle another.
Although the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizes INS to hire an additional 1,000 Border Patrol agents in Fiscal Year 1998, our overall goal of a better controlled border is reached more effectively by hiring and deploying 500 additional Border Patrol agents, the number for which INS now seeks funding for Fiscal Year 1998.
I am confident both that the distribution of agents across the border has been appropriate to the regional needs and that the limited, but still large, number of new hires is proper. On the latter point, we must be able to ensure that the ratios of trainees to journeymen, agents to first-line supervisors, and first- to second-line supervisors remain reasonable. Without that, we run the risk of exacerbating, rather than ameliorating, problems at the border.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As to the distribution of agents between California and Texas, we have, and we continue, to study the numbers very carefully. First, it is impossible to make one-on-one comparisons. Most obviously, differences in terrain affect manpower needs of an area. Therefore, to the extent that Operation Gatekeeper has forced the migrants to enter over a mountain range which is rugged and steep, the number of agents assigned to that range must be high. While the distances to be covered in Texas are enormous, much of the terrain is more easily traversed by agents (and aliens) than in the California mountains.
Second, beyond the issue of terrain, the number of apprehensions in general supports the agent allocation to date. Comparing the first six months of FY 1996 to the first six months of FY 1997, apprehensions in El Centro were up 77%, from 32,459 to 57,438. At the same time apprehensions in McAllen increased by 34%, from 97,937 to 131,641. These statistics need to be viewed with consideration given to the traditional ebb and flow among the regions.
Between fiscal years 1993 and 1997, 634 additional Border Patrol agents were assigned to Texas. As of March 15, 1997, the following placements had been made: 117 in El Paso, 145 in Del Rio, 98 in Laredo and 274 in McAllen. At the same time, 1,176 additional agents were assigned to San Diego and 27 to El Centro, California. The aggregation of agents in San Diego was necessitated by the overall strategy I have already described, as well as the extreme level of violence and border banditry.
The needs of Texas are, I understand pressing. After the success of Hold the Line, followed up by Operation Gatekeeper' it always has been the plan that we would systematically move across the border. At this point, without ceding ground on the progress to date, our attention will turn increasingly more toward El Paso and the rest of Texas.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
4. Impact of New Statutes. We greatly appreciate the work of this Subcommittee and your Senate counterpart on many of the enhanced penalty provisions initially recommended by the Administration. It is impossible at this point to give a full assessment on the impact of the new statutes since key provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) went into effect only three weeks ago. However, I can offer some predictions about which I feel confident.
First, to the extent that the new laws increase criminal penalties for alien smuggling and authorize wiretaps to investigate not only alien smuggling but document, citizenship and passport fraud, they provide much needed weapons in our law enforcement arsenal. Before enactment of IIRIRA, the penalties for alien smuggling and document fraud were negligible, and the profits so enormous that traffickers could risk a few months in jail as an acceptable cost of doing business. No more.
The increased statutory penalties, which have been reflected in new Sentencing Guidelines effective May 1, 1997, are dramatic. Previously, an individual who smuggled for commercial gain was in a 4 to 10 month guideline range without any additional adjustments. Under the new amendments, the smuggler will face between 10 and 16 months' incarceration. This could increase even more dramatically if the number of aliens smuggled is 25 or more—a not uncommon occurrence. Under the old guidelines the range in such circumstances was 12–18 months; it will now be 27–33 months. In short, the cost of doing business has increased substantially and should have a deterrent effect.
The Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys has disseminated to all offices the pertinent information about these new statutes. We are planning a workshop in San Diego to train Assistant U.S. Attorneys across the border on how best to use the increased prosecutorial weapons now available to us.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While I cannot discuss details of ongoing investigations, I can assure this Subcommittee that already we have under way along the Border major alien smuggling investigations utilizing all the resources provided by the new statutes.
The recognition by Congress of the significance of these immigration violations has elevated their priority throughout the law enforcement community. With alien smuggling now a predicate act for RICO, the FBI has become involved in our smuggling investigations. In San Diego alone, we have one squad (10 fulltime agents) working on alien smuggling, and the Bureau has requested authorization from its Resource Management Allocating Board for an analogous squad in Los Angeles. For the first time in recent memory the investigations in San Diego and Los Angeles are being coordinated at the outset. These cases, much more complex and significant than those which we were traditionally able to bring, are attributable directly to the new authority given prosecutors by both the Anti-Terrorism and IIRIRA laws.
A second impact attributable directly to IIRIRA is in the authority to exclude, without a hearing, those who present themselves at ports of entry with false documents. In July 1995 we had established in San Diego a ''Port Court'', that is, an immigration court at the border staffed by Immigration judges, to handle these exclusion hearings. Whereas previously these cases involved transporting aliens inland for hearings, and continuances which often stretched for months, the Port Court gave us the ability to process the cases quickly and efficiently. Aliens so excluded could be prosecuted for felony reentry after deportation if they attempted again to enter the country illegally.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since July 1995, 13,830 entrants with false documents were brought before the Port Court and order excluded and deported. Only 201 have been prosecuted for felony reentry, suggesting that recidivism is extremely low.
With the enactment of IIRIRA however, there is no longer a need to hold such administrative hearings; the aliens can be excluded immediately, and if they reenter (or attempt to do so) they still face felony reentry prosecution. This has freed up the Immigration Judges at the Port Court to handle removal hearings for other categories of illegal entrants which the Port Court previously had not had the resources to handle.
5. Prosecutorial Impact. Both the statutes and the increased resources provided by Congress have had a profound impact on prosecutions along the Southwest Border. To take one example, in New Mexico, increased manpower at the I–25 northbound checkpoint has resulted in almost triple the amount of marijuana and twice the amount of cocaine seized in the first six months of FY 1997 as compared with the first six months of FY 1996.
Another powerful example of how resources have enabled us to prosecute more and better cases is traceable to the ''IDENT'' system, developed as part of Operation Gatekeeper. IDENT is an advanced identification system which registers fingerprints and takes photographs of the offender. 169 IDENT terminals have been installed at 83 locations along the Southwest Border. This has enhanced enormously our ability to identify criminal aliens who have reentered the country.
In large part because of IDENT, the number of criminal alien prosecutions along the Southwest Border has increased dramatically. These prosecutions target those with significant criminal histories who have been deported and have reentered, or attempted to reenter, again illegally. Between FY 1993 and FY 1996, the prosecutions went from 287 to 1,169 in San Diego, 24 to 75 in New Mexico, 15 to 204 in the Southern District of Texas, 135 to 388 in Arizona, and 173 to 358 in the Western District of Texas.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
IDENT has also strengthened our ability to prosecute alien smugglers. Traditionally, smugglers often hide among the groups of people being brought in. They do not necessarily drive the vehicles (preferring to let an economic migrant take this risk in return for a reduced charge for passage into the country). Now, with IDENT, we have easy electronic access to the fingerprints of all people apprehended. Therefore, when we see multiple reentries of persons (along with some other criteria established in our prosecutorial guidelines), we can often identify a smuggler who heretofore would have escaped detection. Approximately 80 of our alien smuggling cases in San Diego over the past year fit within this category. And alien smuggling prosecutions across the board are up dramatically. In San Diego, we have gone from 30 in FY 1993 to 209 in FY 1996; New Mexico went from 50 to 82 during the same period; the Southern District of Texas from 104 to 288; Arizona from 36 to 48; and the Western District of Texas from 50 to 190.
The new wiretapping authority assures that the investigation of these cases will be on a grander scale than had previously been possible, and the ability to charge a RICO violation gives us the means to punish severely those who have repeatedly violated our laws. While RICO investigations are ongoing, the statutory authority is too new to have filings yet in place. I can assure the Subcommittee, however, that prosecutors are aware of their enhanced options and are using the tools, both legislative and resource-wise, now available to them to pursue aggressively those who have violated our laws. On behalf of all those prosecutors, I want to thank the Congress for its attention and support in this crucial area.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Bersin. I wish this committee could say we had coordinated with ''60 Minutes'' on their program, but I can't take that credit.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Regan.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE REGAN, ACTING ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER, FOR ENFORCEMENT, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Mr. REGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My colleagues, who, as you've identified, are first-line supervisors in the field and can bring to the committee today day-to-day knowledge of what we face in the way of a challenge, and I welcome this opportunity to give you a firsthand look at the many day-to-day challenges we face in meeting the threat of illegal immigration.
Control of the Southwest border, as you know, remains a top priority for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The border we share with Mexico continues as the No. 1 choice for illegal entry into the United States. Our experience, nonetheless, makes it clear to us that we must continue to develop and refine a multifaceted, integrated enforcement strategy—a strategy that addresses worksite enforcement, document fraud and alien smuggling, as well as border management.
The Border Patrol has undergone unprecedented growth nationwide over the past 3 years. We will have increased the number of agents from 3,965 in 1993 to 6,878 by the end of this fiscal year. Our goal is to have almost 7,400 agents by the end of 1998.
Ongoing operations, including the McAllen Border Patrol Sector's increased antismuggling efforts, demonstrate continuing progress at the Southwest border. Apprehensions in the McAllen sector were up 34 percent from January 1996 to January 1997. Local law enforcement officials attribute a decrease in crime—at least in part—to this Border Patrol initiative.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Added resources and personnel provided by the Congress have enabled us to further tighten border enforcement. But, while we continue to apply this strategy, those who intend to cross our borders illegally are also hard at work finding new means and methods to get in.
As increasing numbers of intending illegal migrants are forced away from traditional, and more accessible border crossing points, they increasingly are relying on alien smugglers for passage into the United States. Alien smuggling reaches far beyond our borders with Mexico and Canada—to all regions of the globe and deep within the United States itself.
The INS is giving high priority to locating, arresting, and prosecuting these traffickers in human cargo here and abroad. Our reasons are both simple and compelling. These smuggling organizations will use any means whatsoever to produce enormous profits while protecting themselves, including murder, rape, torture, forgery, extortion, and forcing their often unwitting customers into prostitution and virtual bondage.
Alien smuggling is a growing multibillion-dollar global business. Smugglers daily are moving thousands of illegal migrants—from source countries through transit countries to the North American continent and within the United States. Their fees range as high as $50,000 for a Chinese illegal migrant.
Assault on Border Patrol agents in general on the Southwest border are on the increase, along with the alien smuggling and narcotics smuggling. The Tucson Sector, for example, has experienced a 400 percent increase in assaults on agents in 1996. We had 76 assaults in 1996 compared to 19 in 1995.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The overwhelming majority of illegal aliens apprehended on the Southwest border are from Mexico. Illegal migrants from other countries which transit Mexico, known as other—than—Mexican nationals, constitute less than 2 percent of the total. The Mexican economy, coupled with the longstanding drought in several regions of Mexico, has forced mass migration to cities along the Southwest border and into the United States. Intelligence reports from INS field personnel, as well as from other highly-reliable sources, indicate growth in alien smuggling and increasing demand for their services by illegal migrants.
Apprehension figures shown on the chart to my right are an indication of increased smuggling activity on the Southwest border—a 24-percent increase in the last 2 years. INS enforcement efforts are beginning to pay off in a number of alien smuggler prosecutions: criminal cases filed in Texas, Arizona, California, and New Mexico against alien smugglers apprehended at the Southwest border totaled 817 in 1996, more than double the 349 cases filed in 1995; the number of defendants prosecuted in these cases totaled 1,186 in 1996 compared to 563 in 1995; defendants found guilty in 1996 totaled 790 versus 340 in 1995.
Arrests and prosecutions of smugglers nationwide included: 1,998 smugglers arrested and 1,325 defendants prosecuted in fiscal year 1995; and, in fiscal year 1996, 2,215 smugglers arrested and 1,975 prosecuted, with 1,568 convictions.
Transnational criminal organized smuggling organizations now have footholds in a number of our largest cities and are operating in the interior of the United States.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The map of the United States displayed on the easel to my right illustrates the alien smuggling routes as they increasingly rely on our interstate highways for the movement of illegal aliens to worksites across the country—to North Carolina, Tennessee, Maryland, New York, Florida, Texas, Indiana, Nebraska, and to virtually every region in the country. Over-the-road smuggling is increasing as the demand for workers intensifies and as INS border strategy continues to divert illegal crossers from traditional crossing points.
Houston is a major staging point for the routing of groups of illegal workers crossing at McAllen and Laredo, TX. From Houston they are moved eastward along Interstate Highways 10 and 20. Chandler Heights, AZ, is a major staging point for routing along Interstates 70, 76, and 80.
This interstate, cross-country alien smuggling is a threat to public safety. The smugglers use stripped-down vans, small trucks, and even tractor-trailers, many of which are in poor mechanical condition and often overcrowded. Inexperienced drivers are traveling long distances without sleep and often at excessive speeds. Accidents, including fatalities and injuries, are on the rise.
Small transportation companies. operated by smugglers and known as camionetas, are springing up in Texas. These camionetas operate under Federal transportation regulations as ''common carriers'' and, therefore, are not required to check the documentation or the status of their passengers. Consequently, these smuggler-operated camioneta buses are able to transport illegal migrants anywhere in the United States with little or no fear of prosecution. Unlike legitimate bus companies, large and small, camionetas have no scheduled routes or stops, and deliberately plan their trips to avoid detection. Smuggler operated camioneta operations are based primarily in the Houston and Dallas areas.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The challenges in meeting this multifaceted alien smuggling threat are large. It requires constant reassessment and adjustment of our enforcement strategy.
Operation Camioneta, a New Orleans Border Patrol Sector intercept effort, resulted in the apprehensions of more than 1,200 illegal aliens over a 4-day period in February and March of this year alone. Assembled by smugglers in the Houston area, these aliens were headed for illegal work, but were apprehended on Interstates 10 and 20 in Louisiana and Mississippi.
Examples of antismuggling efforts beyond our borders include Operation Disrupt, which was a joint operation conducted in the Dominican Republican last fall. It involved INS and other Federal agencies, and the Dominican Republic Government and immigration officials. As a result of this operation, five alien smugglers and four counterfeit document manufacturers were arrested. More than 400 would-be illegal migrants carrying fraudulent documents were intercepted at Dominican Republican airports prior to boarding planes to four major U.S. airports.
A joint United States-Canada-Hong Kong operation last fall resulted in the arrests of 17 alien smugglers in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. These smugglers were responsible for illegal entry into Canada and the United States of more than 600 Chinese illegal aliens over the past 3 years. Smugglers had moved these Chinese nationals from Canada into the United States across a narrow stretch of the St. Lawrence River through the Native American Indian reservation on the U.S. side of the border. The 17 smugglers are being tried in Canada on 33 separate counts of organized alien smuggling and one count of global conspiracy.
We are also hard at work implementing the recently-enacted enforcement provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act. These provisions complement the administration's comprehensive efforts to combat illegal immigration and provide us with much-needed tools to continue moving forward.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I will do our best to respond to any questions you may have regarding this endeavor so important to us all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Regan follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE REGAN, ACTING ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR ENFORCEMENT, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
COMBATING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: A PROGRESS REPORT
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am accompanied by Joseph Greene, Director of the INS Denver District Office, James Bailey, Assistant Regional Director for Intelligence, INS Central Region, Jose Garza, Chief Border Patrol Agent, the McAllen Sector, Louis F. Nardi, Director, Smuggling and Criminal Organizations Branch, INS Headquarters Investigations, and Anne Veysey, Employer Sanctions Specialist.
We appreciate this opportunity to share with you and the American public information on INS initiatives and progress in stemming the flow of illegal immigration.
Border Management
Southwest Border
Control of the Southwest border, as you know, remains the top enforcement priority for the INS. The border we share with Mexico is the number-one choice for illegal entry to the United States.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congress and the Administration continue to work in providing INS with the resources necessary to support an enforcement strategy that is making a difference now and will continue to do so in the future. This strategy restores the rule of law to the Southwest border.
Our goals are clear: deter illegal immigration, alien smuggling and drug trafficking, and facilitate legal border crossings through the ports of entry. The INS plan for maximizing efficient and effective border management has several objectives:
To provide the Border Patrol and other INS enforcement divisions with the personnel, equipment, and technology to deter, detect and apprehend unauthorized aliens, and to disrupt and dismantle alien and drug smuggling organizations;
To gain control of major entry corridors along the border that have been controlled by illegal migrants and smugglers;
To close off the routes most frequently used by smugglers and illegal aliens and to shift traffic to areas that are more remote and difficult to cross, giving us the tactical advantage; and
To continue an ongoing initiative toward maximizing cooperative efforts with the Mexican Government and immigration and law enforcement authorities.
The Border Patrol has undergone unprecedented growth nationwide over the past three years. We will have increased the number of agents from 3,965 in 1993 to 6,878 by the end of this fiscal year. Our goal is to have almost 7,400 agents by the end of 1998.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Operation Hold the Line, begun in September 1993 in El Paso, was the first example of our deterrent strategy. A strategy to gain control of specific geographic area of the border. Hold the Line was designed to:
Maximize the visibility of Border Patrol agents along a 20-mile stretch of the border formed by the Rio Grande River.
Preclude unauthorized entries into the city and lower crime in the environs of El Paso and make it more difficult for aliens to obtain unauthorized work or move further into the interior of Texas, New Mexico and the rest of the United States.
Operation Gatekeeper applied a similar deterrent strategy, beginning in October 1994 in San Diego. Given the different terrain and makeup of the border-crossers, this operation combines immediate border visibility with an expanded support infrastructure, including stadium-style lighting, portable lighting, fencing, night vision scopes, and sensors. It also involves applying pressure on smugglers at their drophouses, and at checkpoints on the major roads leading north to Los Angeles and the interior of California. When Operation Gatekeeper was initiated, we utilized the lessons learned from ''Hold the Line'' by correcting weaknesses at the ports-of-entry (POEs) at the same time as we were building Border Patrol effectiveness between the POEs.
Operation Safeguard was begun in February 1995 in Arizona at Nogales and later at Douglas. Safeguard combines the presence and visibility of the agent patrols in the most populated areas, with additional strategically located traffic checkpoints on roads leading away from the border.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The McAllen Border Patrol Sector, beginning last fall, increased its anti-smuggling efforts by targeting staging areas, drophouses and citizen complaints. McAllen is also intensifying enforcement activities at the immediate border by conducting joint operations with the U.S. Customs Service, Department of Defense, and state and local law enforcement agencies.
We've seen dramatic success in each of these areas:
The daily migration from Juarez to El Paso was cut by approximately 75 percent in the first months of Operation Hold the Line and, even with the effect of peso devaluation, apprehensions in El Paso have remained low.
Since Operation Gatekeeper began, illegal entries into San Diego's Imperial Beach area, historically the most heavily trafficked illegal corridor, have dropped approximately 60 percent (186,894 in fiscal year 1994 to 74,979 in fiscal year 1996). Operation Safeguard in Arizona has had similar results.
Consistent with the beginning of a new tactical strategy, apprehensions in the McAllen sector were up 34 percent from January 1996 to January 1997. Local law enforcement officials attribute a decrease in crime in those communities at least in part to Border Patrol initiatives.
Mexican law enforcement is working with the Border Patrol to target and apprehend border robbers preying on migrants, alien and drug smuggling, and other criminal activity along the border.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Added resources and personnel provided by the Congress have enabled us to further tighten border enforcement. But, while we continue to apply this strategy, those who intend to cross our borders illegally also are hard at work finding new means and methods to get in.
As increasing numbers of intending illegal immigrants are forced away from traditional and more accessible border crossing points, they increasingly are relying on alien smugglers for passage to the United States.
U.S.-Canadian Border
INS, with the help of Canadian Immigration and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is keeping a close watch on our border to the north, where illegal entries are believed to be increasing.
Apprehension figures on attempted illegal entries at the Canadian border are minuscule compared to the Southwest border. Nonetheless, for some, the Canadian border is an alternative gateway for illegal entry to the United States. Illegal immigrants attempting entry to the United States from Canada in 1996 represented 118 countries.
Alien Smuggling
As INS enforcement makes it tougher to enter the United States illegally, increasing numbers of border-crossers are relying on alien smugglers. Smuggling fees range from several hundred dollars for a border crossing to thousands of dollars for transportation to the interior of the United States.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Alien smuggling reaches far beyond our borders with Mexico and Canada to all regions of the globe and deep within the United States itself.
Second only to border enforcement, the INS is giving top priority to locating, arresting and prosecuting these traffickers in human cargo, here and abroad. Our reasons are both simple and compelling.
These smuggling organizations will use any means whatsoever to produce enormous profits while protecting themselves—committing murder, rape, torture, forgery, extortion, and forcing their often unwitting customers into prostitution and virtual bondage.
Alien smuggling is a growing multi-billion-dollar global business. Smugglers daily are moving thousands of illegal immigrants from source countries, through transit countries to the North American Continent, and within the United States. Their fees for a single illegal immigrant range as high as $50,000 for a Chinese illegal immigrant.
Intelligence reports and actual experience indicate that drug smuggling and alien smuggling often are linked. Many smuggling rings are involved in both alien and drug smuggling. Illegal migrants seeking assistance from alien smugglers sometimes called coyotes often become mules carrying narcotics as part of the price of passage to interior points in the United States. A number of investigations into criminal organizations involved in both alien and drug smuggling are proceeding.
Assaults on Border Patrol agents and violence in general at the Southwest border are on the increase, along with alien and narcotics smuggling and criminal gang activity:
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Tucson Sector experienced a 400 percent increase in assaults on agents in 1996 76 assaults in 1996, compared to 19 in 1995.
Seven assaults on El Centro Sector agents in 1996, compared to two assaults in 1995 a 250 percent increase.
Assaults against agents in El Paso Sector jumped 50 percent, from 14 in 1995 to 21 in 1996.
Alien Smuggling at the Southwest Border
Intelligence reports from INS field personnel, as well as from other highly reliable sources, indicate growth in alien smuggling and an increasing demand for their services by intending illegal immigrants.
Alien Smuggling: A Multi-faceted Operation. The smuggling of illegal aliens to the interior of the United States has evolved into a multifaceted operation:
Phase I involves the illegal alien traveling to the Southern side of the Southwest border, either on his/her own, with a group and/or with the help of a guide;
Phase II requires the illegal alien to cross the border, either on his/her own, or with the help of a local smuggler;
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Phase III involves use of short-haul smugglers for transportation of illegal aliens to staging/transiting points for a price (phase III and phase II could be handled by the same smuggler); and
Phase IV may involve use of for-hire smuggler-provided overland conveyances (in vans, buses, tractor-trailers, rental trucks, automobiles and other vehicles) for transportation to final destinations in the interior.
Smugglers involved in Phase IV generally believe that the risks of arrest and prosecution diminish, the farther they travel away from INS border enforcement resources.
The overwhelming majority of illegal aliens apprehended on the Southwest border are from Mexico. Illegal migrants from other countries which transit Mexico, known as ''Other than Mexican'' (OTMs) constitute less than two percent of the total. The Mexican economic situation, coupled with the long-standing drought in several regions in Mexico, has forced mass migration to cities along the Southwest Border and into the United States.
Mexican cities along the Southwest Border identified as major staging areas for alien smuggling include from west to east: Tijuana, Mexicali, San Luis Rio Colorado, Naco, Nogales, Agua Prieta, Ciudad Juarez, Ciudad Acuna, Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros. Alien smugglers operating in these Mexican cities have developed a sophisticated infrastructure to successfully counteract U.S. Border Patrol operations along the Southwest Border.
OTMs transit Mexico by a variety of means including various combinations of private vehicles, commercial buses, rail and domestic air carriers. Once the OTMs reach these locations, they blend into the much larger volume of Mexican traffic, crossing by similar means. Accurate figures for OTMs are sometimes difficult to gauge, as Central and South Americans will often falsely claim Mexican citizenship to avoid repatriation to their true country of origin. OTMs are more likely than Mexicans to transit under the control of smuggling organizations, due to their illegal status in Mexico and lack of familiarity with Mexican transportation options. Generally, they also pay higher fees for the same smuggling services.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
More than half of OTM illegal aliens apprehended at the Southwest border come from Central America, primarily from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Peaceful resolution of regional conflicts culminating in the recent Guatemalan peace accords may result in a long term reduction in the migrant flow. Currently, economic factors appear to play a greater role and will continue to spur migration at current levels (more than 20,000 apprehensions annually).
Central America is also increasingly serving as a transit zone for aliens from other areas. Transit through the region is facilitated by smuggling rings as well as by hundreds of independent traffickers.
The next largest category of OTM migrants originate from South America, primarily from the Andean nations of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. South Americans transit to Central America primarily by air, but also by maritime vessel.
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Apprehension figures, shown on the chart above, are an indication of increased smuggling activity at the Southwest border a 24 percent increase in the last two years.
Prosecutions of Alien Smugglers at the Southwest Border. INS enforcement efforts are beginning to pay off in the number of prosecutions:
Criminal cases filed in Texas, Arizona, California and New Mexico against alien smugglers apprehended at the Southwest border totaled 817 in 1996 more than double the 349 cases file in 1995.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The number of defendants prosecuted in these cases totaled 1,186 in 1996, compared to 563 in 1995.
Defendants found guilty in 1996 totaled 790, and 340 in 1995.
Arrests and Prosecutions of Smugglers Nationwide:
In FY 1995, 1,998 smugglers were arrested and 1,325 defendants prosecuted.
In FY 1996, 2,215 smugglers were arrested and 1,975 defendants prosecuted.
Alien Smuggling at the U.S.-Canadian Border
Both Canadian and U.S. immigration authorities believe that alien smuggling is intensifying and becoming increasingly more organized at key points along the U.S.-Canadian border.
The number of aliens seeking illegal entry to the United States from Canada is minuscule compared to illegal traffic crossing the Southwest border. Nonetheless, as Southwest border enforcement continues to stiffen and the price charged for smuggling escalates, many choose the alternative of illegally entering the United States from Canada.
According to the INS Canadian Border Intelligence Center (CBIC), major Canadian cities with large ethnic communities, including Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, serve as transiting points for smuggled aliens who enter Canada as visitors prior to attempting illegal entry into the United States. Canada has waived visitor visa requirements for both Mexico and Costa Rica. Smugglers appear to be taking advantage of these visitor visa waivers and are using Canada as a stepping stone to the United States for their illegal clients from Mexico and Costa Rica. The CBIC reports that, during FY 1996 and the first quarter of FY 1997, approximately 90 percent of all Costa Ricans attempting to enter the United States from Canada relied on a smuggler.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The cost of an airline ticket from Mexico City to any of the major cities in Canada is less than $500, a price highly competitive with current smuggling fees for crossing the Southwest border. Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) recently reported a significant increase in Mexican applicants for refugee status since 1994. Mexican refugee claimants more than tripled from 256 in 1994 to 975 in 1996. According to the CIC, the vast majority of Mexican refugee claimants undergo six to eight weeks of English language training. Following completion of the English course, half of the claimants withdraw their applications and apparently attempt to cross the border illegally into the United States.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) estimates that the majority of smuggled illegal aliens arriving in Canada are moved south, across the border into the United States. Most of the alien smuggling across the U.S./Canadian border emanates from Canada's population centers located in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor to the east and the lower mainland of British Columbia to the west. In Toronto alone, the RCMP has identified 50 alien smugglers.
Statistics reveal a substantial increase in alien smuggling through the Akwesasne Native American (ANA) Reservation which straddles Ontario, Quebec, and New York State on a narrow stretch of the St. Lawrence River. The Border Patrol Sector, Swanton, Vermont, has registered a four-fold increase in arrests of smugglers and illegal migrants in this area over the past three years from 67 arrests in FY 94 to 299 in FY 96. The reservation has become a favored passage for smuggling illegal migrants across a narrow stretch of the St. Lawrence River less than five miles from Massena, New York.
Alien Smuggling Inside the United States a Threat to Public Safety
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Transnational criminal alien smuggling organizations now have footholds in a number of our larger cities and are operating in the interior of the United States.
Alien smugglers increasingly are using our interstate highways for movement of illegal aliens to worksites across the country.
Like visa overstayers who enter the United States legally, but overstay their visas, illegal border crossers are lured by jobs, not only in border states, but increasingly at interior locations around the country. Increasing numbers of illegal aliens are headed for jobs in every region of the country: poultry processing in North Carolina, Tennessee and Maryland; garment manufacturing in New York; agriculture and service industries in Florida, Texas and California; meat packing in Indiana, Nebraska and the Dakotas; and construction and service industries in metropolitan Washington, D.C.
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Over-the-road smuggling is increasing as the demand for seasonal workers intensifies and as INS border control strategy continues to divert illegal crossers from traditional crossing points.
The continued tightening of enforcement along the Southwest border has forced smugglers to move their assembly, or staging, points for illegal immigrants farther north and away from the Southwest border. The Houston area, for example, is the major staging point for routing groups of illegal workers crossing at McAllen and Laredo, Texas. From Houston, they are moved eastward, along Interstate Highways 10 and 20.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chandler Heights, Arizona, is a major staging point for routing along Interstates 70, 76 and 80.
This interstate, cross-country alien smuggling is a threat to public safety. The smugglers use stripped-down vans, small trucks and even tractor-trailers many of which are in poor mechanical condition and often overcrowded. Inexperienced drivers are traveling long distances without sleep and often at excessive speeds. Accidents, involving fatalities and injuries, are mounting. Earlier this month, four major accidents involving alien smuggling in the Denver area occurred during a 12-day period.
Small transportation companies, operated by smugglers and known as camionetas, are springing up in Texas. These camionetas operate under federal transportation regulations as common carriers and, therefore, are not required to check the documentation or status of their passengers. Consequently, these smuggler-operated camioneta buses are able to transport illegal immigrants anywhere in the United States, with little or no fear of prosecution. Unlike legitimate bus companies, both small and large, smuggler-operated camionetas have no scheduled routes or stops and deliberately plan their trips to avoid detection. Smuggler-controlled Camioneta operations are based primarily in the Houston and Dallas areas.
The challenges in meeting this multi-faceted alien smuggling threat are large. It requires constant reassessment and adjustment of our enforcement strategy. INS is attacking smuggling organizations at all levels in source and transit countries, at our borders and in the interior, maximizing use of all of the INS enforcement divisions and resources.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The INS is building a comprehensive strategy. It addresses smuggling at the local, regional, national and international levels. It must include a wide range of investigative, intelligence and deterrence-related tactics designed to deter, disrupt and dismantle these organizations and related criminal activity.
Priority is given to targeting major smuggling organizations that transport illegal aliens and narcotics across our international borders. Operations also target use of fraudulent and counterfeit travel documents. These bogus documents are the hallmarks of smugglers. Several recent operations illustrate adjustments to enforcement activity and the need for more focus on what is happening past our borders inside the United States.
Operation ''Camioneta.'' A New Orleans Border Patrol Sector intercept effort, resulted in the apprehensions of more than 1,200 illegal aliens over a period of four days in February and March of this year alone. Assembled by smugglers in the Houston area, these aliens were headed for illegal work, but were apprehended on Interstates 10 and 20 in Louisiana and Mississippi.
Operation Mountain Passes. This was a joint operation involving the INS Denver District Office and Colorado State and local police that ran for one month in 1996. This operation resulted in the apprehensions of 1,300 illegal aliens on Colorado highways and revealed that Colorado is a major transit point for long-haul organized alien smuggling. While 20 percent of the arrested aliens were headed for Denver, 80 percent were traveling to Chicago, New York and Florida.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Anti-Smuggling Operations Beyond U.S. Borders
Examples of anti-smuggling efforts beyond our borders include:
Operations Disrupt I, II and III were conducted by the INS District Office in Mexico City over the past two years. These operations were designed to gather intelligence and disrupt alien smuggling activity in the Caribbean.
Operation Disrupt III was a joint operation conducted in the Dominican Republic last fall. It involved INS, other federal agencies and the Dominican Republic Government and immigration officials.
Five alien smugglers were arrested.
More than 400 would-be illegal migrants carrying fraudulent documents were intercepted at Dominican Republic airports prior to boarding planes for four major U.S. airports.
Four major counterfeit travel document manufacturers were arrested.
More than 70 corrupt employees and officials within the Dominican Republic government were arrested for involvement with alien smugglers.
A Joint U.S.-Canada-Hong Kong operation last fall resulted in the arrests of 13 alien smugglers. These smugglers were responsi