Border Patrol: Staffing and Enforcement Activities
Released: 1996-03-11T00:00:00

Letter

Background

INS is responsible for enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. INS operates through a headquarters in Washington, D.C., 3 regional offices, 33 district offices, 21 Border Patrol sectors, and 265 staffed ports of entry. The Border Patrol, Investigations, and Inspections are three of the principal INS divisions with enforcement responsibilities. INS’ district offices and Border Patrol sectors geographically overlap throughout the country. Districts are responsible for Investigations’ and Inspections’ enforcement activities, and sectors are responsible for the Border Patrol’s enforcement activities.

The Border Patrol’s 21 sectors are headed by chief patrol agents who carry out enforcement activities at 145 stations located throughout the continental United States and in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (see app. I for a map showing the 145 stations). At the end of fiscal year 1994, the Border Patrol had 4,260 Border Patrol agents on duty. As of September 13, 1995, INS had hired and finished training 530 Border Patrol agents and had an additional 369 agents in training. This represents an estimated 22 percent of INS’ expected increase in the number of new agents over the next 3 years. We did not include these 899 new agents in our analysis because they were not deployed at the end of fiscal year 1994.

INS’ 33 districts are headed by district directors. The districts’ enforcement efforts involve conducting investigations and inspections. Investigations’ mission is to detect criminal law violations involving aliens, to deter the employment of aliens who are not authorized to work, and to identify and prosecute alien smugglers. Inspections’ mission is to determine the admissibility of all persons seeking entry into the United States at land, air, and sea ports of entry.

The Border Patrol’s portion of the INS enforcement mission is to secure and protect the borders of the United States by preventing illegal entry, and by detecting, interdicting, and apprehending illegal aliens, smugglers, and contraband. To prevent and detect illegal entry, the Border Patrol patrols the border by land, sea, and air. To apprehend illegal aliens and smugglers, it checks traffic, public transportation, and vessels, and patrols the interior (e.g., looking for illegal aliens in areas over 25 miles from the border). In addition, the Border Patrol assists Investigations and Inspections staff in carrying out their missions. To do this, the Border Patrol is to check employers for illegal workers, visit local jails or state prisons to interview aliens, and identify alien smugglers.

All immigration officers who carry out INS’ enforcement functions are to receive general and specialized training to carry out their enforcement responsibilities. For example, Border Patrol agents receive the same general training in the use of firearms that is given to other enforcement officers and receive specialized training to track individuals or groups who illegally cross the border.

The Border Patrol’s Enforcement Strategy

The Border Patrol’s border enforcement strategy has been to apprehend aliens after they had illegally entered the United States. After initially locating stations on the border and in the immediate border area, the Border Patrol established stations in nonborder areas that had concentrations of illegal aliens. For example, the El Paso, Texas; Warroad, Minnesota; and Niagara Falls, New York, stations on the Southwest and Canadian Borders were established in 1924. In 1926, the Miami, Florida, station was established because aliens were being smuggled into the United States from Cuba. Generally, stations over 100 miles from the border, such as the stations in Dallas and San Antonio, Texas; and Boulder City, Nevada, that were opened between 1986 and 1988, were opened because there were large numbers of illegal aliens in those areas. However, INS did not establish Border Patrol stations in some large metropolitan areas known to have substantial alien populations, such as New York City, Chicago, or Los Angeles, because these cities generally were considered to be the final destination for many illegal aliens. The strategy at the time called for stopping illegal aliens before they had reached their final destination.

Recently, INS changed the Border Patrol’s enforcement strategy along the Southwest Border from apprehending aliens after they had illegally entered to deterring them from entering in the first place. According to INS officials, the new strategy is to concentrate agents on the border to raise aliens’ risk of apprehension to a maximum level and thereby deter aliens and alien smugglers from attempting illegal entry. In July 1994, INS issued a phased multiyear border control plan to implement the new strategy.

Scope and Methodology

To identify the locations of the Border Patrol’s stations, we reviewed INS maps, documents, and directories. To identify the number of Border Patrol staff at each location, we reviewed INS’ fiscal year 1994 personnel summary that listed INS employees, including Border Patrol agents and staff. During visits to selected stations, we interviewed Border Patrol officials to determine if INS’ personnel summary for each location accurately reflected the staff as of October 1, 1994.

To identify the enforcement activities carried out at each location, we analyzed the Border Patrol’s statistical work reports that contained, by location, the hours charged by Border Patrol agents to enforcement and other activities. We excluded from our analysis administrative activities. We did not verify the validity of the data. However, during visits to selected stations, we discussed the statistical reports with Border Patrol officials, who said that the reports generally reflected how the agents spent their enforcement time and what types of activities the agents performed. Through these discussions, we identified the specific types of work included under each activity. To obtain an understanding of these activities, we accompanied and observed Border Patrol agents as they performed various enforcement activities in the field. Our analysis of Border Patrol activities enabled us to identify its activities that paralleled the activities performed by Investigations or Inspections.

We judgmentally selected Border Patrol stations to visit so as to include the full range of Border Patrol enforcement activities and provide broad coverage of different geographic locations. We visited 15 of the 21 Border Patrol Sector headquarters and 49 of the 145 Border Patrol stations.

For our analysis, we grouped Border Patrol stations according to their distance from the nearest land border or coastline and, for those stations most proximate to the border, the specific border they were near. We grouped Border Patrol stations on the basis of their distance from the nearest land or coastal borders—within 25 miles of a border, from 26 to 100 miles, and over 100 miles. We refer to these as zones I, II, and III, respectively. We chose the 25-mile distance because INS has authority to enter private land, but not dwellings, without a warrant for the purpose of patrolling the border within 25 miles of any external boundary of the United States. We chose the 100-mile distance because INS has authority to stop individuals and search public and private conveyances for illegal aliens without a warrant anywhere within a reasonable distance from any external boundary, defined by INS as within 100 air miles. We further subdivided zone I into three geographic areas: the Southwest, Canadian, and coastal borders. We identified these three areas within zone I because they have different enforcement characteristics.

In analyzing the enforcement work of the Border Patrol, we did not include the work performed at INS headquarters, regions, training facilities, special operations, and sector headquarters. These units are principally to provide support to the Border Patrol’s stations.

To identify the contributions of the Border Patrol to the districts’ enforcement activities, we interviewed 15 INS district directors to obtain their views on how their districts would be affected if Border Patrol agents’ enforcement activities were redirected into border enforcement at the border. We selected the 15 districts that overlapped the 15 sectors we chose to visit.

To identify some factors that could affect decisions related to hiring or relocating agents to the Southwest Border, we analyzed the Border Patrol’s locations and activities. On the basis of our analysis, we identified options, other than hiring agents, that could increase the time agents spend patrolling the Southwest Border. The options that we identified included relocating agents to the border and redirecting agents’ enforcement activities at the border. We also obtained INS data for costs related to hiring, training, equipping, and relocating Border Patrol agents, and leasing space. We did not verify the budget or cost data that INS provided or determine all of the costs related to redeploying agents within the country.

We did our work between February and October 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We provided the Attorney General and the INS Commissioner with a draft of this report for comment on December 15, 1995. Their representatives’ comments are discussed and evaluated on pages 24 and 25, and the technical information they provided was incorporated in this report as appropriate.

Border Patrol Locations and Staff

Of the 5,451 total Border Patrol agents and staff, as of September 30, 1994, 4,161 were located at 145 Border Patrol stations. The 4,161 consisted of 3,911 Border Patrol agents, 32 investigators, 64 detention officers, and 154 support staff. (See app. II for Border Patrol staffing by location.) The Border Patrol’s agents’ duties include patrolling the border and the interior, conducting traffic and transportation checks, inspecting crew and passengers aboard vessels, and checking employers and jails to identify illegal aliens. The Border Patrol’s investigators are to identify alien smugglers, and detention officers are to arrange accommodations and transportation for apprehended illegal aliens. The Border Patrol’s support staff included automotive, electronics, and communication technicians; clerks; and computer specialists.

Most of the Border Patrol’s Agents Were Within 25 Miles of the Border

As shown in table 1, 3,088 (79 percent) of the Border Patrol’s agents and 85 stations (59 percent) were located within 25 miles of the border—zone I—at the end of fiscal year 1994. The number of agents at the 145 stations ranged from 1 to 299 and averaged 27 agents per station.

Border Patrol Agents in Zone I

Within zone I, the Border Patrol had 3,088 agents, and most of them were on the Southwest Border. As shown in table 2, there were 2,543 agents (82 percent) located in the 32 stations (38 percent) on the Southwest Border.

The 32 zone I Southwest Border stations ranged in size from 4 agents at the Zapata, Texas, station to 299 at the Brown Field, California, station. The average number of agents assigned to a station on the Southwest Border was 80, and 25 of the 32 stations had fewer than 80 agents. Twelve of these 25 stations had between 55 and 79 agents. Four stations—Imperial Beach (298), Brown Field (299), and Chula Vista (295), California; and El Paso (274), Texas—accounted for 46 percent of the agents on the Southwest Border.

Along the Canadian Border, the Border Patrol had a total of 213 agents. These agents were concentrated on the eastern and western ends of the Canadian Border. Specifically, 20 of the 36 zone I Canadian Border stations were located in Washington, New York, Vermont, and Maine, and had 158 agents, or 74 percent of the agents on the Canadian Border. The number of agents at the 36 zone I Canadian Border stations ranged from 1 agent in Grand Marais, Minnesota, to 17 agents in Champlain, New York. The average number of agents at each station was 6, and 22 of the 36 stations had fewer than 6 agents. Thirteen of these 22 stations had 4 or 5 agents, and 9 stations had 3 or fewer agents.

The Border Patrol had 17 stations along the coastal borders, with a total of 332 agents, representing 11 percent of the Border Patrol agents in zone I. Staffing at the 17 zone I coastal border stations ranged from 3 agents at the Salinas, California, station to 93 at the San Clemente, California, station. Three stations—San Clemente (93) and Temecula (73), California; and Kingsville (48), Texas—accounted for 65 percent of the agents at the coastal stations. The average number of agents per station was 20. Eleven stations had fewer than 10 agents.

Border Patrol Agents in Zones II and III

In zone II, the Border Patrol had 701 of the 3,911 agents (18 percent) at 41 stations (see table 3). The zone II stations ranged in size from 2 agents in Malta, Montana, to 73 agents in Tucson, Arizona. Twenty-two of the 41 zone II stations are located in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, and accounted for 577 (82 percent) of the agents in zone II.

In zone III, the Border Patrol had 122 of the 3,911 agents (3 percent) at 19 stations. The zone III stations ranged in size from 1 agent in Llano, Texas, to 38 agents in San Angelo, Texas. Seven of the 19 stations were in Texas.

Border Patrol Enforcement Activities

During fiscal year 1994, INS data showed that the Border Patrol’s agents spent 63 percent of their 5.3 million enforcement hours patrolling the borders by sea, land, and air to prevent the entry of aliens. The remaining 37 percent of the agents’ enforcement activity was spent apprehending aliens after entry (see fig. 1). However, the time spent patrolling the border varied significantly among zones and among stations within zones. (See app. III for the Border Patrol’s enforcement activities for the Southwest, Canadian, and coastal borders, and zones II and III.)

In doing our analysis of the Border Patrol’s enforcement activities, we used fiscal year 1994 data because it was the most recent data available. After completing our audit work, we obtained fiscal year 1995 data. We compared the data for 10 selected stations to identify differences between the years. Our analysis for the 10 stations showed that the total enforcement hours decreased between fiscal years for 7 stations and increased for the other 3 stations. Also, to a lesser degree the proportion of time spent on the various enforcement activities changed. However, for 7 of the 8 stations that patrol the border, the proportional difference in the time the agents at the stations spent preventing the entry of aliens and apprehending aliens after entry was 5 percent or less.

Time Spent on Enforcement Activities

As shown in table 3, our analysis of INS data shows that agents in zone I stations generally spent most of their enforcement time preventing alien entry while, as could be expected, stations in zones II and III spent a greater proportion of their time apprehending aliens after entry.

INS officials said that they consider traffic checks on roads and highways, and transportation checks at bus stations, airports, train stations, and aboard freight trains, to be part of their border enforcement strategy to deter aliens from illegally entering the country. Consequently, INS would include these activities with patrolling the border when calculating the percentage of enforcement time the Border Patrol spends preventing the entry of aliens. Including these activities would increase the time spent preventing entry nationwide from 63 to 86 percent—19 percent for traffic checks and 4 percent for transportation checks.

While traffic and transportation checks may have a deterrent effect on illegal entry across the Southwest Border, we consider them to be more appropriately included with the activities associated with apprehending aliens after entry. Our analysis of INS fiscal year 1994 data and station locations showed that in almost all cases aliens who were apprehended during these checks had already entered the country, and these apprehensions occurred at locations that are over 25 miles from the border. For example, the Las Cruces, New Mexico, station is 53 miles from the Southwest Border and had 70 agents who spent 75 percent of their 79,233 enforcement hours conducting traffic checks. Further, the Las Cruces station is one of the 17 stations that spent at least half of their enforcement hours checking traffic to support Southwest Border enforcement activities. These 17 stations had 703 agents and range from 9 miles (El Centro, California) to 352 miles (Amarillo, Texas) from the Southwest Border. Only 2 of the 17 stations are within 25 miles of the Southwest Border, and 12 stations are over 50 miles from the Southwest Border.

Within zone I, the time agents spent patrolling the border varied significantly among the stations. The agents at stations on the Southwest Border spent 83 percent of their time preventing entry by patrolling the border. This figure compared with 67 percent for agents on the Canadian Border and 14 percent for agents on the coastal borders.

Agents at the 32 Southwest Border stations spent 83 percent of their 3.4 million enforcement hours patrolling the border, and the percentage of time patrolling the border ranged from 25 to 98 percent. Agents at 6 Southwest Border stations—Brown Field, Imperial Beach, and Chula Vista, California; El Paso and Laredo North, Texas; and Yuma, Arizona—that accounted for 51 percent of the Southwest Border enforcement hours spent from 60 to 96 percent of their time patrolling the border. Agents at another 11 stations spent less than 83 percent of their time patrolling the border. For example, the Harlingen, Texas, station is 12 miles from the Southwest Border, and the 56 agents at this station recorded 78,630 enforcement hours. Sixty percent of this time was spent patrolling the border, and 40 percent was primarily spent checking transportation, jails, and employers for illegal aliens.

Along the Canadian Border, there was considerable variation across the 36 stations in the amount of enforcement time that was spent patrolling the border. Our analysis of INS data shows that agents spent 67 percent of their 305,155 hours patrolling the border at the 36 stations. For those agents at stations that spent less than 67 percent, agents at 11 stations spent between 50 and 66 percent of their 66,762 hours patrolling the border, and agents at another 10 stations spent less than 50 percent of their 57,699 hours patrolling the border. The agents at these 21 stations generally spent their time patrolling the interior, checking jails for criminal aliens, checking public transportation or freight trains, or doing antismuggling work. The time agents spent patrolling the border ranged from 97 percent of their 16,454 hours in Swanton, Vermont, to none of their 10,089 hours in Bellingham, Washington.

Agents at the 17 coastal patrol stations spent 14 percent of their 380,785 hours patrolling the border. Agents at 13 of these stations spent less than 14 percent of their 289,718 hours patrolling the border. At 11 of the 13 stations, agents spent no time patrolling the border. Most of these agents spent their time checking traffic at highway checkpoints, patrolling the interior, checking jails for illegal aliens, or checking employers to determine if they had hired illegal aliens. The percentage of time agents spent patrolling the border ranged from 93 percent of their 31,753 hours at the Ramey, Puerto Rico, station to none at 11 stations. For example, the 6 Border Patrol agents at the Tampa, Florida, station principally spent their 8,142 hours patrolling the interior and checking local jails.

Agents at the 41 stations in zone II spent 25 percent of their time patrolling the border, with wide variation in activity across stations. For the agents at zone II stations, the time spent patrolling the border ranged from 77 percent of their 22,686 hours at the Ajo, Arizona, station to 1 percent or less at 19 stations. Agents at the 19 stations who spent 1 percent or less of their 431,002 hours patrolling the border principally spent their time operating traffic check points, patrolling the interior, or checking employers and local jails for illegal aliens. For example, the 4 agents in Roseburg, Oregon, spent 78 percent of their 4,654 hours checking local jails and employers for illegal aliens. Within zone II, the agents at 8 stations spent over half of their 273,466 hours patrolling the border.

The agents at the 19 zone III stations generally spent no time patrolling the border, as could be expected. The agents at these stations principally spent their time patrolling the interior to search for illegal aliens, checking employers’ records, or checking local jails for illegal aliens. For example, the 9 Border Patrol agents at the Dallas, Texas, station spent 98 percent of their 11,677 hours patrolling the interior and checking local jails.

Overall, agents located at the 32 Southwest Border stations spent 562,926 enforcement hours apprehending aliens after entry.

Some Border Patrol Activities Paralleled Investigations and Inspections and Were of Lower Priority Than Investigations

When not patrolling the border, the Border Patrol, along with Investigations and Inspections, is responsible for carrying out four parallel enforcement activities: (1) identifying criminal and illegal aliens, (2) reviewing employers’ records to ensure that only authorized workers are employed, (3) investigating alien smuggling, and (4) inspecting crewmen and passengers aboard ships. Investigations has lead responsibility for the first three activities, and Inspections has lead responsibility for the last activity. The Border Patrol is to carry out these activities in the same geographical areas with Investigations and Inspections and is to coordinate its activities with them. However, in carrying out some of the similar activities, the Border Patrol generally performed lower priority work than Investigations. In most locations, the district directors told us they relied on the Border Patrol to carry out these enforcement activities because no other district resources were available to do them.

Identifying and Removing Criminal or Illegal Aliens

INS has assigned a higher priority to removing criminal aliens than to removing illegal aliens from the country. According to an INS official, criminal aliens are generally housed in state and federal prisons, where they serve their sentences after conviction for deportable crimes. Local jails generally house individuals awaiting trial or serving sentences for lesser crimes. Consequently, only a portion of the aliens in local jails will become deportable criminal aliens. Thus, interviewing aliens in local jails is a lower priority within INS because fewer of these aliens are likely to be identified as deportable criminal aliens.

Investigators have lead responsibility for interviewing aliens who are incarcerated in federal and state prisons to determine if they may be deportable. Border Patrol agents primarily visit local jails and some state prisons where investigators are not available.

Identifying Criminal Aliens

Border Patrol agents are to visit local jails to identify illegal aliens either on a periodic basis or in response to calls from local law enforcement officers. In some cases, Border Patrol agents visited state prisons because, according to district directors, investigators were not available. In fiscal year 1994, Border Patrol agents at the 145 Border Patrol stations spent 4 percent of their enforcement hours visiting local jails or state prisons to identify criminal aliens. For example, we accompanied a Border Patrol agent from the Dallas station to the Tarrant County jail in Fort Worth, Texas. The agent reviewed arrest records to determine if any individuals in the jail might be illegal aliens. The agent identified two illegal aliens and obtained copies of their arrest records. He took the aliens into custody and returned to the Dallas station with them to make arrangements for their removal from the country. According to the agent, he usually visited the jail every day to identify illegal aliens.

In some cases, district directors said that they did not have enough investigators to visit all state prisons. For example, California has 42 state prisons or facilities. Investigators are responsible for 33, and Border Patrol agents are responsible for 9. According to the San Francisco District Director, he relies on Border Patrol agents from the Bakersfield and Fresno, California, stations to interview aliens in three state prisons because he does not have investigators available in those areas to visit these state prisons.

Removing Illegal Aliens

INS considers the identification of aliens who entered illegally or remained here illegally (e.g., overstayed their visa) to be a lower priority than the identification of criminal aliens. For fiscal year 1994, 136 of the Border Patrol’s 145 stations apprehended 888,994 illegal aliens. Of these, 844,335 (95 percent) were voluntarily removed, 34,190 (4 percent) were placed in deportation proceedings, and 11,469 (1 percent) were released with instructions to leave the country. Data were not available on the number of illegal aliens who were placed in deportation proceedings and then released on bond or their own recognizance.

INS data also showed that for 15 Border Patrol stations, 65 percent (5,744) of the illegal aliens they apprehended (8,778) were released and were given written instructions to leave the country. Further, each of the 15 stations released over half of the apprehended illegal aliens. These 15 stations are widely dispersed geographically from Washington to New York to Florida. According to INS officials, the stations that release a significant portion of the aliens they apprehend do not have removal funding for INS buses to remove illegal aliens. Except for the 32 Southwest Border stations, the other zone I stations’ proximity to the border did not affect their ability to remove illegal aliens.

Some zone I stations released many of the illegal aliens they apprehended. For example, the Sierra Blanca, Texas, station is 16 miles from the Southwest Border. In fiscal year 1994, the agents at that station apprehended 3,302 illegal aliens and released 1,485 or 45 percent of them.

In contrast, some zone II and III stations released none of the illegal aliens they apprehended. For example, the Dallas, Texas, station is 250 miles from the nearest border. In fiscal year 1994, the agents at that station apprehended 5,441 illegal aliens and released none. According to the Dallas District Director, this was because the district and the Dallas Border Patrol station jointly operate a 52-passenger bus 5 days per week for the express purpose of transporting illegal aliens to Laredo, Texas, where they are removed from the country.

Border Patrol stations that are in close proximity to the Southwest Border generally removed the aliens that were apprehended. For example, the Fabens, Texas, station is 5 miles from the border. In fiscal year 1994, the agents at that station apprehended 4,597 illegal aliens and released none. According to the Patrol-Agent-in-Charge of the station, its proximity to the Fabens port of entry allows it to readily remove illegal aliens from the country.

Reviewing Employers’ Records

Investigations has lead responsibility for enforcing employer sanctions. Its investigators are responsible for conducting investigations of employers who are believed to be employing unauthorized workers. The Border Patrol also is responsible for enforcing employer sanctions in some of the same locations and generally has responsibility for outdoor employment activities, such as construction, forestry, and agriculture. Investigations generally has responsibility for indoor employment activities, such as hotels or restaurants. INS fiscal year 1994 data showed that Border Patrol agents spent 133,392 of their 5,304,672 enforcement hours (3 percent) enforcing employer sanctions.

Investigating Alien Smuggling

Investigations has lead responsibility for identifying and investigating alien smugglers. Both Investigations and the Border Patrol investigate alien smuggling cases. These cases are categorized by the Investigations case management system on the basis of the severity and complexity of the case. The highest priority cases, level 1, involve complex criminal organizations that frequently smuggle large numbers of aliens into the country and require handling by investigators. The lowest priority cases, level 3, generally involve individuals who occasionally smuggle aliens into the country.

INS fiscal year 1994 data showed that Border Patrol agents spent 89,575 of their 5,304,672 enforcement hours (2 percent) doing antismuggling work.According to an INS official, investigators assigned to the Border Patrol generally investigate high priority antismuggling cases, while Border Patrol agents work lower priority cases. For example, in the Miami Sector, the investigators assigned to the Border Patrol performed the highest priority alien smuggling cases, while the agents performed low priority cases. The investigators assigned to the Border Patrol in the Blaine Sector in Washington performed both high and lower priority investigations. In Buffalo, New York, the district and the Buffalo and Swanton, Vermont, sectors have memorandums of understanding for handling antismuggling cases. According to the agreements, the Swanton Sector did both high and lower priority cases because it had investigators who could handle complex cases, while the Buffalo Sector performed only lower priority antismuggling cases because it did not have investigators. Buffalo District investigators handled high priority cases. According to the Portland, Maine, District Director, he relied on Border Patrol agents to perform antismuggling work in those areas where he did not have investigators.

Inspecting Crewmen and Passengers Aboard Vessels

In fiscal year 1994, 20 Border Patrol stations reported that they inspected crewmen and passengers on vessels. The two most active stations were Miami, Florida, and New Orleans, Louisiana. In two locations that we visited, Border Patrol agents and immigration inspectors performed parallel activities in the same geographic areas. For example, in New Orleans a Border Patrol agent conducted an unannounced inspection to determine if nonadmissible crew members had left a ship. The New Orleans district had inspectors at the port who could perform this task.

Similarly, Border Patrol agents from the Orlando, Florida, station responded to a report from a shipping agent concerning a crewman who had not returned to his ship at Port Canaveral. The agents traveled about 55 miles to the ship, picked up the crew member’s passport, and searched his quarters. Inspectors stationed at the port could perform this task. In another case, Border Patrol agents from the Port Angeles, Washington, station occasionally inspect arriving ferry passengers from Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. However, according to the Seattle District Director, immigration inspectors located in Victoria, Canada, inspect passengers before they board the ferry.

INS Commissioner’s and District Directors’ Views of the Impact on Enforcement Activities of Agent Relocation or Redirection

The INS Commissioner and district directors pointed out that if Border Patrol agents were relocated to the border, additional resources would be needed to perform the enforcement activities they currently do. District directors said that the agents contributed to their districts’ enforcement efforts. Some district directors added that they would not use replacement resources to carry out some lower priority work that the agents are doing.

During a hearing before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, in response to questions regarding the assignment of agents to interior stations, the Commissioner of INS said, “Our Border Patrol needs to be first and foremost devoted to border enforcement at the border.” She favored redeploying interior agents to the border if INS could get additional resources to do the work presently being done by the agents (e.g., employer and jail checks and the removal of illegal aliens). A Continuing Resolution provides funding for INS enforcement programs through the end of fiscal year 1996 at the resource level provided in the conference report. The resource level includes $12 million for the reallocation of 200 Border Patrol positions from interior stations to the front lines of the border. INS expects to relocate these 200 agent positions to the Southwest Border. INS had 1,368 agents who were not located on the Southwest Border at the end of fiscal year 1994.

The conferees agreed that effective border control is the most important means of controlling illegal immigration and that INS must use its Border Patrol resources in a way that ensures that apprehension of illegal aliens at the border is its first priority. They agreed that INS can no longer use Border Patrol resources on functions not directly related to border control. However, the conferees recognized the importance of an INS enforcement presence in parts of the country that have significant illegal immigrant populations. Rather than close any of these offices, the conferees directed INS to restaff these offices with criminal investigators to ensure that interior enforcement activities currently performed in these locations can continue.

On January 29, 1996, INS told us that it is continuing to develop and review options for the relocation of interior Border Patrol agent positions and plans to present to the Appropriations Committees an integrated plan addressing the entire relocation issue in mid-March.

Fourteen of the 15 district directors with whom we met said that the Border Patrol contributed to their districts’ enforcement efforts. Thirteen district directors said that if agents were redeployed or redirected, their districts would perform some of the work currently being performed by the Border Patrol if they received additional enforcement officers. The number and specific types of replacement immigration enforcement officers that they said would be needed varied depending on the work being performed by the Border Patrol within the various districts we visited. Eight district directors said that INS is currently hiring investigative aides to interview aliens in local jails and check employers’ records, the same type of work that is currently performed by Border Patrol agents. However, INS has not determined whether the aides will supplement or replace Border Patrol agents.

Thirteen district directors generally said that they would use replacement resources to continue to perform the inspections, detention, deportation, and employer and jail checks that the Border Patrol currently performs. They added that they would not use replacement resources to perform some lower priority enforcement work currently performed by the Border Patrol, such as patrolling the interior and randomly checking traffic, public transportation, and freight trains. In their districts, only the Border Patrol routinely conducted these types of activities. In doing so, the agents contributed to fulfilling the districts’ enforcement responsibilities for apprehending and removing illegal aliens.

Fourteen district directors said that in carrying out their enforcement activities, they relied on the Border Patrol because of their limited resources. For example, the Detroit District Director said that she relied on the Border Patrol to respond to complaints in western Michigan because she had no resources in that area. The San Francisco District Director said he relied on Border Patrol agents at the Bakersfield and Fresno stations to interview aliens at three state prisons. The Los Angeles District Director said he relied on Border Patrol agents from the Oxnard station to inspect about 15 ships per month at Port Hueneme. The Dallas District Director said that he relied on the Border Patrol to transport deportable aliens from Dallas to Laredo. The Helena District Director said that he relied on the Border Patrol to apprehend aliens who had received final orders of deportation, most of whom were in the Twin Falls, Idaho, area.

Some Cost Factors Pertaining to Relocating Agents

According to INS’ fiscal year 1995 budget data, it costs almost twice as much to hire, train, and equip a new Border Patrol agent as it does to redeploy an agent. The average cost in fiscal year 1994—the most recent year for which data were available—was $59,638 to redeploy agents. In comparison, the budget data showed that the cost to hire, train, and equip one agent in fiscal year 1995 ranged from $107,840 to $115,716, depending on the agent’s grade level.

The cost information necessary to estimate all potential redeployment costs was not available. A complete cost analysis would require information on the number and types of replacement staff to be hired (their numbers, training costs, and salaries), the salary levels of agents to be moved compared to those of new agents, and other factors beyond the scope of this review.

According to an INS official, the relocation of agents could result in INS closing some of its Border Patrol stations. Should this occur, INS could reduce some of its lease costs. For example, if INS were to close the Miami, Oklahoma, station, INS estimated that it would result in lease and other cost savings of $13,180 per year. (See app. IV for INS data on Border Patrol facility leasing costs.)

Conclusions

Most (79 percent) of the Border Patrol’s 3,911 agents who were located at 145 stations were within 25 miles of the border (zone I), and the majority (65 percent) of these agents were on the Southwest Border. While 63 percent of all the agents’ time was spent patrolling the border, the amount of time varied among zones and among stations within zones. Most agents at stations on the coastal borders and in zones II and III did not principally spend their time patrolling the border. While agents in zone I spent 76 percent of their time patrolling the border, the agents at the Southwest Border stations spent 83 percent of their time patrolling the border. Conversely, the agents on the Southwest Border spent 17 percent of their time (or 562,926 hours) apprehending illegal aliens after entry. These agents who are already located at the Southwest Border could have their time redirected to patrolling the border.

Redeploying agents to the border or redirecting the enforcement time of agents on the border would affect the districts’ enforcement capability. In some locations, Border Patrol agents are performing activities that parallel those carried out by Inspections or Investigations. In some cases, Border Patrol agents were performing activities that INS considers to be lower priority. However, the district directors generally said that the Border Patrol made a positive contribution to the districts’ enforcement efforts and that redirecting agent time or redeploying agents, without replacing them, would diminish the districts’ enforcement capabilities.

INS budget data indicated that relocating agents to the border was less costly than hiring new agents. However, information was not available to fully estimate the potential costs for replacing agents with other INS enforcement officers. Information, such as how many redeployed or redirected agents would be replaced and what type of replacement staff would be used, would be needed to determine all relocation and redirection costs.

The INS Commissioner favors redeploying Border Patrol agents to the border, if replacement enforcement officers are provided to carry out the work being performed by the agents at these interior locations. INS’ fiscal year 1996 Continuing Resolution provided funding to relocate 200 Border Patrol agent positions to the front lines of the border and directs INS to restaff interior offices with criminal investigators. INS plans to relocate these 200 agent positions to the Southwest Border. In fiscal year 1994, INS had 1,368 agents who were not on the Southwest Border.

Agency Comments

On January 29, 1996, we met with Department of Justice officials, including the Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General and the INS Assistant Commissioner for Budget. The officials agreed with the material in the report. They emphasized that our review focused on enforcement activities but did not evaluate the deterrent effect the Border Patrol agents’ activities have in nonborder locations (i.e., stations located over 25 miles from the land borders). The focus of our review was on the activities and location of Border Patrol agents. We recognize that the presence of agents could have a deterrent effect in nonborder areas. We also recognize the importance of having agents directly on the border. We also agree that the transfer of agents would have an impact on enforcement activities in their previous locations unless they were restaffed.

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General; the INS Commissioner; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon request.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. If you have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-8777.

Table and Maps Showing Border Patrol Locations, Number of Agents, and Their Time Spent Patrolling the Border

Patrol the interior, criminal aliens Traffic check, patrol the interior Patrol the interior, traffic check 0.0 Criminal aliens, patrol the 0.0 Criminal aliens, patrol the 0.0 Criminal aliens, patrol the (continued)

Patrol the interior, criminal aliens 0.0 Criminal aliens, traffic Patrol the border, patrol the interior Patrol the interior, criminal aliens Patrol the border, patrol the interior Patrol the interior, criminal aliens Patrol the interior, employer sanctions Patrol the interior, patrol the border 0.0 Criminal aliens, patrol the 25.7 Antismuggling, patrol the Patrol the border, patrol the interior Patrol the interior, antismuggling Patrol the interior, antismuggling (continued)

Patrol the border, antismuggling Employer sanctions, patrol the interior Patrol the border, patrol the interior Traffic check, patrol the border Patrol the border, antismuggling Patrol the border, traffic check Patrol the border, criminal aliens Employer sanctions, patrol the interior Patrol the border, antismuggling Patrol the border, criminal aliens 31.0 Antismuggling, patrol the Patrol the interior, criminal aliens Patrol the border, traffic check (continued)

Percentage of time patrolling the border 0.2 Criminal aliens, employer Traffic check, patrol the interior Patrol the border, antismuggling Employer sanctions, transportation check Employer sanctions, patrol the interior (continued)

Traffic check, patrol the interior Traffic check, patrol the interior Employer sanctions, patrol the interior Patrol the interior, employer sanctions Patrol the interior, traffic check Patrol the interior, transportation check Traffic check, employer sanctions 0.0 Criminal aliens, patrol the Patrol the border, criminal aliens Patrol the interior, employer sanctions (continued)

Fiscal Year 1994 Border Patrol Staffing by Location

(continued) (continued) (continued) (continued)

Border Patrol Enforcement Activities by Location

N = 3,377,221 enforcement hours at 32 stations.

Table III.1: Southwest Border Enforcement Activity for Fiscal Year 1994 by Station

Prevent entry (percent)

Apprehend after entry (percent)

N = 305,155 enforcement hours at 36 stations.

Table III.2: Canadian Border Enforcement Activity for Fiscal Year 1994 by Station

Prevent entry (percent)

Apprehend after entry (percent)

0 (continued)

Prevent entry (percent)

Apprehend after entry (percent)

0.0% 100% 7% Criminal alien program (Figure notes on next page)

N = 380,785 enforcement hours at 17 stations.

Table III.3: Coastal Border Enforcement Activity for Fiscal Year 1994 by Station

Prevent entry (percent)

Apprehend after entry (percent)

N = 1,077,118 enforcement hours at 41 stations.

Table III.4: Zone II Enforcement Activity for Fiscal Year 1994 by Station

Prevent entry (percent)

Apprehend after entry (percent)

0 (continued)

Prevent entry (percent)

Apprehend after entry (percent)

N = 164,393 enforcement hours at 19 stations.

Table III.5: Zone III Enforcement Activity for Fiscal Year 1994 by Station

Prevent entry (percent)

Apprehend after entry (percent)

Border Patrol Annual Facility Leasing Costs

(continued)

Located at Port of Entry (continued)

Burke (Malone) (continued)

Big Bend Nat’l Park Substation (continued)

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government Division, Washington, D.C.

Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division, Washington, D.C.

Office of the General Counsel, Washington, D.C.

Dallas Field Office

Detroit Field Office

Los Angeles Field Office

New York Field Office

George P. Cullen, Senior Evaluator Amy S. Hutner, Senior Evaluator The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.