U.S.-Mexico Border

Tuesday, November 24, 1998

Moderator: Alexander Aleinikoff, Senior Associate, International Migration Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Speaker: Demetrios G. Papademetriou, Senior Associate and Co-Director, International Migration Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Improvements at the Border

Papademetriou posited that there is nothing that impacts more significantly on US-Mexico relations then US behavior at the border and its internal immigration controls. The INS has made substantial gains in improving the overall quality of border management and enforcement. Through increased enforcement, it has reduced petty crimes significantly. Where chaos once prevailed, the INS has succeeded both in creating a sense of orderliness along the border and adjacent areas and in improving the facilitation of traffic management. Such improvements will be able to accommodate, with relatively few problems, approximately 70 million border-crossers in El Paso and 90 million in San Diego this year. About half a million people will cross into the United States through the El Paso Port of Entry on foot in 1998.

The enhanced orderliness at the border is attributable, in part, to technological advances that have heightened INS ability to manage and control points of entry. One example, still in the embryonic stage, is the IBIS system. It provides for the electronic scanning of identity cards that border-crossers use at points of entry. The IBIS card system greatly speeds up the entry process by allowing border officials to access all pertinent information on their database about the card user. Another example is the IDENT system that uses thumbprint machines and cameras to biometrically confirm identity. Within two minutes, IDENT can verify identity and indicate approval or rejection. While Papademetriou acknowledged that these new technologies are at various stages of development, and are thus vulnerable to breakdown, the INS is constantly seeking new and innovative ways to upgrade its technology.

Improving the relationship between U.S. immigration authorities and Mexican nationals is another area of concern where the INS is making notable advances. In El Paso and San Diego, the INS has invited Mexican Consuls to set up "extraterritorial" offices within the U.S. Ports of Entry to offer services to and to carry out the orderly repatriation of Mexican nationals, particularly minors. While the degree to which these offices are effective is commensurate with the quality of a Consul General's relationship with US authorities, these arrangements are efficient and perform important services for both countries. Without them, the repatriation of minors would be far messier while the INS would have to resort to incarceration and thus invite a host of associated problems.

Papademetriou pointed out as well that U.S. border officials play an important role in promoting a positive relationship between the Immigration Service and Mexican nationals through the quality of service at the border. Overall, the INS has become significantly more professional in its operations and its Border Patrol has also made equivalent advances— largely reflecting the leadership's commitment to professionalism. To their credit, line officers appear to be taking a matter-of-fact approach to enforcement and doing their jobs with considerable efficiency.

Persistent Problems

While improvements at the border have been significant, problems have nevertheless persisted, both in the areas of facilitation and control. Papademetriou noted that facilitation is still rather uneven at both the management level and in the lower ranks. The INS has yet to demonstrate a consistent ability to direct, in a timely manner, the proper amount of resources to the places where they are most needed. In the area of control, the paramount issue is that of human rights. Papademetriou pointed out that although there have been no incidents in El Paso since 1994, in Nogales there are daily complaints of intimidation, disrespect, and mistreatment. More generally, tensions along the border have been exacerbated by the increased enforcement effort, creating an environment that is both volatile and incident-prone. To get past heightened security, illegal activity has necessarily become riskier and more creative. For example, illegal migrants have had to venture further out into dangerous terrain and drug smugglers have children throw rocks at the Border Patrol or attempt to cross into the United States in a large group as a diversion tactic. Papademetriou noted that this year the number of deaths at certain parts of the border has doubled. Border officials, who are aware that lives are quite literally on the line, have responded in a manner that is both focused and weary. These agents are clear about their mission yet understand the motivation driving the migrant flows. Typical statements made include, "Mexicans are trying to improve their lives" and "Desperate people do desperate things". At the same time, agents also demonstrate a good understanding that the political pendulum in Washington swings both ways. While they appreciate the advantages of top of the line equipment and technology, they acknowledge that the fate of these gains lies in the hands of unpredictable government forces and they remain weary of Washington officials.

Papademetriou further noted that the Border Patrol thinks and acts as a military organization. This militarization is manifested not only in the border patrol's tactics, language, and the sophistication of its equipment, but also in the overall sense of professionalism and pride. Yet, the United States is not winning any wars. While the border control effort has demonstrated that illegal entry can be controlled given enough resources in a small area over a period of time, enforcement efforts principally redirect--rather than stem--the migrant flow. Many senior border officials in fact acknowledge that even with more resources, illegal entry cannot be entirely prevented. Despite this, efforts to heighten control at the border continue--making some analysts' notions that little is being accomplished unfounded. Indeed, even if few additional resources were directed to the border, funds already invested will continue to improve U.S. effectiveness in both facilitation and control.

The efforts to heighten border control are not, however, without cost. The INS itself has increasingly become less manageable and its mission is being redefined in an additional way. Papademetriou argued that the INS is developing into a "mini bureau of prisons" without the benefit either of experienced jailers or the facilities to keep people incarcerated for extended periods of time. In addition, the INS has neither adequate resources nor space to handle its caseload. Papademetriou pointed out, for example, that in San Diego the INS has run out of beds and local jail space and has resorted to releasing detainees who have not committed a crime. He observed that such conditions continue to change the character of the organization, making it even more enforcement and less service oriented.

In addition, Papademetriou maintained that because the immigration court system is overloaded, it has developed into a "turnstile" operation in which large numbers of cases are decided within short periods of time. Under the enormous pressure of its caseload, INS line officials will often bully people with false documents to admit to the facts in order to avoid the much more burdensome task of having to process them adversarially. Papademetriou argued that without these and similar measures, the system would be unable to cope with the volume. Another "weapon of choice" that the INS is using with apparent abandon is expedited exclusion. Under this system, INS inspectors exclude first time illegal entrants for five years, with the exclusion period quadrupling for a second offense. Those caught illegally for three or more times are prosecuted and jailed, under a deterrence policy of no tolerance developed by Allen Bersin, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California and "Border Czar". Papademetriou argued that this type of system cannot be sustained over the long-term.

Overall Conclusions

Papademetriou pointed out that the United States is currently demonstrating more of an ability and willingness to be serious about managing the border than at any other time in history. He argued, however, that it is now time for policy-makers to strive to move beyond merely intensifying enforcement as a means of relieving the pressures of illegal immigration. Such efforts are not as effective as the government portrays them and are also counterproductive in that they make the smuggling of illegal immigrants an ever more profitable operation. Offering incentives to Mexico to facilitate cooperation with the United States and considering such investment incentives as designating key border areas as "enterprise zones" might yield more productive results. Secondly, Papademetriou noted that border communities have borne much of the weight and cost of illegal immigration, creating an overall sense of anger and frustration. Now that order appears to have been restored, policy-makers should ask for guidance from these communities to develop new ways to foster a more "livable" border, rather than continuing to pour more and more resources into enforcement. In this regard, Papademetriou noted that the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has initiated a program to explore how border communities on both sides in both southern and northern borders are managing their relationships. Finally, Papademetriou pointed out that future progress at the southern border- in both facilitation and controls- is directly tied to the ability of the United States and Mexico to come together and think in a common way about their shared border. Diligent efforts should thus be made to promote a sustained long-term cooperative effort by both the United States and Mexico (1). Presently, cooperation at the border is still very uneven and on most key issues each side lies fundamentally on opposite planes. Mexico is concerned about most aspects of border operations and expresses its frustration by not cooperating beyond the letter of agreements. Conversely, the United States often makes promises on which it either does not deliver or does so with extreme reluctance. The end result has been that the US-Mexico relationship has turned into a game whereby each country is paying lip service to the political imperatives of the other. Papademetriou argued that any meaningful cooperative efforts will require a more balanced exchange in which the two countries treat each other with respect. Ultimately, the United States will have to engage Mexico in a different conversation.

___________________________________