Measuring border patrol efficacy: DHS methods and limitations

Border Security

Effective Ways to Measure the Efficacy of Border Patrols

According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS): "protecting our borders from the illegal movement of weapons, drugs, contraband, and people, while promoting lawful entry and exit, is essential to homeland security, economic prosperity, and national sovereignty… Through increases in Border Patrol staffing; construction of new infrastructure and fencing; use of advanced technology -- including sensors, radar, and aerial assets -- investments to modernize the ports of entry; and stronger partnerships and information sharing, we are creating a safer, more secure, and more efficient border environment" (Border security overview, 2013, DHS). However, some outside analysts have called into question the DHS claim that it has made substantive improvements to limiting access to the nation's borders to authorized persons alone. There remains considerable debate as to how best to measure the efficacy of border security.

This paper will examine different dimensions of measuring border security efficacy, including predictive risk management. Understanding how to measure success rates is relevant because unless it is determined how best to measure efficacy, it is almost impossible to suggest new measures to improve policing of the border. Ultimately it will be suggested that current methods are lacking and rather than investing additional funds into the current infrastructure, a more effective methodology of assessing current patrolling is needed, particularly in the face of scarce financial resources. At present, it is very difficult to draw a definitive conclusion as to which methodologies are effective and ineffective, due to the multiple factors that could affect the results of current data. These include economic factors which motivate migration and the vigilance of border security agents regarding specific groups. The paucity of good data continues to frustrate lawmakers and the public, given the scarcity of current available resources designed to enforce border control policy.

Hypothesis

"DHS's border security mission includes its efforts to prevent the entry of unauthorized migrants, combat criminal networks that smuggle drugs and other contraband, and identify and interdict potential terrorists at America's borders" (Rosenblum et al. 2013: 4). The current framework of risk management used by the DHS is problematic in the manner in which the federal agency has assessed the present state of border security. Other contingent circumstances must be evaluated more holistically for a full picture of the needs of border security and the influx of undocumented persons over the nations' borders.

Variables

Border security is currently measured according to the number of apprehensions successfully made by the DHS. To measure efficacy, the "Department of Homeland Security has been working on its Border Condition Index (BCI). The index -- which is meant to evaluate the state of border security -- will examine data and trends, both quantitatively and qualitatively" (Tadjdeh 2013). The number of DHS agents patrolling the border has doubled since 2004 and apprehensions are down 78% since 2000 and by 50% since 2008, indicating, according to the DHS, that security has improved (Tadjdeh 2013). Additional agent patrolling is assumed to have a deterrent effect.

Critics contend, however, that apprehensions may be down because of less effective patrolling, not because of the increased number of agents has been patrolling the border or because of improved detection methods (Tadjdeh 2013). The presence of border guards, after all, was not a deterrent to migrants before, who often braved extremely dangerous conditions in the hopes of crossing the border. The DHS supports claim of success with the evidence that technological surveillance has vastly improved, in addition to the increased number of agents, thus suggesting a lower number of apprehensions is negatively associated with these additional control measures. Security technology has fundamentally changed, hence the enhanced efficacy in monitoring.

Current debates

Currently, in public debates on the subject of border security, there is a constant 'back and forth' between different groups about the need to acknowledge the contribution made by long-standing undocumented workers to the U.S. (some of whom have paid taxes on their earnings) and to create a secure border. "The Senate passed a bill last month that would allow the nation's 11 million unauthorized immigrants to get temporary legal status as the federal government rolls out a $46 billion 'border surge' strategy that floods the region with Border Patrol agents, drones, helicopters and surveillance technology. Ten years later, if the border security plan is fully implemented, those immigrants could then begin applying for green cards, and U.S. citizenship three years later" (Gomez 2013).

In short, there is currently being negotiated a 'quid pro quo' arrangement between advocates of amnesty in the Congress and advocates of more zealous security -- some are arguing that there is a need for greater liberalization of existing policy, given the contribution immigrants (even illegal ones) make to the economy, while others are arguing that more stringent methods of control are needed. In exchange for granting temporary legal status, more manpower for the DHS is being commandeered. The current exchange being proposed is one of amnesty for tighter controls, allowing existing immigrants to remain with the U.S. while creating more preventative barriers to further immigration.

However, this political compromise is contentious on both sides of the aisle. Many immigration advocates believe that a militarized solution to protecting the border does not address the real problems of why illegal immigration occurs in the first place. Furthermore, even some Republicans are questioning the tremendous financial investment this would require. "Some security-conscious Republicans, like Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, say they view the 20,000 new Border Patrol agents called for in the Senate bill as excessive. He also says the bill, which includes an itemized list of hundreds of pieces of surveillance equipment that will go to each of the nine border sectors, dictates too much to the Department of Homeland Security how to do its job" (Gomez 2013). Budget cuts mean that there is no longer the 'carte blanche' attitude towards spending for the DHS and INS, in contrast to the concerns which arose in the wake of 9/11.

From a cost-benefit analysis, fiscally prudent Republicans argue that the expenditures demanded for a perfectly secure border are in excess of the risks posed to both the economy and to national security at the Mexican-U.S. border. The funds, they argue, might be better used elsewhere, either to balance the budget or to protect the U.S. from other types of terrorist, domestic, or outside threats. Statistics suggest that the majority of illegal immigration seems largely economically-directed. Even a number of border control agents critiqued the bill, stating that the numbers of agents needed to patrol the border are adequate; rather what are demanded are better and more efficiently-applied resources to the interior of the country.

It is estimated that nearly 60% of all illegal immigration to the U.S. comes from Mexico (Illegal Mexican immigrant numbers down as more migrate back to Mexico, 2012, CBS). However, it could be argued that although statistics indicate the majority of immigrants are Mexican, it is also possible that the high level of concentration of immigrant police on the border is an equally significant factor and could skew these statistics. Given that more agents are concentrated on the border there are naturally greater opportunities for apprehension. Thus even the question of 'who' makes up the majority of immigrants remains a topic of frequent debate.

Some opponents of amnesty and the focus on allowing families to stay together through changed immigration policy suggest that this ultimately will not serve the real needs of the U.S. economy. There is clearly a need for immigrants to bolster the economy. "In reality America needs more immigrants," argued an editorial in the conservative business magazine Forbes, but "importing populations without necessary skills and attitudes useful for the modern economy can produce unhappy results. The key issue is how to attract and select immigrants likely to contribute to the national well-being and economic competitiveness," with an emphasis on workers with technological skills (Kotkin 2012:1). "Perhaps it would be better if our immigration policies were less about politics, and ethnic constituencies, and more about gaining specific skills and abilities from other countries, including from Mexico's growing ranks of educated and skilled workers" (Kotkin 2012:1). But the proposed amnesty legislation would largely address the needs of workers who migrated in terms of their family considerations, versus economic policies. Opponents argue that many of these workers came to fill lower-level service jobs, not the jobs where immigration is desperately needed. Since the 2008 downturn, service sector growth and job expansion has contracted, not expanded in the U.S. And injecting more workers into this sphere is not necessarily useful.

Rather than border security and curbing illegal immigration alone, the need for effective and targeted immigration should be addressed, Forbes argues. "In 2011 barely 13% of all American immigrants came as a result of employment-based preferences, down from 18% 20 years ago. Family reunification should remain a cornerstone of immigration but needs to give way substantially to a more skills-oriented policy" (Kotkin 2012:1). A number of regions, including the Mid-Atlantic States and the West, despite high unemployment in many areas, have consistent employment deficits in technological professions, reflecting a 'skills gap' that must be addressed (Kotkin 2012:1). This idea, however, is often politically unpalatable to those who are advocates for current undocumented workers as well as those who are concerned that an influx of immigrants (highly-educated or not) raises potential security concerns.

Yet despite the political polarization of these various sides of the immigration issue, there is a certain amount of consensus in regards to specific policies. There is some agreement in Congress that unfettered immigration and a completely porous border are unwise, and an acknowledgement that immigration in some form can prove beneficial to the U.S. But how to honor these objectives in a cost-effective fashion remains an open question, as does the 'type' of immigrant the U.S. should allow to remain within its borders, legally. Does the U.S. seek new immigrants outside of those who have current undocumented status, or does the U.S. honor migrants who have made a substantive contribution to the U.S. (paying taxes in the case of some) despite their undocumented status?

Of course, in this controversy, there are those who suggest that focusing on border security is less effective than focusing on employer behavior. A number of states, including Arizona, have enacted legislation to penalize employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. "The goal on both the state and federal level is to punish egregious cases and convince farmers, restaurant owners, clothing manufacturers, meatpackers and other employees - employers to change their behavior" (Conan 2011). Rather than concentrating agents at the border, it is argued that a more effective strategy is to focus on employers -- if employers have a disincentive to hire illegal workers and the work dries up, than the numbers of illegal immigrants will naturally decrease.

Research design

The immigration debate is further complicated by the fact that actual figures about illegal immigration are highly contentious. According to an independent report by the bipartisan Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the current methodology of assessing the success of current DHS policy is problematic because "the number of apprehensions is not self-explanatory…It could mean people are being deterred from crossing, but it could also mean a lot of other things. When you think about it, it could even mean Border Patrol is doing a worse job because they're catching fewer people" (Brown 2013). Another possible hypothesis is that decreased numbers of apprehensions are due to the softening of the U.S. economy and the dearth of attractive jobs for illegal migrants -- there was a notable influx of returnees immediately after the credit crisis of 2008.

Additional data from the CFR also supports the idea that DHS overestimates the number of persons it catches: "when the CFR analysts crunched numbers from migrant surveys and the Department of Homeland Security, their estimates were that only 40 to 55% had been caught," versus the 55% estimated by the DHS (Brown 2013). This is not necessarily deliberate deception: "counting the people who elude immigration authorities is notoriously difficult. To measure getaways, the Border Patrol relies largely on footprints, snapped twigs, and other traces of human activity scattered along the border" (Brown 2013). These forms of activity can very easily be disturbed by accidents or environmental conditions like weather.

Instead of such circumstantial evidence it is argued that border patrol agents should use a