Who’s Keeping an Eye on the Border Patrol? : Immigration: Two recent incidents have revived the agency’s trigger-happy-cowboy image. But the INS seems more interested in defending itself.

Two recent events have combined to entrench the image of Border Partrol guards as reckless and trigger-happy. A 2 1/2-hour pursuit of a stolen car crammed with 12 illegal immigrants ends in Temecula with the deaths of five innocent bystanders. Near Nogales, an unarmed illegal immigrant suspected of drug running is shot twice in the back. A guard along the Arizona-Mexico border is charged with his murder.

While the two incidents don’t prove an emerging pattern of misconduct by immigration officers, they indicate the job of policing the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border is getting riskier, and more violent. As the border increasingly moves center stage in the national drug war, similar tragedies are likely to occur.

In light of this and growing pressures on the Border Patrol and its parent, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, to stem the rise in illegal crossings and drug smuggling along the border, it is time for Congress to evaluate the patrol’s performance. As Rep. Ron Packard (R-Oceanside) has said, the issue in Temecula was not whether the officers violated standard pursuit procedures--an INS investigator said they acted responsibly and exercised good judgment--but “whether the overall Border Patrol policy is effective at stopping illegal immigration.”

The INS officials reviewing the agency’s pursuit policy should be asking themselves whether the Border Patrol should spend precious time and scarce resources chasing a car miles from the border and freeway check points, since the illegal immigrants apprehended would probably return a day or two after being bused home. The money could be better spent on new equipment and more training for Border Patrol agents.

But lawmakers who fund the INS also need to evaluate whether the agency has the money it needs to fulfill its primary mission of curtailing the flow of illegal immigrants and its added responsibilities of interdicting drugs, investigating alien smuggling and enforcing employer sanctions. These additional duties have transformed the job of Border Patrol agent from enforcement to management.

Since 1986, when Congress gave the Border Patrol special authority to arrest drug suspects, the agency has been on the front lines of the drug war, making more than 16,000 drug seizures worth more than $3.3 billion. At the same time, the number of apprehensions of undocumented immigrants has begun to climb in the last few years, expected to reach 1.2 million in 1992.

Although Congress authorized a 50% increase in the border force in 1986, when it passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, lawmakers have failed to come through with the money to hire the new guards. With 3,700 agents, the Border Patrol is roughly the same size as it was in 1986--before its duties were expanded.

As a result, border agents are stretched thin. A 1991 government report noted that between 1986 and 1990 the number of hours agents devoted to border-enforcement duties dropped from 71% to 60%. The addition of 300 officers this year will not significantly help.

While appropriate funding is necessary if the INS is to do its job well, the agency does not appear to be doing much to shake the image of Border Patrol guards as ever eager cowboys. Indeed, INS officials reinforce the stereotype by reacting defensively to reports of Border Patrol abuses. For example, INS Commissioner Gene McNary recently refused to meet with members of Americas Watch, a human-rights organization, to discuss their report of “pervasive” misconduct by border agents. Another report, by the American Friends Service Committee, identified 285 complaints of physical abuse by the Border Patrol between May, 1989, and May, 1991, including seven deaths, two of them following high-speed chases.

The INS dismisses the groups’ reports as reflections of the “political agenda of wanting open borders and no law enforcement whatsoever.” It claims to receive one allegation of abuse for every 17,000 arrests.

What is not disputed is the immigration agency’s refusal to issue its own report outlining the number and types of complaints filed and their outcome. One unwitting consequence is that the INS appears to condone the negative reputation of its enforcement arm.

There are steps the INS could take to restore public confidence in its performance and burnish the Border Patrol’s image. For example, the agency could spell out the penalties for misconduct and abuse of authority. A border agent would probably think twice about firing his gun into a car carrying undocumented immigrants if he knew the offense carried a month’s suspension without pay. And an agent under investigation for misconduct should know he will be placed on administrative leave or given other duties until the complaint against him is resolved.

Currently, Border Patrol supervisors decide disciplinary action on a case-by-case basis, as was noted in a 1990 audit of INS firearms policy by the U.S. Office of the Inspector General. According to the report, the INS does not have a uniform disciplinary policy for firearm offenses or procedures for reassigning an officer after a serious shooting incident. Of the 66 shootings reviewed by the inspector general, 14 were judged accidental discharges, and 8 involved violations of INS firearms policy, including shooting at cars and firing warning shots.

Another INS policy in need of correction is the agency’s refusal to release the names of officers under investigation. The names of the agents involved in the Temecula incident, for example, were blacked out in the INS investigative report. INS officials say they are protecting the agents’ right to privacy. But what purpose is served by refusing to disclose the names of officers cleared of wrongdoing? This practice only fuels public suspicion that the INS has something to hide.

While there are bound to be rogue officers in any law-enforcement agency, building public trust requires INS officials make the effort to curtail abuse. McNary and Atty. Gen. William P. Barr need to determine whether what occurred at Temecula and Nogales are part of a pattern of misconduct or are aberrations. It’s not enough for them to simply say that the agents at Temecula followed department pursuit policy or that the shooting of an unarmed Mexican is a rare event. As one congressional staffer said, “These incidents would require any attorney general to take a hard look to see if it’s the tip of the iceberg.”

Until the public gets the sense that Border Patrol guards are held accountable, its impression of them as a bunch of gunslingers will persist. In the long run, this image will hamper the Border Patrol’s ability to get the job done.