Challenges Faced by US Customs and Border Protection Agents in Securing the Border - Essay Example

Introduction

In January 2017, Executive Order 13,767 was issued by President Donald Trump, authorizing the building of a contiguous wall along the Mexico-United States border in a bid to safeguard the border and bring illegal border crossings to an end. President Trump, in the executive order, ordered five-thousand more Border Patrol agents to be hired as soon as possible (Luna-Reyes et al., 2017). At the time, the Border Patrol had slightly less than 20,000 agents in its employ, which implied that the number of Border Patrol agents would increase by nearly twenty-five percent following the hiring spree ordered by President Trump. This suggested fast hiring procedure would later adversely affect processes within the very Border Patrol body as well as at the border as a whole. This paper explores some of the challenges faced by Border Protection agents and US customs in trying to safeguard the border.

Challenges Faced By US Customs and Border Protection Agents in Securing the Border

The most prominent challenges that the US customs and Border Protection agents have had to deal with have been manifesting in the form of certain criminal aspects inside the border patrol. The Border Patrol, like many other agencies, has agents in its payroll who are not up to its standards of conduct. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, as the Border Patrol went on a hiring spree almost in a panic, the CPB loosened its hiring requirements and employed agents who did not have sufficient qualification and who had not been adequately trained and stationed them along the Mexico-US border (Guerette, 2019).

In 1992, it was highlighted in an issue of the Americas Watch that undocumented immigrants were suffering excessive abuse of human rights perpetrated by some Border Patrol agents at the Mexico-United States Border. Both individuals and human rights groups have recently reported routine violence inflicted on migrants who arrive at the border only to be subjected to verbal abuse, racist language, unwarranted physical handling, and beatings. In addition, there have been several reports of several instances of sexual abuse, torture, unjustified shootings, among many other crimes against humanity (Johnson & Woodhouse, 2018).

Corruption is one nightmare that has been haunting the Border Patrol since its inception and has persisted to date. Border Patrol agents, especially at the Mexico-US border, have continually been caught in high rates weapons and drug smuggling, illegal entries, human trafficking, among other corrupt activities.

The functional equivalent of the border has been determined to be the United States’ territorial boundaries, existing on air, sea, and land (Boyce, 2016). To be precise, stations at intersections, ports inside the nation, and international airports are also considered functional equivalents of borders (Boyce, 2016). In addition, the United States has a total of sixteen facilities that have been cleared by the as functional equivalents of borders. There are also facilities that have been designated as preclearance, with the majority in Canada at Winnipeg, Victoria, Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, Edmonton, and Calgary airports (Cope et al., 2017).

It is a requirement of the Fourth Amendment that a seizure or search done by an agent of the government, such as the ones in Border Patrol, be reasonable and subject to a probable cause. But there is an exception to the amendment as it pertains to the border. By definition, the main function of a seizure or search by Customs officials is not to enforce criminal laws or to arrest persons but to collect duties, ensure that commodities leaving or entering the US comply with the country's rules and seize forfeiture commodities illegally exported or imported and unreported financial instruments costing more than $10,000 (Chacón & Davis, 2018). The US 9th District Court also provides a more legalistic definition, which states that two statutory provisions give agents of the United States, particularly Customs officials, powers to conduct searches of mail, vehicles, and persons and the border (Chacón & Davis, 2018).

Border officials use seizures statistics to confer relevance to the purpose of border security through the presentation of tangible metrics that can be shown to the public and to policymakers for an extended budget to improve and secure more resources that can be used to safeguard the border (Payan, 2016).

The concept of open markets and closed borders is basically used to control border enforcement, free trade, and smuggling. President George W. Bush tried to bring the two aspects of this concept into perspective by stating that America’s great and peaceful borders have to be open to commerce, which means they have to be open to people to move in and out freely (Gravelle, 2018). This is what is meant by “open markets.” But the same borders that must be opened to commercial markets must also remain closed to criminals and terrorists.

Difficulties of Cross-border Crossings

The previous section demonstrates that it is a considerable challenge to facilitate legal border crossings and, at the same time, keep the borders secure. This challenge can be defined by the exploring the open border paradoxes, one of which is the “Hardened Border Paradox,” which implies physically enhancing the border through “hardening” it with patrols, towers, fence lines, and other elements of physical border security, in a bid to stall the surge of illegal migrants and stopping all the atrocities that might happen at the border region. The paradox is that hardening the border too much produces the precise opposite effect intended by the government; more misery, death, crime, and corruption, as can be witnessed even now.

Conversely, the “Open Border Paradox” produces the exact opposite effect when the border regulations are relaxed too far, allowing nefarious individuals and groups to carry out their biddings undeterred. However, analysts have shown that both these paradoxes can be overcome by compromising reasonable physical firewalls and migrating sensible and safe open legal trade policies that would not deter legal and profitable movement across the boundaries. Several factors have considerably impacted the development of strategic plans to protect the US border. CPB is the country’s border agency on the frontline, vested with the double mission of safeguarding the country’s boundaries and, at the same time, encouraging legitimate travel and trade. This calls for a need to protect the country against violation of cross-border regulations that pose a risk to national security, public safety, and the economy. Everybody agrees that CPB has to maintain vigilance in the process of addressing these threats and challenges.

CBP has, for a long time, encountered the difficulty of counteracting terrorist and criminal exploitation of commercial cargo and international passenger systems at more than three hundred and twenty-seven sea, land, and air ports of entry (POE). CPB also has the responsibility to put an end to the illegal movement of contraband and people over more than seventy thousand miles of border. In conjunction with the US Coast Guard, this jurisdiction is even larger, covering an additional more than ninety-five thousand miles of shoreline. Threats from terrorists and related groups have pushed security and safety to the top of the list of government priorities. As the nation carries on with the conduct of the Global War on Terrorism overseas, CBP must be more vigilant than ever before to deter those who might attempt to hurt Americans on the home front. The United States encounters evolving threats from terrorists, particularly from Islamic extremist groups, like the al-Qaeda, and individuals who choose to work independently. These groups are considered the United States’ most immediate threats. They will probably try to improve attacking ability in the United States via liaisons with regional terrorist groups overseas and through the intensification of attempts to install agents in the United States. They have a persistent desire to inflict injury on the United States as they try to obtain and utilize nuclear, radiological, biological, and chemical materials in their strategy to make weapons of mass destruction.

Economic Impact of Terrorism on Global and US Markets

The costs of the 9/11 attacks have been determined to have been quite significant, with estimations ranging from as low as 80 to as high as 90 billion dollars when following economic losses in reduced commerce, workman’s compensation, and lost wages are considered [cite]. Terrorists can inflict costly harm on targeted nations using several known avenues. Terrorist activities result in economic consequences through the limiting of trade, redirection of public investment finances to security, destruction of infrastructure, and the diversion of foreign direct investment (FDI). In the event that a developing nation loses enough FDI, a vital savings source, it is highly likely to experience an economic decline. In the same manner that capital can run away from a nation ravaged by civil war, a considerably robust terrorist campaign can significantly affect inflows of capital [cite].

The impact that terrorism has had on Global and American markets since 9/11 had, until as late as 2014, remained undefined. This is taken with regard to the initial effects immediately after 9/11 when rescue funds worth an estimated $100 billion had been approved to the economy, relative to Desert Storm, which had a price tag of approximately $61 billion (Orrenius et al., 2017). With the United States having a deficit of nearly 20 trillion dollars toward the close of 2014, the expenses in deterring the occurrence of another 9/11 have been justified in view of the potential loss of property and lives that would be witnessed in case another catastrophic attack occurs. The economic impact of terrorism on American markets and Global markets has been tremendous, generally in view of the amount of money that the United States and other global economies have incurred in dealing with the aftermath of the attack and in preparing for or preventing another attack of the same nature. But, overall, the economic impact is almost of secondary importance considering the increasing jihadist threat on Western and the global civilization and partially on the Western civilization itself for the sake of its survival into posterity.

Like civil conflicts, terrorism has caused spillover costs among surrounding nations since a terrorist campaign in a neighboring country discourages flows of capital. In the same way, regional multipliers have resulted in reduced economic activity in its allied, terrorism-bugged nation to resonate everywhere in the region. In certain instances, specific industries may feel the impact of terrorism, including the tourism and airline industry, among others [cite]. Expensive security regulations are yet another cost that has to be instituted in the wake of large attacks. An excellent example is the extensive Homeland Security outlays that have been going on since 9/11 [cite]. Some critics also say that terrorism has been affected with regard to larger salaries to at-risk employees, expensive security precautions, and higher insurance premiums.

The diversity and size of an economy have a lot to do with a country’s anti-terror capabilities without a depiction of important economic effects. The shipping industry of Yemen suffered significantly, following the USS Cole terrorists. To make matters worse, the Limburg changed the course of Yemen’s activities to factories in Oman and Djibouti following an elevation of 300% in insurance premiums [cite]. In a developed and diversified economy, the influence of such a loss could be temporary as materials are moved to other sectors. Better still, security measures have been installed to every concern.

GATT and NAFTA

The influence of GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade) contracts on cross border commerce in North America has been, from a personal point of view, two-way traffic. Even though the two agreements have resulted in improved profits and revenues for corporate bodies on either side of United States borders, they have utterly exposed the borders to a potentially catastrophic breach. Taking advantage of the very shortcomings of the NAFTA and GATT agreements, nefarious and illegitimate criminal and terrorist organizations have exploited these loopholes, such as border cargo inspections. The very amount of cargo that is transported through the sea and land ports of entry is nearly unimaginable. This single deficiency in itself ought to raise the alarm regarding the role that NAFTA and GATT have played in changing the dynamic of security since 9/11 (Orrenius et al., 2017).

NAFTA basically restructured the economic relations of North America, fuelling unexpected relationships between the developed economies of the United States and Canada and Mexico, a developing economy. NAFTA initially enjoyed bipartisan support in the United States. Its negotiation was undertaken by President George W. Bush, then-Republican president, passed by a Congress controlled by democracy, but its implementation was done President Bill Clinton, a Democratic president. Under the agreement, trade within the region more than doubled, and there was significant growth in cross-border trade between the three sovereignties.

But NAFTA can be said to have been a perennial target in the broader conflict regarding free trade. President Donald J. Trump opines that the agreement undermined manufacturing and jobs in the United States. As a result, in late 2019, President Trump and his administration finished the update of a new version of the contract between Mexico and Canada, presently referred to as the USMCA (US-Mexico-Canada Agreement). The new agreement received huge bipartisan backing on Capitol Hill and took effect on July 1, 2020. Even though GATT and NAFTA were created several years apart, their impact on international commerce has been felt far and wide. The majority of analysts have, however, argued against NAFTA, saying it is comparable to a “giant sucking sound,” by which they were referring to the numerous employees based in the United States who would lose their jobs courtesy of NAFTA [cite]. GATT is characteristically multilateral, under whose auspices multilateral commerce is allowed between several nations. As such, GATT has considerably liberated international trade in North America. Its first article allows member countries to export and import services and goods without tariffs. This solid multi-nationalistic way of thinking epitomized by GATT caused the U.S, Canada, and Mexico to buy in to a territorial exchanging understanding that takes into account more liberated exchange as well as spotlights on the government assistance of numerous enterprises, including materials, diversion and automotive to give some examples.

Conclusion

From the above discussions, it can be seen that issue of security at the US-Mexico border has been and continues to be a contentious one. A lot of crime and atrocities have been accomplished across the border that, in January 2017, President Donald Trump ordered the erection of a wall between the two countries and hardening of the security at the border, which saw a surge in the enlistment of Border Patrol officers at the border. The economic impact of terrorism on American and global economies has been tremendous. Although rarely mentioned, the GATT and NAFTA have actually played a significant role in the escalation of crime across either side of US borders.

It is a requirement of the Fourth Amendment that a seizure or search done by an agent of the government, such as the ones in Border Patrol, be reasonable and subject to a probable cause. But there is an exception to the amendment as it pertains to the border. By definition, the main function of a seizure or search by Customs officials is not to enforce criminal laws or to arrest persons but to collect duties, ensure that commodities leaving or entering the US comply with the country's rules and seize forfeiture commodities illegally exported or imported and unreported financial instruments costing more than $10,000 (Chacón & Davis, 2018). The US 9th District Court also provides a more legalistic definition, which states that two statutory provisions give agents of the United States, particularly Customs officials, powers to conduct searches of mail, vehicles, and persons and the border (Chacón & Davis, 2018).

Border officials use seizures statistics to confer relevance to the purpose of border security through the presentation of tangible metrics that can be shown to the public and to policymakers for an extended budget to improve and secure more resources that can be used to safeguard the border (Payan, 2016).

The concept of open markets and closed borders is basically used to control border enforcement, free trade, and smuggling. President George W. Bush tried to bring the two aspects of this concept into perspective by stating that America’s great and peaceful borders have to be open to commerce, which means they have to be open to people to move in and out freely (Gravelle, 2018). This is what is meant by “open markets.” But the same borders that must be opened to commercial markets must also remain closed to criminals and terrorists.

Difficulties of Cross-border Crossings

The previous section demonstrates that it is a considerable challenge to facilitate legal border crossings and, at the same time, keep the borders secure. This challenge can be defined by the exploring the open border paradoxes, one of which is the “Hardened Border Paradox,” which implies physically enhancing the border through “hardening” it with patrols, towers, fence lines, and other elements of physical border security, in a bid to stall the surge of illegal migrants and stopping all the atrocities that might happen at the border region. The paradox is that hardening the border too much produces the precise opposite effect intended by the government; more misery, death, crime, and corruption, as can be witnessed even now.

Conversely, the “Open Border Paradox” produces the exact opposite effect when the border regulations are relaxed too far, allowing nefarious individuals and groups to carry out their biddings undeterred. However, analysts have shown that both these paradoxes can be overcome by compromising reasonable physical firewalls and migrating sensible and safe open legal trade policies that would not deter legal and profitable movement across the boundaries. Several factors have considerably impacted the development of strategic plans to protect the US border. CPB is the country’s border agency on the frontline, vested with the double mission of safeguarding the country’s boundaries and, at the same time, encouraging legitimate travel and trade. This calls for a need to protect the country against violation of cross-border regulations that pose a risk to national security, public safety, and the economy. Everybody agrees that CPB has to maintain vigilance in the process of addressing these threats and challenges.

CBP has, for a long time, encountered the difficulty of counteracting terrorist and criminal exploitation of commercial cargo and international passenger systems at more than three hundred and twenty-seven sea, land, and air ports of entry (POE). Read More