We need better scrutiny of border guards
It was with dreams of seeing their mother for the first time in years that two teenage sisters set out from their gang-ravaged home in Guatemala for Fresno last summer, illegally crossing the border into Mexico and eventually Texas. Lost in the desert, they flagged down two Border Patrol agents for help.
Instead, they ended up getting groped in a U.S. Customs and Border Protection intake facility by an officer, according to a pair of claims filed last week by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.
“(He) told me he had to search me for his own safety. I took off my sweater, then my shirt,” the older sister told The Fresno Bee, insisting on anonymity because she’s worried about government retaliation. “I kept asking him why. Then I took off my tank top. He asked me to take off my bra, but I didn’t want to, so I loosened it ...” The details get worse from there.
Stories about violent and sexual misconduct by Customs and Border Protection employees aren’t new. Neither are stories about corruption involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. But with the Trump administration vowing to hire a “deportation force,” possibly lowering hiring standards and rushing training to get 15,000 new agents into the field, these stories have suddenly taken on a new urgency.
If ever there was an area of federal law enforcement that needs extreme vetting, it’s this one.
Civil liberties groups have long criticized Customs and Border Protection – the third-largest law-enforcement group in America – for its resistance to transparency. A panel named by the Homeland Security secretary called the CBP’s disciplinary process “broken.” The Police Executive Research Forum investigated 67 deadly shootings by agents from 2010 to Oct. 2012, resulting in new rules.
Despite some improvements, advocates maintain there’s still not enough information about who gets searched and detained by Border Patrol, why property gets seized, and how often force is used.
Last week, the federal government agreed to pay $1 million to settle a San Diego lawsuit over the death of a Mexican teenager told by two Border Patrol agents to sip liquid from two bottles he claimed contained apple juice. In fact, it liquid meth; the boy died.
In Arizona, Border Patrol agents either lost or destroyed a video showing the 2012 killing of a Mexican teenager by an agent (now charged with second-degree murder) who fired across the border fence.
There have been conflicting reports about whether the Department of Homeland Security plans to stop requiring all Border Patrol applicants to take lie-detector tests. Leaked memos say yes. That’s unacceptable when two of three job candidates fail the exam, according to The Associated Press, and some of those who apply have criminal backgrounds and some have connections to Mexican drug cartels.
In a report to Congress, Homeland Security insisted the number Customs and Border Protection employees accused of sexual assault is small. Perhaps. But that doesn’t explain what happened to the two sisters, who still don’t know the name of their alleged attacker and whether he was disciplined. Homeland Security has six months to respond.
The federal government must not cut corners on new agents. And the Trump administration must not take a pass. If it plans to grossly expand this force, it must make clear that those entrusted to enforce our laws are not above them.
The border agents union endorsed Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign and members of the union defied court orders to desist in executing his travel ban in January. These agents must be loyal to our nation and its laws, not any single elected official or especially their own desires.
This story was originally published March 28, 2017 at 1:41 PM with the headline "We need better scrutiny of border guards."