Secretary Noem,
As a retired immigration inspector from the Douglas, AZ Port of Entry I am wondering how serious President Trump, congress and DHS are about border security.
For example, did Congress finally include funding for an off-the-shelf computer program to track B1/B2 I-94 Visa / Permit departures from the United States? It was recommended twice by the 9/11 Commission (see: 9/11 Commission Report).
Twice Congress surreptitiously pulled funding for the program
Spending billions for a wall and enforcement between and beyond the Ports of Entry is certainly justifiable (though grossly overbilled), but unless the laws are enforced at the Ports of Entry the problem isn’t really solved.
As a new immigration inspector in 1996, every alien requesting entry into the United States for more than 24 hours and further than a certain daily “economic” distance (normally 20 miles) from the border was required to purchase a B1/B2 I-94 Permit.
The only means for an inspector to determine if the alien qualified for an I-94 was for the alien to present proof of residence and “economic solvency” (employment) in Mexico. This vetting process was the same used at US embassies overseas.
Documentation (“comprobantes“) included utility receipts for water, gas, electricity, etc. and paycheck stubs from their employer. Inability to provide such simple evidence that the alien was residing in Mexico and intended to return to their residence was sufficient to deny the alien a permit to enter the country. Further interviewing and searches usually led to discovery of the alien living and working in the United States.
If no evidence was found of illegal residence, the alien was either simply denied a permit, handed back his BCC and returned to Mexico or, if suspected of illegal residence, the alien’s border crossing card could be temporarily seized, logged in, and held for a week pending the alien’s return with sufficient documentary evidence of living in Mexico.
When I arrived at the Douglas, AZ Port of Entry, no one was asking for these documents.
I was immediately brow-beat, harassed and counseled in writing for requiring such documentary evidence by our “Mexican Moses” supervisor Ernestina Morris. (see: 10 Years on the Line: My War on the Border)
I continued doing my inspections according to INS policy and others began to do so as well. It was quite a shock to our neighbors across the line. They weren’t used to such treatment and routinely accused us of racism.
On the other hand, we began discovering so many of them living and working illegally in the United States it was like fishing in a barrel.
In late 1999, the INS Tucson District Director, Roseanne Sonchik, was so upset we were making so many cases she sent an email to the Port of Entry Directors stating she was “considering revoking immigration inspectors’ authority to deny permits.” She never officially did but immigration inspectors in the Tucson District were told verbally by supervisors that we could no longer deny permits – we had to ask a supervisor to do so.
The problem was very few supervisors denied or cancelled permits regardless of the direct evidence we discovered of them living and working illegally in the United States. Doing so was a career ender for supervisors.
We were also told by our “Mexican Moses” supervisor Morris we could no longer share information on California Mexican gang members crossing through our Port of Entry with the local gang intelligence task force (“GITEM”).
Additionally, no one was requiring the information needed to properly complete the reverse side of the I-94. The back side of the I-94 contained space for writing the specific address of the requesting alien’s destination and length of stay with instructions to return the I-94 to the same Port of Entry upon return to Mexico.
In late 1999, INS arbitrarily changed policy and made I-94 Permits valid for an automatic six months regardless of purpose of visit and destination. The Mexicans were ecstatic and laughed in our faces when we asked the purpose of their visit into the United States. We also began to see more “OTMs” (other than Mexicans) arriving at our Port of Entry demanding “the six-month permits”.
This was the year (2000) the border actually disappeared. Every alien paying six dollars for an I-94 Permit was allowed to stay (live and work) in the United States for six months. Upon the expiration of the Permit, he simply crossed back across the border and demanded another “six-month Permit” to return to their illegal residence and employment (or welfare benefits).
When I caught a Mexican man and his family living in Phoenix on $350,000 unauthorized welfare (ACCHS) benefits, supervisor “Mexican Moses” Morris shouted at me “What do think would happen to all the jobs for ACCHS workers if we cancelled all the illegals receiving it?”
Well, probably save the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Illegal aliens receiving welfare in the United States is pandemic along every border state. Efforts to institute cross checks to eliminate fraud were quashed by each state’s legislatures.
Supervisor Morris’ was dating a married rancher in Mexico who allowed the cartel to store their drug shipments until they were ready to smuggle across the line. She had been warned repeatedly to stop the relationship and never did.
She was promoted to Port Director and retired with full benefits.
This “service” mentality vs. “enforcement” is pandemic at every Port of Entry in the United States. Unless this hole in the dike is plugged, the border will never be “secure” regardless of how many miles of wall are erected.
So I ask you, Director Noem, is Trump, is Congress – is DHS – serious about border security?
Did the “Big, Beautiful Bill” contain funding for the twice demanded visa exit verification program?
Are I-94 Permits being issued for only the duration of the purpose of the visit and restricted to the declared destination?
Is the specific destination and duration of visit being recorded on the visas? If stopped and asked for proof of legal presence in the United States by any law enforcement officer, presentation of the I-94 with the destination information on the back side allows the law enforcement officer to determine if the alien is abiding by his terms of entry – or if he is out of status.
Do CBP officers have the authority to deny entry into the United States based on direct evidence of disqualification?
My money’s on NO!
If I’m correct, the Trump administration and congress are just gaslighting the American public about border security.
Immigration law does not need “reforming” (congressional code for “amnesty”). It needs enforcing!
