Border Patrol: Staffing and Enforcement Activities (Letter Report,
03/11/96, GAO/GGD-96-65).
GAO examined the U.S. Border Patrol's enforcement activities, focusing
on the: (1) locations of Border Patrol enforcement activities; (2)
number of Border Patrol staff and non-administrative enforcement
activities at each station; (3) Border Patrol's contribution to district
stations enforcement activities; and (4) factors that influence the
hiring or relocation of Border Patrol agents to the Southwest Border.
GAO found that: (1) the Border Patrol assigned 3,911 of its 4,260 agents
to 145 stations; (2) as of September 1995, the Border Patrol had hired
and trained 530 new agents and had an additional 369 agents in training;
(3) 79 percent of the agents were located at stations within 25 miles of
the nation's borders; (4) Border Patrol agents spent 63 percent of their
enforcement time patrolling borders and 37 percent of their time
apprehending illegal aliens entering the U.S. illegally or who had
violated their visas; (5) Border Patrol enforcement activities include
identifying criminal and illegal aliens, reviewing employers' records to
see if authorized workers were being employed, and investigating alien
smuggling; (6) a Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 1996 has provided
INS with funds to relocate 200 of its agent positions to the Southwest
Border; (7) INS district directors depend on Border Patrol agents to
randomly check traffic on public transportation and freight trains for
illegal aliens; and (8) the average cost of hiring, training, and
equipping new Border Patrol agents ranges from $107,804 to $115,716.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-96-65
TITLE: Border Patrol: Staffing and Enforcement Activities
DATE: 03/11/96
SUBJECT: Illegal aliens
Immigration and naturalization law
Education or training costs
Law enforcement
Personnel management
Prohibited employment
Crimes or offenses
Deportation
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Committees
March 1996
BORDER PATROL - STAFFING AND
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
GAO/GGD-96-65
Border Patrol
(183595)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
INS - Immigration and Naturalization Service
rose - test
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-260334.2
March 11, 1996
The Honorable Judd Gregg, Chairman
The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Alan K. Simpson, Chairman
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Immigration
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
The Honorable Harold Rogers, Chairman
The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
The Honorable Lamar Smith, Chairman
The Honorable John Bryant
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
One of the purposes of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 was to increase the resources for the Border Patrol so as
to help stem the flow of illegal aliens crossing the Southwest
Border. To achieve this, the act authorized increases in the number
of the Department of Justice's Immigration and Naturalization
Service's (INS) Border Patrol agents and support staff. The
increases were to be not less than 1,000 agents each year for fiscal
years 1995 through 1998 (subject to available appropriations) beyond
the number funded as of October 1, 1994.\1
The fiscal year 1995 Department of Justice Appropriations Act
provided $1.5 billion for INS, which included funding to hire 700 new
Border Patrol agents.\2 These agents and other additional staff were
being hired to support INS' new border enforcement strategy of
"prevention through deterrence." Under this strategy, more Border
Patrol agents are to be deployed on the border to discourage aliens
from entering illegally. Previously, agents were generally deployed
in border areas, but not necessarily directly on the border.
We analyzed the Border Patrol's enforcement activities nationwide and
by location for fiscal year 1994 under our basic legislative
authority. This analysis is intended for your use in deliberations
on the number of Border Patrol agents to patrol the Southwest Border,
such as hiring new agents, relocating agents from other locations,
and redirecting the enforcement time of agents along the Southwest
Border who were not patrolling the border. Further, our analysis
provides baseline data that may assist your oversight of the Border
Patrol's activities and staffing. Specifically, we (1) identified
the locations where the Border Patrol carried out its enforcement
activities; (2) obtained data on the number of Border Patrol staff at
each location; (3) determined the specific enforcement activities
carried out at each location, excluding administrative
(nonenforcement) time; (4) obtained the views of selected INS
district directors on the contributions of the Border Patrol to the
districts' enforcement activities; and (5) identified some factors
that could affect decisions related to hiring or relocating agents to
deploy on the Southwest Border.
--------------------
\1 P.L. 103-322, Sec. 130006, 108 Stat. 1796, 2028, 2029 (1994).
\2 The conference report said that INS is provided $54.5 million to
fund 700 new and 250 redirected Border Patrol agents, as well as 110
support staff. (Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies 1995 Appropriations and 1994
Supplemental Appropriations, P.L. 103-317; H.R. 103-708, 103d
Cong., 2d Sess. at 98 (1994).) The 1995 Appropriations Act included
$154.6 million for modernized automation and communications systems
and other new technologies to improve control of the border.
According to an INS official, this funding was intended to enable
agents to redirect the time spent on administrative activities, such
as preparing arrest reports on apprehended illegal aliens, thereby
allowing them to increase the time spent on enforcement activities.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
At the end of fiscal year 1994, according to INS data, the Border
Patrol had assigned 3,911 of its 4,260 Border Patrol agents to its
145 Border Patrol stations. As of September 13, 1995, according to
INS data, it had hired and finished training 530 Border Patrol agents
and had an additional 369 agents in training. These new agents are
estimated to represent 22 percent of INS' expected overall increase.
These 899 new hires were not included in our analysis because they
were not deployed at the end of fiscal year 1994. Of the 3,911
agents at Border Patrol stations at the end of fiscal year 1994,
3,088 (79 percent) were located at 85 stations that were within 25
miles of the nation's border, including 2,543 agents who were located
at the 32 Southwest Border stations. Of the 3,911 agents, 701 agents
(18 percent) were located at 41 stations that were between 26 and 100
miles from the border, and 122 agents (3 percent) were located at 19
stations that were over 100 miles from the border.
According to INS data, Border Patrol agents spent their enforcement
time (which excludes administrative time) (1) patrolling the border
to prevent illegal alien entry or (2) apprehending aliens after entry
(which includes seven activities such as checking traffic on highways
to search for illegal aliens). Nationwide, in fiscal year 1994, the
Border Patrol reportedly spent 63 percent of its enforcement time
preventing illegal alien entry. The remaining 37 percent was
reportedly spent apprehending aliens who had illegally entered or had
violated the conditions upon which they had legally entered (e.g.,
overstaying their visas).
According to INS officials, INS considers the apprehension of illegal
aliens at traffic check points along highways and transportation
checks in airports and bus stations to be part of its overall Border
Patrol strategy to deter illegal alien entry. Accordingly, it would
include these activities along with patrolling the border to
determine the percentage of time spent preventing entry. This would
increase the percentage of time from 63 to 86 percent--19 percent for
traffic checks and 4 percent for transportation checks. Although
these activities may have a deterrent effect on illegal entry, they
are not performed in most locations at or near the border. The
illegal aliens who are apprehended as a result of traffic or
transportation checks have already entered the country, and these
apprehensions in most cases occurred at locations that were over 25
miles from the border. Therefore, in our opinion, traffic and
transportation checks are more appropriately included with activities
that apprehend aliens after entry, as we have done in our
calculations.
According to INS data, the activities of the Border Patrol agents
varied according to their distance from the border. Agents at most
stations that were within 25 miles of the border were principally
engaged in patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of
aliens. In contrast, agents at stations that were over 25 miles from
the border were principally engaged in apprehending illegal aliens
after their entry.
However, according to INS data, the time agents spent patrolling the
border varied significantly across the 85 stations that were within
25 miles of the border. For example, the agents at the 32 Southwest
Border stations spent 83 percent of their 3.4 million enforcement
(nonadministrative) hours in fiscal year 1994 patrolling the border.
Agents at the 36 Canadian Border stations spent 67 percent of their
305,155 enforcement hours patrolling the border. Agents at the 17
coastal border stations spent 14 percent of their 380,785 enforcement
hours patrolling the border.
Nationwide, Border Patrol agents spent 37 percent of their 5.3
million enforcement hours apprehending aliens after entry. For
example, the agents at the 32 Southwest Border stations spent 17
percent of their 3.4 million enforcement hours apprehending aliens
after entry. At the 36 Canadian Border stations, agents spent 33
percent of their enforcement hours apprehending aliens after entry.
At the 17 coastal border stations, agents spent 86 percent of their
enforcement hours apprehending aliens after entry.
Our analysis showed that some of the Border Patrol's enforcement
activities paralleled the enforcement activities of other INS
enforcement divisions. The Border Patrol and Investigations both are
responsible for identifying criminal and illegal aliens, reviewing
employers' records to determine that only authorized workers are
employed, and investigating alien smuggling. In fiscal year 1994, 9
percent of the Border Patrol agents' time was spent on activities
that were also performed by Investigations. Similarly, the Border
Patrol and Inspections both are responsible for inspecting crewmen
and passengers aboard vessels to determine their admissibility into
the country. Agents spent 10,886 hours (less than 1 percent) of
their enforcement hours on crewman/stowaway activities. The Border
Patrol has responsibility for carrying out these activities in the
same geographic areas as Investigations and Inspections. For
example, in the Miami and New Orleans areas, agents and inspectors
can determine if nonadmissible crew members should stay aboard their
ships.
The Border Patrol's enforcement work in some of these parallel areas
was generally lower priority, according to INS criteria. For
example, both the Border Patrol and Investigations identify
incarcerated aliens who should be removed from the country. INS
criteria place a high priority on identifying and removing criminal
aliens. According to an INS official, because these aliens are most
likely to be found serving their sentences in state and federal
prisons, identifying aliens at these facilities is a high priority.
In contrast, identifying aliens at local jails is a lower priority
because jail inmates are less likely to have committed deportable
crimes. The Border Patrol principally visits local jails to identify
deportable aliens, and Investigations visits prisons to identify
criminal aliens.
During congressional testimony, the Commissioner of INS said that the
Border Patrol needs to be devoted to border enforcement at the
border. She favored moving Border Patrol agents from the interior to
the border if additional resources would be provided to do the work
presently being done by the interior agents. A Continuing Resolution
for fiscal year 1996 provides funds for INS to relocate 200 agent
positions to the border. According to INS, it expects to relocate
these 200 agent positions to the Southwest Border. In 1994, INS had
1,368 agents who were not on the Southwest Border.
The INS district directors whom we visited pointed out the
contributions that the Border Patrol makes. For example, in most
locations, the district directors told us they depended on the Border
Patrol agents to help carry out INS' enforcement activities.
However, some of the district directors said that if Border Patrol
agents were redeployed or redirected and were replaced with new
district enforcement staff, the new staff would not do some of the
lower priority work that is now performed by Border Patrol agents.
This work includes randomly patrolling the interior and checking
traffic, public transportation, or freight trains for illegal aliens.
In addition to the impact on local INS enforcement efforts of
relocating agents to the border, cost factors could affect the
decision to hire or relocate agents. According to INS data, the cost
to hire, train, and equip a new agent ranged from $107,804 to
$115,716; to relocate an agent between stations costs an average of
$59,638. However, to fully determine if relocation is less costly
than hiring new agents, more information, such as whether relocated
agents would be replaced, would be needed.
Also, redirecting the time spent by agents at the 32 Southwest Border
stations, who spent about 563,000 (17 percent) of their 3.4 million
enforcement hours apprehending aliens after entry, could increase the
time spent patrolling the border. Again, the impact of redirecting
agents' time on district enforcement activities at border locations
would have to be considered, such as whether redirected agents would
be replaced.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
INS is responsible for enforcing the nation's immigration laws. INS
operates through a headquarters in Washington, D.C., 3 regional
offices, 33 district offices, 21 Border Patrol sectors, and 265
staffed ports of entry. The Border Patrol, Investigations, and
Inspections are three of the principal INS divisions with enforcement
responsibilities. INS' district offices and Border Patrol sectors
geographically overlap throughout the country. Districts are
responsible for Investigations' and Inspections' enforcement
activities, and sectors are responsible for the Border Patrol's
enforcement activities.
The Border Patrol's 21 sectors are headed by chief patrol agents who
carry out enforcement activities at 145 stations located throughout
the continental United States and in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
(see app. I for a map showing the 145 stations).\3
At the end of fiscal year 1994, the Border Patrol had 4,260 Border
Patrol agents on duty. As of September 13, 1995, INS had hired and
finished training 530 Border Patrol agents and had an additional 369
agents in training. This represents an estimated 22 percent of INS'
expected increase in the number of new agents over the next 3 years.
We did not include these 899 new agents in our analysis because they
were not deployed at the end of fiscal year 1994.
INS' 33 districts are headed by district directors. The districts'
enforcement efforts involve conducting investigations and
inspections. Investigations' mission is to detect criminal law
violations involving aliens, to deter the employment of aliens who
are not authorized to work, and to identify and prosecute alien
smugglers. Inspections' mission is to determine the admissibility of
all persons seeking entry into the United States at land, air, and
sea ports of entry.
The Border Patrol's portion of the INS enforcement mission is to
secure and protect the borders of the United States by preventing
illegal entry, and by detecting, interdicting, and apprehending
illegal aliens, smugglers, and contraband. To prevent and detect
illegal entry, the Border Patrol patrols the border by land, sea, and
air. To apprehend illegal aliens and smugglers, it checks traffic,
public transportation, and vessels, and patrols the interior (e.g.,
looking for illegal aliens in areas over 25 miles from the border).
In addition, the Border Patrol assists Investigations and Inspections
staff in carrying out their missions. To do this, the Border Patrol
is to check employers for illegal workers, visit local jails or state
prisons to interview aliens, and identify alien smugglers.
All immigration officers who carry out INS' enforcement functions are
to receive general and specialized training to carry out their
enforcement responsibilities. For example, Border Patrol agents
receive the same general training in the use of firearms that is
given to other enforcement officers and receive specialized training
to track individuals or groups who illegally cross the border.
--------------------
\3 References in this report to the Border Patrol's stations include
the agents assigned to and the enforcement work performed at the
Border Patrol's eight substations.
THE BORDER PATROL'S
ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1
The Border Patrol's border enforcement strategy has been to apprehend
aliens after they had illegally entered the United States. After
initially locating stations on the border and in the immediate border
area, the Border Patrol established stations in nonborder areas that
had concentrations of illegal aliens. For example, the El Paso,
Texas; Warroad, Minnesota; and Niagara Falls, New York, stations on
the Southwest and Canadian Borders were established in 1924. In
1926, the Miami, Florida, station was established because aliens were
being smuggled into the United States from Cuba. Generally, stations
over 100 miles from the border, such as the stations in Dallas and
San Antonio, Texas; and Boulder City, Nevada, that were opened
between 1986 and 1988, were opened because there were large numbers
of illegal aliens in those areas. However, INS did not establish
Border Patrol stations in some large metropolitan areas known to have
substantial alien populations, such as New York City, Chicago, or Los
Angeles, because these cities generally were considered to be the
final destination for many illegal aliens. The strategy at the time
called for stopping illegal aliens before they had reached their
final destination.
Recently, INS changed the Border Patrol's enforcement strategy along
the Southwest Border from apprehending aliens after they had
illegally entered to deterring them from entering in the first place.
According to INS officials, the new strategy is to concentrate agents
on the border to raise aliens' risk of apprehension to a maximum
level and thereby deter aliens and alien smugglers from attempting
illegal entry. In July 1994, INS issued a phased multiyear border
control plan to implement the new strategy.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
To identify the locations of the Border Patrol's stations, we
reviewed INS maps, documents, and directories. To identify the
number of Border Patrol staff at each location, we reviewed INS'
fiscal year 1994 personnel summary that listed INS employees,
including Border Patrol agents and staff. During visits to selected
stations, we interviewed Border Patrol officials to determine if INS'
personnel summary for each location accurately reflected the staff as
of October 1, 1994.
To identify the enforcement activities carried out at each location,
we analyzed the Border Patrol's statistical work reports that
contained, by location, the hours charged by Border Patrol agents to
enforcement and other activities. We excluded from our analysis
administrative activities. We did not verify the validity of the
data. However, during visits to selected stations, we discussed the
statistical reports with Border Patrol officials, who said that the
reports generally reflected how the agents spent their enforcement
time and what types of activities the agents performed. Through
these discussions, we identified the specific types of work included
under each activity. To obtain an understanding of these activities,
we accompanied and observed Border Patrol agents as they performed
various enforcement activities in the field. Our analysis of Border
Patrol activities enabled us to identify its activities that
paralleled the activities performed by Investigations or Inspections.
We judgmentally selected Border Patrol stations to visit so as to
include the full range of Border Patrol enforcement activities and
provide broad coverage of different geographic locations. We visited
15 of the 21 Border Patrol Sector headquarters and 49 of the 145
Border Patrol stations.
For our analysis, we grouped Border Patrol stations according to
their distance from the nearest land border or coastline and, for
those stations most proximate to the border, the specific border they
were near.\4 We grouped Border Patrol stations on the basis of their
distance from the nearest land or coastal borders--within 25 miles of
a border, from 26 to 100 miles, and over 100 miles. We refer to
these as zones I, II, and III, respectively.\5 We chose the 25-mile
distance because INS has authority to enter private land, but not
dwellings, without a warrant for the purpose of patrolling the border
within 25 miles of any external boundary of the United States.\6 We
chose the 100-mile distance because INS has authority to stop
individuals and search public and private conveyances for illegal
aliens without a warrant anywhere within a reasonable distance from
any external boundary, defined by INS as within 100 air miles.\7 We
further subdivided zone I into three geographic areas: the
Southwest, Canadian, and coastal borders. We identified these three
areas within zone I because they have different enforcement
characteristics.
In analyzing the enforcement work of the Border Patrol, we did not
include the work performed at INS headquarters, regions, training
facilities, special operations, and sector headquarters. These units
are principally to provide support to the Border Patrol's stations.
To identify the contributions of the Border Patrol to the districts'
enforcement activities, we interviewed 15 INS district directors to
obtain their views on how their districts would be affected if Border
Patrol agents' enforcement activities were redirected into border
enforcement at the border. We selected the 15 districts that
overlapped the 15 sectors we chose to visit.
To identify some factors that could affect decisions related to
hiring or relocating agents to the Southwest Border, we analyzed the
Border Patrol's locations and activities. On the basis of our
analysis, we identified options, other than hiring agents, that could
increase the time agents spend patrolling the Southwest Border. The
options that we identified included relocating agents to the border
and redirecting agents' enforcement activities at the border. We
also obtained INS data for costs related to hiring, training,
equipping, and relocating Border Patrol agents, and leasing space.
We did not verify the budget or cost data that INS provided or
determine all of the costs related to redeploying agents within the
country.
We did our work between February and October 1995 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. We provided the
Attorney General and the INS Commissioner with a draft of this report
for comment on December 15, 1995. Their representatives' comments
are discussed and evaluated on pages 24 and 25, and the technical
information they provided was incorporated in this report as
appropriate.
--------------------
\4 To determine a station's distance from the border, we coded all
Border Patrol locations, placed them within a computer-generated map,
and used a computer program that measures distances between two known
points. For some locations, we used an atlas to verify and establish
distances to the border. To identify the location for the Ramey,
Puerto Rico, station, we spoke to an official at the station and used
a computer-generated street map.
\5 We classified the stations on the basis of their location without
consideration of the enforcement activities performed at the
stations.
\6 Section 287(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
1357(a)(3).
\7 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. 287.1(a)(2). INS defines an
air mile as the equivalent of a statute mile (i.e., 5,280 feet).
BORDER PATROL LOCATIONS AND
STAFF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Of the 5,451 total Border Patrol agents and staff, as of September
30, 1994, 4,161 were located at 145 Border Patrol stations. The
4,161 consisted of 3,911 Border Patrol agents, 32 investigators, 64
detention officers, and 154 support staff. (See app. II for Border
Patrol staffing by location.) The Border Patrol's agents' duties
include patrolling the border and the interior, conducting traffic
and transportation checks, inspecting crew and passengers aboard
vessels, and checking employers and jails to identify illegal aliens.
The Border Patrol's investigators are to identify alien smugglers,
and detention officers are to arrange accommodations and
transportation for apprehended illegal aliens. The Border Patrol's
support staff included automotive, electronics, and communication
technicians; clerks; and computer specialists.
MOST OF THE BORDER PATROL'S
AGENTS WERE WITHIN 25 MILES
OF THE BORDER
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
As shown in table 1, 3,088 (79 percent) of the Border Patrol's agents
and 85 stations (59 percent) were located within 25 miles of the
border--zone I--at the end of fiscal year 1994. The number of agents
at the 145 stations ranged from 1 to 299 and averaged 27 agents per
station.
Table 1
Location of Border Patrol Stations and
Agents at the End of Fiscal Year 1994
Zones Distance from the border Number Percent Number Percent
------- ------------------------- ------- ------- ------- -------
I 0-25 miles 85 59% 3,088 79%
II 26-100 miles 41 28 701 18
III over 100 miles 19 13 122 3
======================================================================
Total 145 100% 3,911 100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
BORDER PATROL AGENTS IN ZONE
I
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
Within zone I, the Border Patrol had 3,088 agents, and most of them
were on the Southwest Border. As shown in table 2, there were 2,543
agents (82 percent) located in the 32 stations (38 percent) on the
Southwest Border.
Table 2
Zone I Border Patrol Stations and Agents
at the End of Fiscal Year 1994
Zone I border areas Number Percent Number Percent
------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------
Southwest 32 38% 2,543 82%
Canadian 36 42 213 7
Coastal\a 17 20 332 11
======================================================================
Total 85 100% 3,088 100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes stations that are over 25 miles from a land border, but
are within 25 miles of the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, or the Gulf of
Mexico.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
The 32 zone I Southwest Border stations ranged in size from 4 agents
at the Zapata, Texas, station to 299 at the Brown Field, California,
station. The average number of agents assigned to a station on the
Southwest Border was 80, and 25 of the 32 stations had fewer than 80
agents. Twelve of these 25 stations had between 55 and 79 agents.
Four stations--Imperial Beach (298), Brown Field (299), and Chula
Vista (295), California; and El Paso (274), Texas--accounted for 46
percent of the agents on the Southwest Border.
Along the Canadian Border, the Border Patrol had a total of 213
agents. These agents were concentrated on the eastern and western
ends of the Canadian Border. Specifically, 20 of the 36 zone I
Canadian Border stations were located in Washington, New York,
Vermont, and Maine, and had 158 agents, or 74 percent of the agents
on the Canadian Border. The number of agents at the 36 zone I
Canadian Border stations ranged from 1 agent in Grand Marais,
Minnesota, to 17 agents in Champlain, New York. The average number
of agents at each station was 6, and 22 of the 36 stations had fewer
than 6 agents. Thirteen of these 22 stations had 4 or 5 agents, and
9 stations had 3 or fewer agents.
The Border Patrol had 17 stations along the coastal borders, with a
total of 332 agents, representing 11 percent of the Border Patrol
agents in zone I. Staffing at the 17 zone I coastal border stations
ranged from 3 agents at the Salinas, California, station to 93 at the
San Clemente, California, station. Three stations--San Clemente (93)
and Temecula (73), California; and Kingsville (48), Texas--accounted
for 65 percent of the agents at the coastal stations. The average
number of agents per station was 20. Eleven stations had fewer than
10 agents.
BORDER PATROL AGENTS IN
ZONES II AND III
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3
In zone II, the Border Patrol had 701 of the 3,911 agents (18
percent) at 41 stations (see table 3). The zone II stations ranged
in size from 2 agents in Malta, Montana, to 73 agents in Tucson,
Arizona. Twenty-two of the 41 zone II stations are located in
Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, and accounted for 577 (82 percent) of
the agents in zone II.
In zone III, the Border Patrol had 122 of the 3,911 agents (3
percent) at 19 stations. The zone III stations ranged in size from 1
agent in Llano, Texas, to 38 agents in San Angelo, Texas. Seven of
the 19 stations were in Texas.
BORDER PATROL ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
During fiscal year 1994, INS data showed that the Border Patrol's
agents spent 63 percent of their 5.3 million enforcement hours
patrolling the borders by sea, land, and air to prevent the entry of
aliens. The remaining 37 percent of the agents' enforcement activity
was spent apprehending aliens after entry (see fig. 1). However,
the time spent patrolling the border varied significantly among zones
and among stations within zones. (See app. III for the Border
Patrol's enforcement activities for the Southwest, Canadian, and
coastal borders, and zones II and III.)
In doing our analysis of the Border Patrol's enforcement activities,
we used fiscal year 1994 data because it was the most recent data
available. After completing our audit work, we obtained fiscal year
1995 data. We compared the data for 10 selected stations to identify
differences between the years.\8 Our analysis for the 10 stations
showed that the total enforcement hours decreased between fiscal
years for 7 stations and increased for the other 3 stations. Also,
to a lesser degree the proportion of time spent on the various
enforcement activities changed. However, for 7 of the 8 stations
that patrol the border, the proportional difference in the time the
agents at the stations spent preventing the entry of aliens and
apprehending aliens after entry was 5 percent or less.
Figure 1: Border Patrol
Enforcement Activities for
Fiscal Year 1994
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: The total enforcement hours spent on boat patrol and air
patrol accounted for less than 1 percent and are included in "patrol
the border." "Crewman/stowaway" was less than 1 percent and does not
appear in the figure.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
--------------------
\8 We selected the 5 stations in zone I on the Southwest Border with
the most enforcement hours in fiscal year 1994--Yuma, Arizona; Brown
Field and Imperial Beach, California; and El Paso and Laredo North,
Texas--which all had over 200,000 enforcement hours. The next
largest had 167,782 hours. For coastal stations in zone I, we
selected the 2 largest stations in fiscal year 1994--San Clemente and
Temecula, California--which had over 80,000 enforcement hours. The
next largest had 60,649 hours. We selected Tucson, Arizona, and
Hebbronville, Texas, which were the 2 largest stations in zone II for
fiscal year 1994. The next largest was about 20 percent smaller.
The largest zone III station was San Angelo, Texas, which was almost
4 times larger than the next biggest station. We did not select any
Canadian stations in zone I because they had relatively few
enforcement hours in fiscal year 1994; the largest had 23,755 hours.
TIME SPENT ON ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
As shown in table 3, our analysis of INS data shows that agents in
zone I stations generally spent most of their enforcement time
preventing alien entry while, as could be expected, stations in zones
II and III spent a greater proportion of their time apprehending
aliens after entry.
Table 3
Proportion of Enforcement Activity
Within Zones for Fiscal Year 1994
Apprehend
Number of Number of Enforcement Prevent entry after entry
Zone stations agents hours (percent) (percent)
----- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Zone I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South 32 2,543 3,377,221 83% 17%
west
Canad 36 213 305,155 67 33
ian
Coast 17 332 380,785 14 86
al
================================================================================
Subto 85 3,088 4,063,161 76 24
tal
Zone 41 701 1,077,118 25\a 75
II
Zone 19 122 164,393 0 100
III
================================================================================
Total 145 3,911 5,304,672 63% 37%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Percentages were calculated using the time agents charged to
enforcement activities.
\a Agents at some stations over 25 miles from the border spent time
patrolling the border.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
INS officials said that they consider traffic checks on roads and
highways, and transportation checks at bus stations, airports, train
stations, and aboard freight trains, to be part of their border
enforcement strategy to deter aliens from illegally entering the
country. Consequently, INS would include these activities with
patrolling the border when calculating the percentage of enforcement
time the Border Patrol spends preventing the entry of aliens.
Including these activities would increase the time spent preventing
entry nationwide from 63 to 86 percent--19 percent for traffic checks
and 4 percent for transportation checks.
While traffic and transportation checks may have a deterrent effect
on illegal entry across the Southwest Border, we consider them to be
more appropriately included with the activities associated with
apprehending aliens after entry. Our analysis of INS fiscal year
1994 data and station locations showed that in almost all cases
aliens who were apprehended during these checks had already entered
the country, and these apprehensions occurred at locations that are
over 25 miles from the border. For example, the Las Cruces, New
Mexico, station is 53 miles from the Southwest Border and had 70
agents who spent 75 percent of their 79,233 enforcement hours
conducting traffic checks. Further, the Las Cruces station is one of
the 17 stations that spent at least half of their enforcement hours
checking traffic to support Southwest Border enforcement activities.
These 17 stations had 703 agents and range from 9 miles (El Centro,
California) to 352 miles (Amarillo, Texas) from the Southwest Border.
Only 2 of the 17 stations are within 25 miles of the Southwest
Border, and 12 stations are over 50 miles from the Southwest Border.
Within zone I, the time agents spent patrolling the border varied
significantly among the stations. The agents at stations on the
Southwest Border spent 83 percent of their time preventing entry by
patrolling the border. This figure compared with 67 percent for
agents on the Canadian Border and 14 percent for agents on the
coastal borders.
Agents at the 32 Southwest Border stations spent 83 percent of their
3.4 million enforcement hours patrolling the border, and the
percentage of time patrolling the border ranged from 25 to 98
percent. Agents at 6 Southwest Border stations--Brown Field,
Imperial Beach, and Chula Vista, California; El Paso and Laredo
North, Texas; and Yuma, Arizona--that accounted for 51 percent of the
Southwest Border enforcement hours spent from 60 to 96 percent of
their time patrolling the border. Agents at another 11 stations
spent less than 83 percent of their time patrolling the border. For
example, the Harlingen, Texas, station is 12 miles from the Southwest
Border, and the 56 agents at this station recorded 78,630 enforcement
hours. Sixty percent of this time was spent patrolling the border,
and 40 percent was primarily spent checking transportation, jails,
and employers for illegal aliens.
Along the Canadian Border, there was considerable variation across
the 36 stations in the amount of enforcement time that was spent
patrolling the border. Our analysis of INS data shows that agents
spent 67 percent of their 305,155 hours patrolling the border at the
36 stations. For those agents at stations that spent less than 67
percent, agents at 11 stations spent between 50 and 66 percent of
their 66,762 hours patrolling the border, and agents at another 10
stations spent less than 50 percent of their 57,699 hours patrolling
the border. The agents at these 21 stations generally spent their
time patrolling the interior, checking jails for criminal aliens,
checking public transportation or freight trains, or doing
antismuggling work. The time agents spent patrolling the border
ranged from 97 percent of their 16,454 hours in Swanton, Vermont, to
none of their 10,089 hours in Bellingham, Washington.
Agents at the 17 coastal patrol stations spent 14 percent of their
380,785 hours patrolling the border. Agents at 13 of these stations
spent less than 14 percent of their 289,718 hours patrolling the
border. At 11 of the 13 stations, agents spent no time patrolling
the border. Most of these agents spent their time checking traffic
at highway checkpoints,\9 patrolling the interior, checking jails for
illegal aliens, or checking employers to determine if they had hired
illegal aliens. The percentage of time agents spent patrolling the
border ranged from 93 percent of their 31,753 hours at the Ramey,
Puerto Rico, station to none at 11 stations. For example, the 6
Border Patrol agents at the Tampa, Florida, station principally spent
their 8,142 hours patrolling the interior and checking local jails.
Agents at the 41 stations in zone II spent 25 percent of their time
patrolling the border, with wide variation in activity across
stations. For the agents at zone II stations, the time spent
patrolling the border ranged from 77 percent of their 22,686 hours at
the Ajo, Arizona, station to 1 percent or less at 19 stations.
Agents at the 19 stations who spent 1 percent or less of their
431,002 hours patrolling the border principally spent their time
operating traffic check points, patrolling the interior, or checking
employers and local jails for illegal aliens. For example, the 4
agents in Roseburg, Oregon, spent 78 percent of their 4,654 hours
checking local jails and employers for illegal aliens. Within zone
II, the agents at 8 stations spent over half of their 273,466 hours
patrolling the border.
The agents at the 19 zone III stations generally spent no time
patrolling the border, as could be expected. The agents at these
stations principally spent their time patrolling the interior to
search for illegal aliens, checking employers' records, or checking
local jails for illegal aliens. For example, the 9 Border Patrol
agents at the Dallas, Texas, station spent 98 percent of their 11,677
hours patrolling the interior and checking local jails.
Overall, agents located at the 32 Southwest Border stations spent
562,926 enforcement hours apprehending aliens after entry.
--------------------
\9 The San Clemente and Temecula, California; and Kingsville, Texas,
stations are highway checkpoints that are included as coastal
stations because of their proximity to the Pacific Ocean or the Gulf
of Mexico.
SOME BORDER PATROL ACTIVITIES
PARALLELED INVESTIGATIONS AND
INSPECTIONS AND WERE OF LOWER
PRIORITY THAN INVESTIGATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
When not patrolling the border, the Border Patrol, along with
Investigations and Inspections, is responsible for carrying out four
parallel enforcement activities: (1) identifying criminal and
illegal aliens, (2) reviewing employers' records to ensure that only
authorized workers are employed, (3) investigating alien smuggling,
and (4) inspecting crewmen and passengers aboard ships.
Investigations has lead responsibility for the first three
activities, and Inspections has lead responsibility for the last
activity. The Border Patrol is to carry out these activities in the
same geographical areas with Investigations and Inspections and is to
coordinate its activities with them. However, in carrying out some
of the similar activities, the Border Patrol generally performed
lower priority work than Investigations. In most locations, the
district directors told us they relied on the Border Patrol to carry
out these enforcement activities because no other district resources
were available to do them.
IDENTIFYING AND REMOVING
CRIMINAL OR ILLEGAL ALIENS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
INS has assigned a higher priority to removing criminal aliens than
to removing illegal aliens from the country. According to an INS
official, criminal aliens are generally housed in state and federal
prisons, where they serve their sentences after conviction for
deportable crimes.\10 Local jails generally house individuals
awaiting trial or serving sentences for lesser crimes. Consequently,
only a portion of the aliens in local jails will become deportable
criminal aliens. Thus, interviewing aliens in local jails is a lower
priority within INS because fewer of these aliens are likely to be
identified as deportable criminal aliens.
Investigators have lead responsibility for interviewing aliens who
are incarcerated in federal and state prisons to determine if they
may be deportable. Border Patrol agents primarily visit local jails
and some state prisons where investigators are not available.
--------------------
\10 Aliens can be deported if they have been convicted of crimes such
as drug trafficking. These aliens are referred to as "criminal
aliens."
IDENTIFYING CRIMINAL
ALIENS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1.1
Border Patrol agents are to visit local jails to identify illegal
aliens either on a periodic basis or in response to calls from local
law enforcement officers. In some cases, Border Patrol agents
visited state prisons because, according to district directors,
investigators were not available. In fiscal year 1994, Border Patrol
agents at the 145 Border Patrol stations spent 4 percent of their
enforcement hours visiting local jails or state prisons to identify
criminal aliens. For example, we accompanied a Border Patrol agent
from the Dallas station to the Tarrant County jail in Fort Worth,
Texas. The agent reviewed arrest records to determine if any
individuals in the jail might be illegal aliens. The agent
identified two illegal aliens and obtained copies of their arrest
records. He took the aliens into custody and returned to the Dallas
station with them to make arrangements for their removal from the
country.\11 According to the agent, he usually visited the jail every
day to identify illegal aliens.
In some cases, district directors said that they did not have enough
investigators to visit all state prisons. For example, California
has 42 state prisons or facilities. Investigators are responsible
for 33, and Border Patrol agents are responsible for 9. According to
the San Francisco District Director, he relies on Border Patrol
agents from the Bakersfield and Fresno, California, stations to
interview aliens in three state prisons because he does not have
investigators available in those areas to visit these state prisons.
--------------------
\11 We did not determine the basis upon which the aliens were
released into INS custody.
REMOVING ILLEGAL ALIENS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1.2
INS considers the identification of aliens who entered illegally or
remained here illegally (e.g., overstayed their visa) to be a lower
priority than the identification of criminal aliens. For fiscal year
1994, 136 of the Border Patrol's 145 stations apprehended 888,994
illegal aliens.\12 Of these, 844,335 (95 percent) were voluntarily
removed, 34,190 (4 percent) were placed in deportation proceedings,
and 11,469 (1 percent) were released with instructions to leave the
country. Data were not available on the number of illegal aliens who
were placed in deportation proceedings and then released on bond or
their own recognizance.
INS data also showed that for 15 Border Patrol stations, 65 percent
(5,744) of the illegal aliens they apprehended (8,778) were released
and were given written instructions to leave the country.\13 Further,
each of the 15 stations released over half of the apprehended illegal
aliens. These 15 stations are widely dispersed geographically from
Washington to New York to Florida. According to INS officials, the
stations that release a significant portion of the aliens they
apprehend do not have removal funding for INS buses to remove illegal
aliens.\14 Except for the 32 Southwest Border stations,\15 the other
zone I stations' proximity to the border did not affect their ability
to remove illegal aliens.\16
Some zone I stations released many of the illegal aliens they
apprehended. For example, the Sierra Blanca, Texas, station is 16
miles from the Southwest Border. In fiscal year 1994, the agents at
that station apprehended 3,302 illegal aliens and released 1,485 or
45 percent of them.
In contrast, some zone II and III stations released none of the
illegal aliens they apprehended. For example, the Dallas, Texas,
station is 250 miles from the nearest border. In fiscal year 1994,
the agents at that station apprehended 5,441 illegal aliens and
released none. According to the Dallas District Director, this was
because the district and the Dallas Border Patrol station jointly
operate a 52-passenger bus 5 days per week for the express purpose of
transporting illegal aliens to Laredo, Texas, where they are removed
from the country.
Border Patrol stations that are in close proximity to the Southwest
Border generally removed the aliens that were apprehended. For
example, the Fabens, Texas, station is 5 miles from the border. In
fiscal year 1994, the agents at that station apprehended 4,597
illegal aliens and released none. According to the
Patrol-Agent-in-Charge of the station, its proximity to the Fabens
port of entry allows it to readily remove illegal aliens from the
country.
--------------------
\12 Data were not available for the nine stations in the Tucson
Sector: Naco, Ajo, Nogales, Douglas, Casa Grande, Willcox, Phoenix,
Sonoita, and Tucson, Arizona.
\13 The 15 stations are Roseburg, Oregon; Port Angeles and Spokane,
Washington; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Fulton and Buffalo, New York;
Jacksonville, Tampa, and Orlando, Florida; Mobile, Alabama; Little
Rock, Arkansas; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Fort Stockton and Van Horn,
Texas; and Miami, Oklahoma.
\14 We did not determine how alien removal funding was allocated
among Border Patrol stations.
\15 Data for 4 of the 32 Southwest Border stations were not
available.
\16 Mexican nationals are the largest group of people entering the
United States illegally at the Southwest Border. The Border Patrol
can more easily remove apprehended Mexican nationals because they do
not need travel documents (e.g., airline tickets and visas) that
illegal aliens from other countries would need.
REVIEWING EMPLOYERS' RECORDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2
Investigations has lead responsibility for enforcing employer
sanctions. Its investigators are responsible for conducting
investigations of employers who are believed to be employing
unauthorized workers. The Border Patrol also is responsible for
enforcing employer sanctions in some of the same locations and
generally has responsibility for outdoor employment activities, such
as construction, forestry, and agriculture. Investigations generally
has responsibility for indoor employment activities, such as hotels
or restaurants. INS fiscal year 1994 data showed that Border Patrol
agents spent 133,392 of their 5,304,672 enforcement hours (3 percent)
enforcing employer sanctions.
INVESTIGATING ALIEN
SMUGGLING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.3
Investigations has lead responsibility for identifying and
investigating alien smugglers. Both Investigations and the Border
Patrol investigate alien smuggling cases. These cases are
categorized by the Investigations case management system on the basis
of the severity and complexity of the case. The highest priority
cases, level 1, involve complex criminal organizations that
frequently smuggle large numbers of aliens into the country and
require handling by investigators. The lowest priority cases, level
3, generally involve individuals who occasionally smuggle aliens into
the country.
INS fiscal year 1994 data showed that Border Patrol agents spent
89,575 of their 5,304,672 enforcement hours (2 percent) doing
antismuggling work.\17 According to an INS official, investigators
assigned to the Border Patrol generally investigate high priority
antismuggling cases, while Border Patrol agents work lower priority
cases. For example, in the Miami Sector, the investigators assigned
to the Border Patrol performed the highest priority alien smuggling
cases, while the agents performed low priority cases. The
investigators assigned to the Border Patrol in the Blaine Sector in
Washington performed both high and lower priority investigations. In
Buffalo, New York, the district and the Buffalo and Swanton, Vermont,
sectors have memorandums of understanding for handling antismuggling
cases. According to the agreements, the Swanton Sector did both high
and lower priority cases because it had investigators who could
handle complex cases, while the Buffalo Sector performed only lower
priority antismuggling cases because it did not have investigators.
Buffalo District investigators handled high priority cases.
According to the Portland, Maine, District Director, he relied on
Border Patrol agents to perform antismuggling work in those areas
where he did not have investigators.
--------------------
\17 Investigators who are assigned to the Border Patrol are under the
operational control and supervision of the Chief Patrol Agent for
each sector; however, their enforcement time is recorded with
Investigations and was not readily available.
INSPECTING CREWMEN AND
PASSENGERS ABOARD VESSELS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.4
In fiscal year 1994, 20 Border Patrol stations reported that they
inspected crewmen and passengers on vessels. The two most active
stations were Miami, Florida, and New Orleans, Louisiana. In two
locations that we visited, Border Patrol agents and immigration
inspectors performed parallel activities in the same geographic
areas. For example, in New Orleans a Border Patrol agent conducted
an unannounced inspection to determine if nonadmissible crew members
had left a ship. The New Orleans district had inspectors at the port
who could perform this task.
Similarly, Border Patrol agents from the Orlando, Florida, station
responded to a report from a shipping agent concerning a crewman who
had not returned to his ship at Port Canaveral. The agents traveled
about 55 miles to the ship, picked up the crew member's passport, and
searched his quarters. Inspectors stationed at the port could
perform this task. In another case, Border Patrol agents from the
Port Angeles, Washington, station occasionally inspect arriving ferry
passengers from Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. However,
according to the Seattle District Director, immigration inspectors
located in Victoria, Canada, inspect passengers before they board the
ferry.
INS COMMISSIONER'S AND
DISTRICT DIRECTORS' VIEWS OF
THE IMPACT ON ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES OF AGENT
RELOCATION OR REDIRECTION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.5
The INS Commissioner and district directors pointed out that if
Border Patrol agents were relocated to the border, additional
resources would be needed to perform the enforcement activities they
currently do. District directors said that the agents contributed to
their districts' enforcement efforts. Some district directors added
that they would not use replacement resources to carry out some lower
priority work that the agents are doing.
During a hearing before a subcommittee of the House Committee on
Appropriations, in response to questions regarding the assignment of
agents to interior stations, the Commissioner of INS said, "Our
Border Patrol needs to be first and foremost devoted to border
enforcement at the border."\18 She favored redeploying interior
agents to the border if INS could get additional resources to do the
work presently being done by the agents (e.g., employer and jail
checks and the removal of illegal aliens). A Continuing Resolution
provides funding for INS enforcement programs through the end of
fiscal year 1996 at the resource level provided in the conference
report.\19 The resource level includes $12 million for the
reallocation of 200 Border Patrol positions from interior stations to
the front lines of the border. INS expects to relocate these 200
agent positions to the Southwest Border. INS had 1,368 agents who
were not located on the Southwest Border at the end of fiscal year
1994.
The conferees agreed that effective border control is the most
important means of controlling illegal immigration and that INS must
use its Border Patrol resources in a way that ensures that
apprehension of illegal aliens at the border is its first priority.
They agreed that INS can no longer use Border Patrol resources on
functions not directly related to border control. However, the
conferees recognized the importance of an INS enforcement presence in
parts of the country that have significant illegal immigrant
populations. Rather than close any of these offices, the conferees
directed INS to restaff these offices with criminal investigators to
ensure that interior enforcement activities currently performed in
these locations can continue.\20
On January 29, 1996, INS told us that it is continuing to develop and
review options for the relocation of interior Border Patrol agent
positions and plans to present to the Appropriations Committees an
integrated plan addressing the entire relocation issue in mid-March.
Fourteen of the 15 district directors with whom we met said that the
Border Patrol contributed to their districts' enforcement efforts.
Thirteen district directors said that if agents were redeployed or
redirected, their districts would perform some of the work currently
being performed by the Border Patrol if they received additional
enforcement officers. The number and specific types of replacement
immigration enforcement officers that they said would be needed
varied depending on the work being performed by the Border Patrol
within the various districts we visited. Eight district directors
said that INS is currently hiring investigative aides to interview
aliens in local jails and check employers' records, the same type of
work that is currently performed by Border Patrol agents. However,
INS has not determined whether the aides will supplement or replace
Border Patrol agents.
Thirteen district directors generally said that they would use
replacement resources to continue to perform the inspections,
detention, deportation, and employer and jail checks that the Border
Patrol currently performs. They added that they would not use
replacement resources to perform some lower priority enforcement work
currently performed by the Border Patrol, such as patrolling the
interior and randomly checking traffic, public transportation, and
freight trains. In their districts, only the Border Patrol routinely
conducted these types of activities. In doing so, the agents
contributed to fulfilling the districts' enforcement responsibilities
for apprehending and removing illegal aliens.
Fourteen district directors said that in carrying out their
enforcement activities, they relied on the Border Patrol because of
their limited resources. For example, the Detroit District Director
said that she relied on the Border Patrol to respond to complaints in
western Michigan because she had no resources in that area. The San
Francisco District Director said he relied on Border Patrol agents at
the Bakersfield and Fresno stations to interview aliens at three
state prisons. The Los Angeles District Director said he relied on
Border Patrol agents from the Oxnard station to inspect about 15
ships per month at Port Hueneme. The Dallas District Director said
that he relied on the Border Patrol to transport deportable aliens
from Dallas to Laredo. The Helena District Director said that he
relied on the Border Patrol to apprehend aliens who had received
final orders of deportation, most of whom were in the Twin Falls,
Idaho, area.
--------------------
\18 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies Appropriations for 1996, Hearings before a
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 7, at 770, 771 (1995).
\19 The January 6, 1996, Continuing Resolution, as amended by the
Continuing Resolution passed on January 26, 1996, funded INS
enforcement activities to the extent and in the manner and at a rate
for operations as provided for in the conference report and joint
explanatory statement of the Committee of Conference (H.R. 104-378)
on the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (H.R. 2076), as passed
by the House of Representatives on December 6, 1995. P.L. 104-91,
110 Stat. 7, as amended by P.L. 104-99, 110 Stat. 26 (1996).
\20 H.R. 104-378, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. at 88, 89 (1995).
SOME COST FACTORS PERTAINING
TO RELOCATING AGENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.6
According to INS' fiscal year 1995 budget data, it costs almost twice
as much to hire, train, and equip a new Border Patrol agent as it
does to redeploy an agent. The average cost in fiscal year 1994--the
most recent year for which data were available--was $59,638 to
redeploy agents. In comparison, the budget data showed that the cost
to hire, train, and equip one agent in fiscal year 1995 ranged from
$107,840 to $115,716, depending on the agent's grade level.
The cost information necessary to estimate all potential redeployment
costs was not available. A complete cost analysis would require
information on the number and types of replacement staff to be hired
(their numbers, training costs, and salaries), the salary levels of
agents to be moved compared to those of new agents, and other factors
beyond the scope of this review.
According to an INS official, the relocation of agents could result
in INS closing some of its Border Patrol stations. Should this
occur, INS could reduce some of its lease costs. For example, if INS
were to close the Miami, Oklahoma, station, INS estimated that it
would result in lease and other cost savings of $13,180 per year.
(See app. IV for INS data on Border Patrol facility leasing costs.)
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
Most (79 percent) of the Border Patrol's 3,911 agents who were
located at 145 stations were within 25 miles of the border (zone I),
and the majority (65 percent) of these agents were on the Southwest
Border. While 63 percent of all the agents' time was spent
patrolling the border, the amount of time varied among zones and
among stations within zones. Most agents at stations on the coastal
borders and in zones II and III did not principally spend their time
patrolling the border. While agents in zone I spent 76 percent of
their time patrolling the border, the agents at the Southwest Border
stations spent 83 percent of their time patrolling the border.
Conversely, the agents on the Southwest Border spent 17 percent of
their time (or 562,926 hours) apprehending illegal aliens after
entry. These agents who are already located at the Southwest Border
could have their time redirected to patrolling the border.
Redeploying agents to the border or redirecting the enforcement time
of agents on the border would affect the districts' enforcement
capability. In some locations, Border Patrol agents are performing
activities that parallel those carried out by Inspections or
Investigations. In some cases, Border Patrol agents were performing
activities that INS considers to be lower priority. However, the
district directors generally said that the Border Patrol made a
positive contribution to the districts' enforcement efforts and that
redirecting agent time or redeploying agents, without replacing them,
would diminish the districts' enforcement capabilities.
INS budget data indicated that relocating agents to the border was
less costly than hiring new agents. However, information was not
available to fully estimate the potential costs for replacing agents
with other INS enforcement officers. Information, such as how many
redeployed or redirected agents would be replaced and what type of
replacement staff would be used, would be needed to determine all
relocation and redirection costs.
The INS Commissioner favors redeploying Border Patrol agents to the
border, if replacement enforcement officers are provided to carry out
the work being performed by the agents at these interior locations.
INS' fiscal year 1996 Continuing Resolution provided funding to
relocate 200 Border Patrol agent positions to the front lines of the
border and directs INS to restaff interior offices with criminal
investigators. INS plans to relocate these 200 agent positions to
the Southwest Border. In fiscal year 1994, INS had 1,368 agents who
were not on the Southwest Border.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
On January 29, 1996, we met with Department of Justice officials,
including the Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General and the INS
Assistant Commissioner for Budget. The officials agreed with the
material in the report. They emphasized that our review focused on
enforcement activities but did not evaluate the deterrent effect the
Border Patrol agents' activities have in nonborder locations (i.e.,
stations located over 25 miles from the land borders). The focus of
our review was on the activities and location of Border Patrol
agents. We recognize that the presence of agents could have a
deterrent effect in nonborder areas. We also recognize the
importance of having agents directly on the border. We also agree
that the transfer of agents would have an impact on enforcement
activities in their previous locations unless they were restaffed.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1
We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General; the INS
Commissioner; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and
other interested parties. Copies will also be made available to
others upon request.
Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. If you
have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202)
512-8777.
Laurie E. Ekstrand
Associate Director, Administration
of Justice Issues
TABLE AND MAPS SHOWING BORDER
PATROL LOCATIONS, NUMBER OF
AGENTS, AND THEIR TIME SPENT
PATROLLING THE BORDER
=========================================================== Appendix I
Table I.1
Border Patrol Stations, Number of
Agents, and Activities in Fiscal Year
1994
Percentage
Miles Number of time
Station from the of patrolling Principal
Map number name State border agents the border activities\a
---------- ------------- ------ -------- -------- ---------- -------------
1 Mobile AL 3 6 0.0% Patrol the
interior,
employer
sanctions
2 Little Rock AR 325 5 0.0 Patrol the
interior,
criminal
aliens
3 Ajo AZ 33 14 77.1 Patrol the
border
4 Casa Grande AZ 73 8 0.1 Traffic
check, patrol
the interior
5 Douglas AZ 7 55 93.8 Patrol the
border
6 Naco AZ 11 17 83.6 Patrol the
border
7 Nogales AZ 8 79 87.4 Patrol the
border
8 Phoenix AZ 120 4 1.3 Criminal
aliens
9 Sonoita AZ 24 8 69.5 Patrol the
border
10 Tucson AZ 57 73 26.6 Traffic check
11 Wellton AZ 35 18 18.6 Traffic check
12 Willcox AZ 85 9 0.0 Traffic check
13 Yuma AZ 4 127 90.5 Patrol the
border
14 Bakersfield CA 70 11 0.0 Criminal
aliens
15 Blythe CA 59 19 0.0 Traffic check
16 Brown Field CA 1 299 94.3 Patrol the
border
17 Calexico CA 3 77 91.6 Patrol the
border
18 Campo CA 8 58 95.9 Patrol the
border
19 Chula Vista CA 5 295 96.0 Patrol the
border
20 El Cajon CA 15 62 72.8 Patrol the
border
21 El Centro CA 9 75 24.9 Traffic check
22 Fresno CA 103 4 0.0 Criminal
aliens
23 Imperial CA 1 298 90.5 Patrol the
Beach border
24 Indio CA 77 14 0.3 Patrol the
interior,
traffic check
25 Livermore CA 15 5 0.0 Criminal
aliens,
patrol the
interior
26 Oxnard CA 3 5 0.0 Criminal
aliens,
patrol the
interior
27 Riverside CA 41 11 0.5 Patrol the
interior
28 Sacramento CA 52 6 0.0 Patrol the
interior
29 Salinas CA 8 3 0.0 Criminal
aliens,
patrol the
interior
30 San Clemente CA 3 93 0.0 Traffic check
31 San Luis CA 5 3 0.0 Patrol the
Obispo interior,
criminal
aliens
32 Stockton CA 52 8 0.0 Criminal
aliens,
traffic check
33 Temecula CA 23 73 0.0 Traffic check
34 Jacksonville FL 15 6 6.4 Patrol the
interior
35 Miami FL 7 26 34.5 Patrol the
border,
patrol the
interior
36 Orlando FL 39 8 0.1 Patrol the
interior
37 Tampa FL 1 6 0.0 Patrol the
interior,
criminal
aliens
38 West Palm FL 3 5 5.3 Patrol the
Beach interior
39 Bonners Ferry ID 14 3 46.2 Patrol the
border,
patrol the
interior
40 Twin Falls ID 466 4 0.1 Criminal
aliens
41 Baton Rouge LA 41 4 0.0 Patrol the
interior,
criminal
aliens
42 Lake Charles LA 36 5 0.0 Patrol the
interior
43 New Orleans LA 8 8 0.0 Patrol the
interior,
employer
sanctions
44 Calais ME 3 8 85.8 Patrol the
border
45 Fort ME 3 5 92.4 Patrol the
Fairfield border
46 Houlton ME 7 7 77.4 Patrol the
border
47 Jackman ME 7 6 68.1 Patrol the
border
48 Van Buren ME 4 5 83.5 Patrol the
border
49 Detroit MI 1 9 30.5 Patrol the
interior,
patrol the
border
50 Grand Rapids MI 160 4 0.0 Criminal
aliens,
patrol the
interior
51 Port Huron MI 1 4 25.7 Antismuggling
, patrol the
border
52 Sault Ste MI 9 4 62.3 Patrol the
Marie border
53 Trenton MI 5 5 49.8 Patrol the
border,
patrol the
interior
54 Duluth MN 97 3 0.2 Patrol the
interior,
antismuggling
55 Grand Marais MN 22 1 11.3 Patrol the
interior,
antismuggling
56 International MN 7 2 52.3 Patrol the
Falls border
57 Warroad MN 7 2 49.7 Patrol the
border,
antismuggling
58 Gulfport MS 3 4 0.0 Employer
sanctions,
patrol the
interior
59 Billings MT 232 2 0.0 Criminal
aliens
60 Eureka MT 15 2 58.0 Patrol the
border
61 Havre MT 30 4 39.3 Patrol the
border,
patrol the
interior
62 Malta MT 47 2 33.9 Traffic
check, patrol
the border
63 Plentywood MT 14 4 47.6 Patrol the
border,
antismuggling
64 Scobey MT 18 2 53.9 Patrol the
border
65 Shelby MT 34 3 42.6 Patrol the
border,
traffic check
66 St. Mary MT 6 2 50.6 Patrol the
border
67 Sweetgrass MT 2 3 43.2 Patrol the
border,
criminal
aliens
68 Whitefish MT 34 4 5.5 Employer
sanctions,
patrol the
interior
69 Bottineau ND 11 4 36.7 Patrol the
border,
antismuggling
70 Grand Forks ND 77 4 41.4 Patrol the
border,
criminal
aliens
71 Pembina ND 2 4 56.5 Patrol the
border
72 Portal ND 4 4 31.0 Antismuggling
, patrol the
border
73 Alamagordo NM 75 49 0.0 Traffic check
74 Albuquerque NM 234 10 0.4 Patrol the
interior,
criminal
aliens
75 Carlsbad NM 110 10 0.0 Patrol the
interior
76 Deming NM 28 41 77.1 Patrol the
border
77 Las Cruces NM 53 70 0.5 Traffic check
78 Lordsburg NM 52 13 36.6 Patrol the
border,
traffic check
79 Truth or NM 98 12 0.0 Traffic check
Consequences
80 Boulder City NV 221 2 0.0 Transportatio
n and traffic
checks
81 Buffalo NY 5 12 49.6 Patrol the
border
82 Burke NY 5 11 92.5 Patrol the
(Malone) border
83 Champlain NY 3 17 85.8 Patrol the
border
84 Fulton NY 30 4 56.0 Patrol the
border
85 Massena NY 3 3 58.1 Patrol the
border
86 Niagara Falls NY 2 8 67.0 Patrol the
border
87 Ogdensburg NY 3 5 58.6 Patrol the
border
88 Watertown NY 25 4 66.7 Patrol the
border
89 Miami OK 478 2 0.0 Patrol the
interior
90 Roseburg OR 47 4 0.2 Criminal
aliens,
employer
sanctions
91 Ramey PR 1 22 93.0 Patrol the
border
92 Alpine TX 42 24 14.5 Traffic check
93 Amarillo TX 352 3 0.0 Traffic
check, patrol
the interior
94 Brackettville TX 24 31 71.1 Patrol the
border
95 Brownsville TX 4 62 82.0 Patrol the
border
96 Carizzo TX 29 26 60.6 Patrol the
Springs border
97 Comstock TX 13 12 93.7 Patrol the
border
98 Corpus TX 5 15 43.6 Patrol the
Christi border,
antismuggling
99 Cotulla TX 59 21 57.0 Patrol the
border
100 Dallas TX 250 9 0.0 Patrol the
interior
101 Del Rio TX 5 75 72.7 Patrol the
border
102 Eagle Pass TX 8 58 88.6 Patrol the
border
103 El Paso TX 5 274 90.7 Patrol the
border
104 Fabens TX 5 19 98.2 Patrol the
border
105 Falfurrias TX 33 49 0.0 Traffic check
106 Fort Hancock TX 20 11 98.3 Patrol the
border
107 Fort Stockton TX 63 3 2.9 Employer
sanctions,
transportatio
n check
108 Freer TX 59 34 55.3 Patrol the
border
109 Harlingen TX 12 56 59.7 Patrol the
border
110 Hebbronville TX 38 52 38.8 Traffic check
111 Kingsville TX 4 48 0.0 Traffic check
112 Laredo North TX 21 116 59.6 Patrol the
border
113 Laredo South TX 22 75 84.2 Patrol the
border
114 Llano TX 159 1 0.0 Employer
sanctions,
patrol the
interior
115 Lubbock TX 258 7 0.0 Traffic
check, patrol
the interior
116 Marfa TX 40 17 5.3 Traffic
check, patrol
the interior
117 McAllen TX 4 66 81.3 Patrol the
border
118 Mercedes TX 7 30 87.8 Patrol the
border
119 Midland TX 141 4 0.5 Employer
sanctions,
patrol the
interior
120 Pecos TX 93 5 3.1 Patrol the
interior,
employer
sanctions
121 Port Isabel TX 11 16 55.8 Patrol the
border
122 Presidio TX 12 12 89.5 Patrol the
border
123 Rio Grande TX 16 31 94.1 Patrol the
City border
124 Rocksprings TX 59 6 0.0 Patrol the
interior,
traffic check
125 San Angelo TX 122 38 0.0 Patrol the
interior
126 San Antonio TX 126 9 0.0 Patrol the
interior,
transportatio
n check
127 Sanderson TX 18 6 71.9 Patrol the
border
128 Sierra Blanca TX 16 28 24.8 Traffic check
129 Uvalde TX 51 26 51.8 Patrol the
border
130 Van Horn TX 30 7 14.3 Traffic
check,
employer
sanctions
131 Ysleta TX 6 111 91.4 Patrol the
border
132 Zapata TX 9 4 93.2 Patrol the
border
133 Beecher Falls VT 1 5 93.9 Patrol the
border
134 Newport VT 6 9 90.9 Patrol the
border
135 Richford VT 4 5 81.7 Patrol the
border
136 Swanton VT 3 10 97.1 Patrol the
border
137 Bellingham WA 1 8 0.0 Criminal
aliens,
patrol the
interior
138 Blaine WA 2 15 85.7 Patrol the
border
139 Colville WA 31 3 62.7 Patrol the
border
140 Lynden WA 4 8 83.8 Patrol the
border
141 Oroville WA 5 7 36.3 Patrol the
border,
criminal
aliens
142 Pasco WA 178 2 0.0 Patrol the
interior,
employer
sanctions
143 Port Angeles WA 10 4 54.0 Patrol the
border
144 Spokane WA 86 7 0.6 Patrol the
interior,
criminal
aliens
145 Wenatchee WA 110 2 3.0 Criminal
aliens,
patrol the
interior
================================================================================
Total 3,911
number
of agents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The principal activity or activities accounted for at least half
of the agents' total enforcement hours at each station.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Figure I.1: Border Patrol
Agent Deployment for Fiscal
Year 1994
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO analysis of INS
data.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Figure I.2: Border Patrol
Agent Time Spent Patrolling the
Border by Station for Fiscal
Year 1994
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO analysis of INS
data.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
FISCAL YEAR 1994 BORDER PATROL
STAFFING BY LOCATION
========================================================== Appendix II
Headquar Detentio Suppor
ters Supervisor BP Investigator n t Total
name State y BPA agents s officers staff staff
-------- -------- ---------- ------ ------------ -------- ------ ========
Headquar DC 4 13 0 0 17 34
ters
Special TX 15 4 1 0 24 44
Operati
ons HQ
Artesia NM 8 0 0 0 2 10
Training
Facilit
y
Glynco GA 36 0 0 0 20 56
Training
Facilit
y
Regions VT, TX, 2 8 0 0 13 23
CA
================================================================================
Total 65 25 1 0 76 167
Supervisor BP Investigator Detentio Suppor Total
Sector State y agents s n t staff
name BPA officers staff
Blaine WA 2 1 5 0 13 21
Sector
HQ
Buffalo NY 2 1 0 0 12 15
Sector
HQ
Del Rio TX 10 6 0 6 50 72
Sector
HQ
Detroit MI 3 2 0 0 9 14
Sector
HQ
El CA 5 3 3 0 55 66
Centro
Sector
HQ
El Paso TX 13 14 9 6 108 150
Sector
HQ
Grand ND 3 2 0 1 10 16
Forks
Sector
HQ
Havre MT 3 1 0 1 10 15
Sector
HQ
Houlton ME 3 1 0 0 12 16
Sector
HQ
Laredo TX 8 9 11 10 39 77
Sector
HQ
Livermor CA 5 1 4 3 14 27
e
Sector
HQ
MIami FL 3 1 7 0 13 24
Sector
HQ
Marfa TX 6 6 6 5 18 41
Sector
HQ
Mayaguez PR 2 1 0 10 7 20
Sector
HQ
McAllen TX 9 10 6 4 61 90
Sector
HQ
New LA 3 1 0 1 11 16
Orleans
Sector
HQ
San CA 9 84 17 6 145 261
Diego
Sector
HQ
Spokane WA 3 3 0 0 12 18
Sector
HQ
Swanton VT 4 1 3 0 23 31
Sector
HQ
Tucson AZ 6 3 5 7 54 75
Sector
HQ
Yuma AZ 5 1 6 3 43 58
Sector
HQ
================================================================================
Total 107 152 82 63 719 1,123
Supervisor BP Investigator Detentio Suppor Total
Station State y agents s n t staff
name BPA officer staff
Mobile AL 1 5 0 0 0 6
Little AR 1 4 3 1 1 10
Rock
Ajo AZ 2 12 0 0 0 14
Casa AZ 1 7 0 1 0 9
Grande
Douglas AZ 9 46 0 0 7 62
Naco AZ 3 14 0 0 1 18
Nogales AZ 12 67 0 0 7 86
Phoenix AZ 1 3 0 0 1 5
Sonoita AZ 1 7 0 0 0 8
Tucson AZ 8 65 0 0 1 74
Wellton AZ 3 15 0 0 0 18
Willcox AZ 1 8 0 3 1 13
Yuma AZ 22 105 0 0 3 130
Bakersfi CA 2 9 0 5 7 23
eld
Blythe CA 3 16 0 1 1 21
Brown CA 33 266 0 1 6 306
Field
Calexico CA 15 62 0 2 2 81
Campo CA 9 49 0 0 1 59
Chula CA 34 261 0 2 6 303
Vista
El Cajon CA 10 52 0 0 4 66
El CA 12 63 0 3 1 79
Centro
Fresno CA 0 4 0 3 3 10
Imperial CA 41 257 0 5 7 310
Beach
Indio CA 3 11 0 1 0 15
Livermor CA 2 3 0 0 1 6
e
Oxnard CA 1 4 0 1 1 7
Riversid CA 1 10 0 1 0 12
e
Sacramen CA 1 5 0 2 2 10
to
Salinas CA 1 2 0 1 1 5
San CA 16 77 0 0 3 96
Clemente
San Luis CA 1 2 0 1 0 4
Obispo
Stockton CA 1 7 0 2 1 11
Temecula CA 10 63 0 1 5 79
Jacksonv FL 1 5 0 0 0 6
ille
Miami FL 5 21 0 0 1 27
Orlando FL 1 7 2 1 1 12
Tampa FL 1 5 0 1 0 7
West FL 1 4 0 1 0 6
Palm
Beach
Bonners ID 1 2 0 0 0 3
Ferry
Twin ID 1 3 0 0 0 4
Falls
Baton LA 0 4 0 0 1 5
Rouge
Lake LA 1 4 0 1 1 7
Charles
New LA 1 7 0 0 1 9
Orleans
Calais ME 1 7 0 0 1 9
Fort ME 1 4 0 0 0 5
Fairfie
ld
Houlton ME 1 6 0 0 1 8
Jackman ME 1 5 0 0 1 7
Van ME 1 4 0 0 1 6
Buren
Detroit MI 1 8 0 0 0 9
Grand MI 1 3 0 0 0 4
Rapids
Port MI 1 3 0 0 0 4
Huron
Sault MI 1 3 0 0 0 4
Ste
Marie
Trenton MI 1 4 0 0 0 5
Duluth MN 1 2 0 0 0 3
Grand MN 0 1 0 0 0 1
Marais
Internat MN 1 1 0 0 0 2
ional
Falls
Warroad MN 0 2 0 0 0 2
Gulfport MS 1 3 0 1 1 6
Billings MT 0 2 0 0 0 2
Eureka MT 0 2 0 0 0 2
Havre MT 1 3 0 0 0 4
Malta MT 0 2 0 0 0 2
Plentywo MT 1 3 0 0 0 4
od
Scobey MT 0 2 0 0 0 2
Shelby MT 1 2 0 0 0 3
St. Mary MT 0 2 0 0 0 2
Sweetgra MT 0 3 0 0 0 3
ss
Whitefis MT 1 3 0 0 0 4
h
Bottinea ND 1 3 0 0 0 4
u
Grand ND 1 3 0 0 0 4
Forks
Pembina ND 1 3 0 0 0 4
Portal ND 1 3 0 0 0 4
Alamagor NM 7 42 0 0 1 50
do
Albuquer NM 1 9 0 1 1 12
que
Carlsbad NM 1 9 0 0 1 11
Deming NM 6 35 0 1 2 44
Las NM 7 63 2 2 3 77
Cruces
Lordsbur NM 2 11 0 0 0 13
g
Truth or NM 1 11 0 0 1 13
Consequ
ences
Boulder NV 1 1 0 0 0 2
City
Buffalo NY 2 10 0 0 0 12
Burke NY 1 10 1 0 1 13
(Malone)
Champlai NY 3 14 0 0 1 18
n
Fulton NY 2 2 0 0 1 5
Massena NY 0 3 1 0 0 4
Niagara NY 1 7 0 0 0 8
Falls
Ogdensbu NY 1 4 0 0 0 5
rg
Watertow NY 1 3 0 0 0 4
n
Miami OK 0 2 0 0 0 2
Roseburg OR 1 3 0 0 0 4
Ramey PR 5 17 0 1 0 23
Alpine TX 5 19 0 0 0 24
Amarillo TX 0 3 0 2 0 5
Brackett TX 6 25 0 0 1 32
ville
Brownsvi TX 7 55 6 3 4 75
lle
Carizzo TX 5 21 0 0 1 27
Springs
Comstock TX 3 9 0 0 1 13
Corpus TX 3 12 2 1 1 19
Christi
Cotulla TX 4 17 0 0 1 22
Dallas TX 1 8 0 0 0 9
Del Rio TX 11 64 5 0 2 82
Eagle TX 10 48 4 0 15 77
Pass
El Paso TX 28 246 0 0 1 275
Fabens TX 2 17 0 0 1 20
Falfurri TX 5 44 0 0 1 50
as
Fort TX 0 11 0 0 0 11
Hancock
Fort TX 0 3 0 0 0 3
Stockton
Freer TX 4 30 0 0 1 35
Harlinge TX 6 50 0 0 2 58
n
Hebbronv TX 6 46 0 0 1 53
ille
Kingsvil TX 5 43 0 1 2 51
le
Laredo TX 15 101 0 0 1 117
North
Laredo TX 13 62 0 0 1 76
South
Llano TX 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lubbock TX 1 6 0 2 1 10
Marfa TX 2 15 0 0 0 17
McAllen TX 11 55 0 0 3 69
Mercedes TX 2 28 0 0 2 32
Midland TX 1 3 2 2 0 8
Pecos TX 1 4 0 1 0 6
Port TX 2 14 0 0 2 18
Isabel
Presidio TX 2 10 0 0 1 13
Rio TX 5 26 0 0 2 33
Grande
City
Rockspri TX 2 4 0 0 1 7
ngs
San TX 6 32 3 3 2 46
Angelo
San TX 1 8 0 0 1 10
Antonio
Sanderso TX 1 5 0 0 1 7
n
Sierra TX 5 23 0 0 0 28
Blanca
Uvalde TX 4 22 0 0 1 27
Van Horn TX 1 6 0 0 1 8
Ysleta TX 11 100 0 0 1 112
Zapata TX 1 3 0 0 0 4
Beecher VT 1 4 0 0 0 5
Falls
Newport VT 1 8 1 0 1 11
Richford VT 1 4 0 0 0 5
Swanton VT 1 9 0 0 1 11
Bellingh WA 1 7 0 0 0 8
am
Blaine WA 3 12 0 2 0 17
Colville WA 1 2 0 0 0 3
Lynden WA 1 7 0 0 0 8
Oroville WA 1 6 0 0 0 7
Pasco WA 0 2 0 0 0 2
Port WA 1 3 0 0 0 4
Angeles
Spokane WA 1 6 0 0 0 7
Wenatche WA 0 2 0 0 0 2
e
================================================================================
Total 549 3,362 32 64 154 4,161
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPA = Border Patrol agent
BP = Border Patrol
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
BORDER PATROL ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES BY LOCATION
========================================================= Appendix III
Figure III.1: Southwest Border
Enforcement Activity for Fiscal
Year 1994
(See figure in printed
edition.)
N = 3,377,221 enforcement hours at 32 stations.
Note: "Other activities," which were 1 percent or less, include boat
patrol, air patrol, patrol the interior, crewman/stowaway, and
employer sanctions.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Table III.1
Southwest Border Enforcement Activity
for Fiscal Year 1994 by Station
Prevent Apprehend
Distance entry after entry Patrol Boat Air Traffic Transportati Patrol Crewman/ Employer Criminal Antismugglin Station
Station name State in miles (percent) (percent) border patrol patrol check on check interior stowaway sanctions aliens g total
-------------- ------- -------- ---------- ------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- ------------ -------- ---------- --------- -------- ------------ --------
Zone I: Southwest Border
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas AZ 7 93.8% 6.2% 74,080 0 0 67 0 7 0 18 4,759 15 78,946
Naco AZ 11 83.6 16.4 22,883 0 0 2,437 77 7 0 0 1,671 282 27,357
Nogales AZ 8 87.4 12.6 82,109 0 0 5,613 1,003 196 0 14 3,913 1,150 93,998
Sonoita AZ 24 69.5 30.5 8,961 0 0 3,926 0 0 0 1 2 0 12,890
Yuma AZ 4 90.5 9.5 191,670 0 1,953 287 3,257 0 0 5,179 11,493 0 213,839
Brown Field CA 1 94.3 5.7 192,222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,760 4,756 203,738
Calexico CA 3 91.6 8.4 99,478 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 9,098 0 108,608
Campo CA 8 95.9 4.1 76,202 0 0 0 9 11 0 0 14 3,223 79,459
Chula Vista CA 5 96.0 4.0 222,277 0 0 0 1,697 4 0 53 7,351 84 231,466
El Cajon CA 15 72.8 27.2 54,374 0 0 49 1,376 12,357 0 74 5,787 703 74,720
El Centro CA 9 24.9 75.1 28,891 0 0 85,978 880 0 0 0 33 15 115,797
Imperial Beach CA 1 90.5 9.5 287,092 0 40 0 322 0 0 0 211 29,747 317,412
Brackettville TX 24 71.1 28.9 31,387 0 0 10,379 2,133 0 0 134 125 15 44,173
Brownsville TX 4 82.0 18.0 75,589 65 0 32 9,100 0 0 3,050 4,310 84 92,230
Comstock TX 13 93.7 6.3 18,417 24 0 1,000 193 34 0 8 0 0 19,676
Del Rio TX 5 72.7 27.3 73,658 469 33 14,255 7,134 0 0 330 49 6,115 102,043
Eagle Pass TX 8 88.6 11.4 80,075 0 0 9,406 492 0 0 34 44 369 90,420
El Paso TX 5 90.7 9.3 496,584 0 80 2,934 32,999 0 0 5,212 9,464 130 547,403
Fabens TX 5 98.2 1.8 33,216 0 0 0 110 0 0 316 176 0 33,818
Fort Hancock TX 20 98.3 1.7 21,968 0 0 0 19 0 0 371 0 0 22,358
Harlingen TX 12 59.7 40.3 46,961 4 0 0 23,639 0 0 2,863 4,368 795 78,630
Laredo North TX 21 59.6 40.4 124,349 0 0 49,025 31,957 0 0 3,179 0 0 208,510
Laredo South TX 22 84.2 15.8 120,382 0 124 1,081 16,136 0 0 5,345 121 0 143,189
McAllen TX 4 81.3 18.7 67,201 0 0 0 9,927 0 0 2,429 3,074 0 82,631
Mercedes TX 7 87.8 12.2 31,261 0 0 0 4 0 0 2,169 2,140 16 35,590
Port Isabel TX 11 55.8 44.2 9,552 594 0 0 4,172 0 172 2,366 173 1,157 18,186
Presidio TX 12 89.5 10.5 17,087 0 0 344 606 0 0 1,052 5 0 19,094
Rio Grande TX 16 94.1 5.9 43,259 0 0 409 65 24 0 54 2,122 43 45,976
City
Sanderson TX 18 71.9 28.1 7,757 44 0 1,099 1,000 0 0 932 0 12 10,844
Sierra Blanca TX 16 24.8 75.2 12,349 0 0 35,558 1,021 20 0 0 42 846 49,836
Ysleta TX 6 91.4 8.6 153,419 0 0 12,146 3 0 0 2,142 31 41 167,782
Zapata TX 9 93.2 6.8 6,006 149 0 394 36 0 0 17 0 0 6,602
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 83.3% 16.7% 2,810,71 1,349 2,230 236,419 149,367 12,660 172 37,374 77,336 49,598 3,377,22
6 1
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Percent 83.2% 0.0% 0.1% 7.0% 4.4% 0.4% 0.0% 1.1% 2.3% 1.5% 100%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Figure III.2: Canadian Border
Enforcement Activity for Fiscal
Year 1994
(See figure in printed
edition.)
N = 305,155 enforcement hours at 36 stations.
Note: Activities not shown did not exceed 1 percent and included
boat patrol, air patrol, and crewman/stowaway.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Table III.2
Canadian Border Enforcement Activity for
Fiscal Year 1994 by Station
Prevent Apprehend
Distance entry after entry Patrol Boat Air Traffic Transportati Patrol Crewman/ Employer Criminal Antismugglin Station
Station name State in miles (percent) (percent) border patrol patrol check on check interior stowaway sanctions aliens g total
-------------- ------- -------- ---------- ------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- ------------ -------- ---------- --------- -------- ------------ --------
Zone I:
Canadian
Border
Bonners Ferry ID 14 46.2% 53.8% 1,635 0 0 509 0 739 0 449 197 10 3,539
Calais ME 3 85.8 14.2 10,747 726 0 2 112 568 0 1,090 67 58 13,370
Fort Fairfield ME 3 92.4 7.6 8,456 0 0 24 4 9 0 636 11 14 9,154
Houlton ME 7 77.4 22.6 7,519 0 0 0 960 80 4 670 31 453 9,717
Jackman ME 7 68.1 31.9 6,972 0 0 576 50 1,834 0 778 20 7 10,237
Van Buren ME 4 83.5 16.5 6,327 0 0 687 6 41 0 505 9 0 7,575
Detroit MI 1 30.5 69.5 2,941 81 3 9 754 3,169 20 107 1,291 1,559 9,934
Port Huron MI 1 25.7 74.3 1,173 119 0 30 295 402 0 911 769 1,325 5,024
Sault Ste MI 9 62.3 37.7 3,600 236 0 0 380 133 0 995 697 115 6,156
Marie
Trenton MI 5 49.8 50.2 2,931 36 6 240 83 1,143 0 332 823 371 5,965
Grand Marais MN 22 11.3 88.7 176 37 0 211 11 755 0 12 20 665 1,887
International MN 7 52.3 47.7 1,007 0 0 0 108 301 0 111 29 371 1,927
Falls
Warroad MN 7 49.7 50.3 1,429 0 0 0 28 241 0 36 23 1,117 2,874
Eureka MT 15 58.0 42.0 2,004 91 0 173 8 491 0 434 277 137 3,615
Plentywood MT 14 47.6 52.4 2,111 0 0 319 0 301 0 540 283 882 4,436
Scobey MT 18 53.9 46.1 1,921 0 3 1,178 3 70 0 353 5 36 3,569
St. Mary MT 6 50.6 49.4 1,315 0 0 752 2 40 0 22 124 345 2,600
Sweetgrass MT 2 43.2 56.8 1,310 0 0 25 211 45 0 76 774 594 3,035
Bottineau ND 11 36.7 63.3 1,610 0 0 812 4 243 0 104 161 1,453 4,387
Pembina ND 2 56.5 43.5 3,365 0 0 729 635 562 0 173 178 319 5,961
Portal ND 4 31.0 69.0 1,210 0 0 511 0 369 0 114 210 1,489 3,903
Buffalo NY 5 49.6 50.4 9,780 8 0 526 8,059 0 0 952 413 0 19,738
Champlain NY 3 85.8 14.2 20,271 104 0 427 289 214 2 906 431 1,111 23,755
Burke (Malone) NY 5 92.5 7.5 14,850 0 0 601 242 52 0 49 7 250 16,051
Massena NY 3 58.1 41.9 3,394 114 0 898 494 1 16 230 318 573 6,038
Niagara Falls NY 2 67.0 33.0 8,782 0 0 789 2,048 0 0 470 1,020 0 13,109
Ogdensburg NY 3 58.6 41.4 4,643 233 0 1,221 260 58 0 285 712 907 8,319
Watertown NY 25 66.7 33.3 3,310 556 0 1,445 153 0 0 298 0 33 5,795
Beecher Falls VT 1 93.9 6.1 6,494 0 0 60 0 144 0 148 73 0 6,919
Newport VT 6 90.9 9.1 11,849 105 0 0 334 68 0 294 105 395 13,150
Richford VT 4 81.7 18.3 5,376 0 0 0 0 192 0 257 586 169 6,580
Swanton VT 3 97.1 2.9 15,900 77 0 32 199 68 0 167 11 0 16,454
Bellingham WA 1 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 125 1,866 2,878 46 728 3,891 555 10,089
Blaine WA 2 85.7 14.3 15,764 29 0 2 6 424 0 63 1,074 1,075 18,437
Lynden WA 4 83.8 16.2 8,707 0 0 61 0 116 0 262 215 1,030 10,391
Oroville WA 5 36.3 63.7 4,154 4 0 2 221 899 0 850 3,735 1,600 11,465
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 67.4% 32.6% 203,033 2,556 12 12,976 17,825 16,650 88 14,407 18,590 19,018 305,155
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Percent 66.5% 0.8% 0.0% 4.3% 5.8% 5.5% 0.0% 4.7% 6.1% 6.2% 100%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Figure III.3: Coastal Border
Enforcement Activity for Fiscal
Year 1994
(See figure in printed
edition.)
N = 380,785 enforcement hours at 17 stations.
Note: Air patrol was less than 1 percent and is not shown.
Percentages do not total 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Table III.3
Coastal Border Enforcement Activity for
Fiscal Year 1994 by Station
Prevent Apprehend
Distance entry after entry Patrol Boat Air Traffic Transportati Patrol Crewman/ Employer Criminal Antismugglin Station
Station name State in miles (percent) (percent) border patrol patrol check on check interior stowaway sanctions aliens g total
-------------- ------- -------- ---------- ------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- ------------ -------- ---------- --------- -------- ------------ --------
Zone I:
Coastal
Borders
Mobile AL 3 0.0% 100.0% 0 0 0 1,005 1,181 3,581 455 1,147 976 86 8,431
Livermore CA 15 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 131 2 839 0 553 1,412 0 2,937
Oxnard CA 3 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 5 0 2,584 35 1,357 2,980 1 6,962
Salinas CA 8 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 50 0 1,168 0 442 1,619 0 3,279
San Clemente CA 3 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 79,689 6,639 2,336 0 0 41 0 88,705
San Luis CA 5 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 149 829 0 346 796 0 2,120
Obispo
Temecula CA 23 0.0 100.0 1 0 0 61,311 14 6,210 0 10,283 3,131 22 80,972
Jacksonville FL 15 6.4 93.6 281 0 0 25 454 2,876 257 84 391 26 4,394
Miami FL 7 34.5 65.5 11,212 710 69 1,104 380 10,742 6,083 133 3,573 710 34,716
Tampa FL 1 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 3 1,067 3,989 938 152 1,701 292 8,142
West Palm FL 3 5.3 94.7 320 0 0 0 0 3,687 105 327 1,443 109 5,991
Beach
New Orleans LA 8 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 212 2,000 3,517 1,662 2,380 1,076 380 11,227
Gulfport MS 3 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 258 38 1,809 79 2,119 885 721 5,909
Ramey PR 1 93.0 7.0 22,709 6,809 3 130 38 1,045 0 662 279 78 31,753
Corpus Christi TX 5 43.6 56.4 8,548 188 0 209 3,533 0 2 626 1,098 5,832 20,036
Kingsville TX 4 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 54,243 2,949 0 0 137 2,277 1,043 60,649
Port Angeles WA 10 54.0 46.0 2,462 0 0 0 108 658 2 91 1,241 0 4,562
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 14.0% 86.0% 45,533 7,707 72 198,375 18,552 45,870 9,618 20,839 24,919 9,300 380,785
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Percent 12.0% 2.0% 0.0% 52.1% 4.9% 12.0% 2.5% 5.5% 6.5% 2.4% 100%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Figure III.4: Zone II
Enforcement Activity for Fiscal
Year 1994
(See figure in printed
edition.)
N = 1,077,118 enforcement hours at 41 stations.
Note: Activities not shown did not exceed 1 percent and include boat
patrol, crewman/stowaway, and antismuggling.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Table III.4
Zone II Enforcement Activity for Fiscal
Year 1994 by Station
Prevent Apprehend
Distance entry after entry Patrol Boat Air Traffic Transportati Patrol Crewman/ Employer Criminal Antismugglin Station
Station name State in miles (percent) (percent) border patrol patrol check on check interior stowaway sanctions aliens g total
-------------- ------- -------- ---------- ------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- ------------ -------- ---------- --------- -------- ------------ --------
Zone II
Ajo AZ 33 77.1% 22.9% 17,501 0 0 5,155 0 29 0 1 0 0 22,686
Casa Grande AZ 73 0.1 99.9 11 0 0 5,932 128 3,715 0 32 1,386 33 11,237
Tucson AZ 57 26.6 73.4 27,324 0 0 52,028 777 19,255 0 737 2,684 62 102,867
Wellton AZ 35 18.6 81.4 6,320 0 0 26,297 1,113 0 0 192 5 96 34,023
Willcox AZ 85 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 8,886 23 1,841 0 0 54 0 10,804
Bakersfield CA 70 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 2,478 71 2,195 0 2,025 12,116 0 18,885
Blythe CA 59 0.2 99.8 44 0 0 16,061 227 731 0 3,809 7,502 0 28,374
Indio CA 77 0.3 99.7 56 0 0 6,057 389 9,477 0 403 3,359 319 20,060
Riverside CA 41 0.5 99.5 77 0 0 0 9 11,086 0 1,510 4,069 0 16,751
Sacramento CA 52 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 24 4,324 0 700 3,476 0 8,524
Stockton CA 52 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 2,481 11 2,295 0 2,054 5,746 25 12,612
Orlando FL 39 0.1 99.9 0 0 10 5 153 4,475 108 784 2,120 318 7,973
Baton Rouge LA 41 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 371 1,101 2,211 14 321 1,419 8 5,445
Lake Charles LA 36 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 13 134 3,538 365 273 693 375 5,391
Duluth MN 97 0.2 99.8 3 7 0 189 506 1,408 516 38 610 957 4,234
Havre MT 30 39.3 60.7 1,979 0 6 450 610 1,187 0 169 161 495 5,057
Malta MT 47 33.9 66.1 1,090 0 0 1,291 1 812 0 21 0 0 3,215
Shelby MT 34 42.6 57.4 1,261 0 4 554 56 408 0 82 211 393 2,969
Whitefish MT 34 5.5 94.5 282 0 0 812 517 1,423 0 1,714 368 56 5,172
Grand Forks ND 77 41.4 58.6 1,964 0 0 0 203 700 0 454 1,006 418 4,745
Alamagordo NM 75 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 70,339 846 5,607 0 769 2,346 0 79,907
Deming NM 28 77.1 22.9 46,779 0 0 1,553 169 9,826 0 614 1,575 135 60,651
Las Cruces NM 53 0.5 99.5 363 0 0 59,237 557 16,807 0 894 1,373 2 79,233
Lordsburg NM 52 36.6 63.4 6,748 0 0 4,811 4,128 1,443 0 826 203 270 18,429
Truth or NM 98 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 17,356 12 4,175 0 1 1,530 16 23,090
Consequences
Fulton NY 30 56.0 44.0 3,021 0 0 868 936 0 5 256 306 0 5,392
Roseburg OR 47 0.2 99.8 8 0 0 1 49 866 0 1,486 2,137 107 4,654
Alpine TX 42 14.5 85.5 5,442 0 0 22,649 106 3,539 0 4,880 22 776 37,414
Carizzo TX 29 60.6 39.4 22,987 0 0 14,693 3 12 0 94 66 66 37,921
Springs
Cotulla TX 59 57.0 43.0 19,466 0 0 5,807 7,044 0 0 1,510 160 149 34,136
Falfurrias TX 33 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 75,425 0 0 0 120 2,670 0 78,215
Fort Stockton TX 63 2.9 97.1 131 0 0 711 1,244 560 0 1,684 233 16 4,579
Freer TX 59 55.3 44.7 37,353 0 0 29,498 384 0 0 206 65 0 67,506
Hebbronville TX 38 38.8 61.2 38,585 0 0 58,322 1,634 0 0 497 335 0 99,373
Marfa TX 40 5.3 94.7 1,708 0 0 15,798 280 11,570 0 1,161 119 1,809 32,445
Pecos TX 93 3.1 96.9 271 0 0 220 2,407 2,580 0 2,420 720 165 8,783
Rocksprings TX 59 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 2,935 0 3,497 0 536 23 298 7,289
Uvalde TX 51 51.8 48.2 20,815 0 0 8,331 8,071 0 0 887 935 1,133 40,172
Van Horn TX 30 14.3 85.7 1,944 0 0 5,821 399 2,394 0 3,017 1 3 13,579
Colville WA 31 62.7 37.3 3,135 0 0 542 0 808 0 517 0 0 5,002
Spokane WA 86 0.6 99.4 47 0 0 12 389 3,125 0 1,827 2,747 177 8,324
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 24.8% 75.2% 266,715 7 20 523,989 34,711 137,919 1,008 39,521 64,551 8,677 1,077,11
8
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Percent 24.8% 0.0% 0.0% 48.6% 3.2% 12.8% 0.1% 3.7% 6.0% 0.8% 100%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Figure III.5: Zone III
Enforcement Activity for Fiscal
Year 1994
(See figure in printed
edition.)
N = 164,393 enforcement hours at 19 stations.
Note: Activities not shown did not exceed 1 percent and include
patrol the border, boat patrol, air patrol, and crewman/stowaway.
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
Table III.5
Zone III Enforcement Activity for Fiscal
Year 1994 by Station
Prevent Apprehend
Distance entry after entry Patrol Boat Air Traffic Transportati Patrol Crewman/ Employer Criminal Antismugglin Station
Station name State in miles (percent) (percent) border patrol patrol check on check interior stowaway sanctions aliens g total
-------------- ------- -------- ---------- ------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- ------------ -------- ---------- --------- -------- ------------ --------
Zone
III
Little Rock AR 325 0.0% 100.0% 0 0 0 663 879 3,096 0 1,238 1,458 693 8,027
Phoenix AZ 120 1.3 98.7 64 0 0 219 218 341 0 988 2,891 63 4,784
Fresno CA 103 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 131 0 1,242 0 2,638 5,220 0 9,231
Twin Falls ID 466 0.1 99.9 8 0 0 878 6 698 0 566 3,453 314 5,923
Grand Rapids MI 160 0.0 100.0 0 1 0 0 145 1,108 0 787 1,526 1,025 4,592
Billings MT 232 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 85 0 361 0 49 914 59 1,468
Albuquerque NM 234 0.4 99.6 31 0 0 58 624 4,008 0 1,356 1,909 33 8,019
Carlsbad NM 110 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 347 383 10,234 0 750 1,086 0 12,800
Boulder City NV 221 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 813 1,163 175 0 289 641 0 3,081
Miami OK 478 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 848 0 1,088 0 0 0 0 1,936
Amarillo TX 352 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 2,330 281 1,458 0 512 118 4 4,703
Dallas TX 250 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 7,330 0 220 4,102 25 11,677
Llano TX 159 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 76 0 300 0 305 121 19 821
Lubbock TX 258 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 4,479 602 3,528 0 1,033 257 146 10,045
Midland TX 141 0.5 99.5 0 29 0 114 938 1,623 0 2,143 912 180 5,939
San Angelo TX 122 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 11,538 4,577 27,030 0 6,603 3,142 252 53,142
San Antonio TX 126 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 2,341 4,535 6,231 0 426 1 153 13,687
Pasco WA 178 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 11 0 706 0 668 179 3 1,567
Wenatchee WA 110 3.0 97.0 88 0 0 0 0 738 0 680 1,432 13 2,951
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Total 0.1% 99.9% 191 30 0 24,931 14,351 71,295 0 21,251 29,362 2,982 164,393
====================================================================================================================================================================================
Percent 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 15.2% 8.7% 43.4% 0.0% 12.9% 17.9% 1.8% 100%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of INS data.
BORDER PATROL ANNUAL FACILITY
LEASING COSTS
========================================================== Appendix IV
Sta Lease
Location te cost Comments
---------------------------- --- ----- ----------------------------
Mobile AL $15,8
08
Little Rock AR 31,33
0
Ajo AZ Owned
Casa Grande AZ 16,68
6
Douglas AZ Owned
Naco AZ Owned
Nogales AZ 99,12
4
Phoenix AZ 25,32
0
Sonoita AZ Owned
Tucson AZ Included in Sector HQ
Tucson Sector HQ AZ 110,1
08
Wellton AZ Owned
Yuma AZ Included in Sector HQ
Yuma Sector HQ AZ 71,64
8
Bakersfield CA 26,40
0
Blythe CA Owned
Boulevard Substation CA 7,260
Brown Field CA 35,63
9
Calexico CA 83,03
2
Campo CA Owned
Chula Vista CA Owned
El Cajon CA Owned
El Centro CA Owned
El Centro Sector HQ CA Owned
Fresno CA 95,73
8
Imperial Beach CA Owned
Indio CA Owned
Livermore CA Included in Sector HQ
Livermore Sector HQ CA 23,54
7
Oakgrove Substation CA INS-owned trailer
Oxnard CA Owned
Riverside CA 94,33
6
Sacramento CA 39,24
8
Salinas CA 16,26
3
San Clemente CA Owned
San Diego Sector HQ CA Owned
San Luis Obispo CA 20,40
0
San Marcos Substation CA 12,00
0
Stockton CA 83,54
4
Temecula CA 98,80
2
Jacksonville FL 48,27
2
Miami FL Included in Sector HQ
Miami Sector HQ FL 558,3
14
Orlando FL 44,14
9
Tampa FL 51,60
4
West Palm Beach FL 83,77
1
Bonners Ferry ID 6,724
Twin Falls ID 40,84
0
Baton Rouge LA 19,67
6
Lake Charles LA 19,20
0
New Orleans LA Included in Sector HQ
New Orleans Sector HQ LA 72,84
8
Calais ME GSA space assignment
Fort Fairfield ME 67,12
2
Houlton ME 76,08
8
Houlton Sector HQ ME 131,9
92
Jackman ME Owned
Rangeley Substation ME 5,526
Van Buren ME Owned
Detroit MI Included in Sector HQ
Detroit Sector HQ MI Shared with District
Grand Rapids MI 6,000
Port Huron MI Owned
Sault Ste Marie MI Located at Port of Entry
Trenton MI Owned
Duluth MN 11,82
8
Grand Marais MN Owned
International Falls MN Owned
Warroad MN Owned
Gulfport MS 24,80
0
Billings MT 4,840
Eureka MT 15,12
0
Havre MT Included in Sector HQ
Havre Sector HQ MT 89,80
4
Malta MT 6,063
Plentywood MT 8,400
Scobey MT 4,892
Shelby MT Owned
St. Mary MT Owned
Sweetgrass MT Owned
Whitefish MT Owned
Bottineau ND Owned
Grand Forks ND Included in Sector HQ
Grand Forks Sector HQ ND 111,8
60
Pembina ND Located at Port of Entry
Portal ND Owned
Alamagordo NM 93,44
0
Albuquerque NM 132,0
00
Boulder City NM Space provided by Bureau of
Land Management
Carlsbad NM 12,18
8
Deming NM 87,22
0
Las Cruces NM 291,8
11
Lordsburg NM Owned
Silver City Substation NM Space provided by U.S.
Forest Service
Truth or Consequences NM Owned
Buffalo NY Included in Sector HQ
Buffalo Sector HQ NY 157,2
72
Burke (Malone) NY 70,33
5
Champlain NY 91,19
6
Fulton NY 11,69
6
Massena NY 11,38
0
Niagra Falls NY Owned
Ogdensburg NY 25,40
8
Watertown NY 1,924
Welleslely Island Substation NY Owned
Miami OK 12,00
0
Roseburg OR 15,00
0
Mayaguez Sector HQ PR Owned
Ramey PR Owned
Abilene Substation TX 6,535
Alpine TX 20,66
1
Amarillo TX 9,856
Big Bend Nat'l Park TX INS-owned trailer
Substation
Brackettville TX Owned
Brownsville TX 58,97
5
Carizzo Springs TX Owned
Comstock TX Owned
Corpus Christi TX 26,25
0
Cotulla TX Owned
Dallas TX 58,19
4
Del Rio TX 85,64
8
Del Rio Sector HQ TX 107,2
04
Eagle Pass TX Owned
El Paso TX Owned
El Paso Sector HQ TX Owned
Fabens TX 35,66
8
Falfurrias TX 1
Fort Hancock TX Owned
Fort Stockton TX Owned
Freer TX 46,07
5
Harlingen TX 1
Hebbronville TX Owned
Kingsville TX 1
Laredo North TX Included in Sector HQ
Laredo Sector HQ TX 289,2
68
Laredo South TX Included in Sector HQ
Llano TX 6,552
Lubbock TX 36,75
6
Marfa TX Included in Sector HQ
Marfa Sector HQ TX 229,2
12
McAllen TX 188,8
52
McAllen Sector HQ TX 228,7
04
Mercedes TX 128,1
40
Midland TX 23,66
7
Pecos TX 16,22
4
Port Isabel TX Owned
Presidio TX 87,18
8
Rio Grande City TX 1
Rocksprings TX 10,32
9
San Angelo TX 25,60
9
San Antonio TX 50,97
2
Sanderson TX Owned
Sierra Blanca TX Owned
Uvalde TX Owned
Van Horn TX 15,72
5
Ysleta TX Owned
Zapata TX 5,569
Beecher Falls VT Located at Port of Entry
Newport VT 71,83
1
Richford VT 31,14
6
Swanton VT 37,16
4
Swanton Sector HQ VT 200,1
88
Bellingham WA 164,2
32
Blaine WA Included in Sector HQ
Blaine Sector HQ WA 134,7
88
Colville WA Owned
Lynden WA Owned
Oroville WA Owned
Pasco WA 10,46
0
Port Angeles WA 22,88
8
Spokane WA Included in Sector HQ
Spokane Sector HQ WA 67,04
4
Wenatchee WA 8,788
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: INS data.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
James M. Blume, Assistant Director, Administration of
Justice Issues
Jay Jennings, Evaluator-in-Charge
Wendy C. Graves, Evaluator
Pamela V. Williams, Communications Analyst
Katherine M. Wheeler, Publishing Consultant
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Mitchell B. Karpman, Senior Operations Research Analyst
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ann H. Finley, Senior Attorney
DALLAS FIELD OFFICE
Fredrick D. Berry, Senior Evaluator
Michael H. Harmond, Evaluator
DETROIT FIELD OFFICE
Robert R. Readler, Senior Evaluator
LOS ANGELES FIELD OFFICE
Michael P. Dino, Senior Evaluator
Leah G. Riordan, Evaluator
NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE
George P. Cullen, Senior Evaluator
Amy S. Hutner, Senior Evaluator
*** End of document. ***