For those that think that deportation is some kind of deterrent needs to consider this in the eyes of the illegal immigrant. With the way we are enforcing security along our borders this is but a minor inconvenience banking on the inefficiency and stupidity of the Border Patrol Bureaucracy. A recent news bite condemning the 3 year sentence by a California judge, where else, to an illegal alien being justified by the guise of reducing the long term costs of his incarceration to the state. It was stated that this sentence would expedite his deportation. One problem judge…he don’t care bout no stinkin border!!!

 One might think having your tab bended in our judicial system would cause a person such as this to receive greater scrutiny. I’d like to share the case of a Victor Manual Batres. Back in January of 2002 he was apprehended twice within 2 days of attempting to illegally cross the border. It was only during the second attempt that it was discovered the state of Oregon had a warrant issued for his arrest. When Oregon officials were contacted about the apprehension they declined the opportunity to extradite Batres back to Oregon. With that revelation the Border Patrol release Batres back to Mexico. As Paul Harvey might say there is more to this story…

 Back in 2002 the Border Patrol had access to 2 databases called IDENT and IAFIS. IDENT was authorized to be developed back in 1989 for INS to prevent recidivism in persons illegally crossing our borders. 1994 roll around and INS complains that IAFIS prototype is too slow for their needs to research fingerprints. They need results within 2 minutes where the FBI responds they haven’t the storage and the computing power to satisfy that need. Congress’s solution is to appropriate funds for IDENT and INS goes on their merry way developing their own system.

In 1994 it was put into operation. IAFIS, the FBI’s criminal fingerprint database with more extensive record capabilities, was put into operation in 1999.

 Back in March 1998 IDENT the Office of Inspector General issued a report evaluating the INS's implementation of IDENT. The OIG found that the INS was enrolling less than two-thirds of the aliens apprehended along the U.S.-Mexico border into the IDENT system. In addition, the INS was entering into the IDENT lookout database the fingerprints of only 41 percent of the aliens deported and excluded in Fiscal Year (FY) 1996. Of these aliens, only 24 percent had accompanying photographs entered into IDENT, even though the INS relied on photographs as an important method of confirming identification. The OIG found virtually no controls in place to ensure the quality of data entered into the IDENT lookout database, which resulted in duplicate records and invalid data. The OIG report also raised concerns that the INS had not provided sufficient training to its employees on the use of IDENT, and that these failures hampered the INS's ability to make consistent and effective use of IDENT.

 2 Month later Alan Mollohan, a congressman, recommended the integration of the 2 databases where INS could have access to the FBIs records as well as the INS information.

 Fast forward to October of 2001 and Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56 (the Patriot Act). The Patriot Act directed the expedited implementation of an integrated exit and entry data system, including the use of biometric technology. The Patriot Act also required that the FBI share with the INS wanted-persons information in IAFIS to determine whether an applicant for admission at a port of entry has a criminal record. Finally, the Patriot Act required that the Department report to Congress on enhancing IAFIS and other identification systems to better identify aliens who may be wanted before their entry to or exit from the United States. Subsequent DOJ responses to Congress regarding the Patriot Act indicated that an integrated IDENT/IAFIS was an integral tool to identify terrorist or criminal aliens attempting to enter the United States.

 Now you might ask what does all of this information mean to me? The Agents that arrested Batres were encumbered with a plethora of procedures to perform if they encountered a “hit” in IDENT. This was superseded by a memo placed on the muster board where a manager would escalate procedures involving a hit in IDENT to the concerned parties. Having the first agent untrained in the policy and procedures he took it upon himself to interpret the available fingerprints minus any photographs to determine if Batres was the suspected individual. Later he referred his concerns to a manager that did not question his conclusion. The sad part is persons monitoring the system confirmed that this was a person that was the suspect in question and tried to contact the local station to advise the agent to hold the suspect but because they didn’t have an updated phone list this contact wasn’t made.

 Having escalated this lack of contact with the field office a supervisor was paged and he initiated contact with the local office to prevent the return of Batres to Mexico but he was too late. The next day a finger pointing session concluded that the apprehending agent was at fault and should be disciplined…this sounds familiar like Ramos and Compean. The concern was to vilify the offending agent and the information that was received about Batres’s criminal record to prevent another occurrence such as this wasn’t entered into the IDENT database record. The next night Batres was arrested again and this time detained on the warrant from Oregon but when Oregon declined extradition he was again released. In this release there was one last place this might have been prevented by the person filling out the form where there was a certification to check for criminal history. The person failed to populate this section and it defaulted to the, “none known,” automatically inserted phrase when no input was detected. Had they checked his criminal history they would have found:

·  September 1987 in Wenatchee, Washington for theft;

·  November 1987 in California for selling marijuana and/or hashish (an aggravated felony under 8 USC § 1101(a)(43)(B));

·  June 1988 in California for sale of controlled substances (an aggravated felony under 8 USC § 1101(a)(43)(B));

·  December 1988 in California for kidnapping and Second Degree robbery (for which he served 4 years' imprisonment and was deported) (an aggravated felony under 8 USC § 1101(a)(43)(F)).

Addition documented arrests were:

·  May 1987 for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle;

·  February 1988 for purchasing cocaine;

·  March 1988 for robbery and possession of narcotics;

·  April 1988 for possession of controlled substances;

·  August 1988 for grand theft from a person;

·  August 1988 for robbery.

 No bad deed goes unrewarded so Batres illegally reentered the United States and traveled to Oregon September 2002 where he brutally raped two Catholic nuns, resulting in the death of one of the nuns. Batres was arrested, pled guilty to murder and rape, and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

 Remember Alan Mollohan stating IDENT and IAFIS need to be integrated to work with each other back in 1998 and the patriot act mandating this in 2001. DHS 2008 FY budget was increased over and above current allocations for another 146.2 million to integrate IDENT and IAFIS. I wonder where all of the other money allocated for the integration has gone the past 9 years?

 Below are 2 links from which I wrote this story. Please check them out and then write congress asking what is the status of the IDENT/IAFIS integration.

 http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0403/final.pdf

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/foia/US-VISIT_IDENT-IAFISReport.pdf