Immigration Enforcement in the Twenty-First Century

Angela Banks

In September of 2021, Haitian migrants, attempting to return to a migrant camp in Del Rio, Texas, were met with U.S. Border Patrol agents on horseback with whips.¹ The Haitian migrants had gone to Mexico to obtain food for their families, as there was insufficient food at the camp. Upon their return, Border Patrol agents attempted to push the Haitian migrants back across the Rio Grande to Mexico. One viral image showed a Border Patrol agent on horseback holding a whip and grabbing a Haitian migrant by the back of his shirt.² Kit Johnson’s recent article, Women of Color in Immigration Enforcement, raises interesting questions about whether or not the growing number of women of color in immigration enforcement could positively impact the “use-of-force culture in the federal immigration enforcement context.” (P. 997.)

Johnson’s article introduces new demographic data about immigration enforcement officers that demonstrates that the majority of female immigration enforcement officers are women of color. In light of this new information, Johnson introduces a research agenda to examine the impact and experiences of women of color within immigration law enforcement. While scholars have explored the experience and impact of Latinx immigration enforcement officers, the experience and impact of women of color specifically has not been explored. Now that more granular demographic data is available, women of color can be the focus of analysis.

The article begins with an overview of the functions of three key immigration enforcement offices within the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”): the Office of Field Operations (“OFO”) within U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), U.S. Border Patrol (“USBP”) within CBP, and Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”) within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). After describing and contextualizing the work of these agencies, Johnson details the legal tools that have led to the diversification of immigration enforcement. Federal legislation, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Orders, and agency rulemaking have prohibited employment discrimination within the federal government, encouraged increasing the number of Latinx individuals employed by the federal government, and promoted federal employment as a place of “equal opportunity, diversity, and inclusion.” (P. 1008.) Due to Management Directive 715 by the Director of the Federal Sector Programs Office of Federal Operations Equal Employment Opportunity Commission DHS was obligated to “identify barriers to creating a more diverse immigration workforce.” (Id.) This led to efforts to recruit more enforcement officers who are people of color and/or women. (P. 1009.)

Recent data suggests that the DHS efforts have successfully diversified some of the immigration enforcement agencies. For example, 13 percent of ICE officers are women, as are 19.6 percent of CBP officers. Compared to local police departments, where 12.6 percent of officers are women, ICE is in line with national figures and CBP is ahead. (P. 1011.) Yet, U.S. Border Patrol is significantly lower at 5.5 percent female officers. (Id.) The insight offered by Johnson’s essay is that the majority of the women within immigration law enforcement are women of color. For example, 55.1 percent of female CBP officers, 58 percent of female ICE ERO officers, and 54.1 percent of female U.S. Border Patrol officers identify as women of color. (P. 1012.) Johnson also notes that a greater percentage of female immigration enforcement officers identify as Black, Latinx or multi-racial than male officers working for CBP, ICE, and the U.S. Border Patrol. (Id.)

There is little research examining the impact that the diversification of immigration enforcement along the lines of race, ethnicity, and gender has had. Johnson offers a framework to begin this analysis. Applying David Alan Sklansky’s framework for evaluating the effects of diversity within local law enforcement to immigration enforcement, Johnson examines (1) competency effects, (2) community effects, and (3) organizational effects. Competency effects explore the “skills and abilities of the workers.” Community effects examine the implications “for the relationship between the agency and the community it works with.” Organization effects look at the “ways in which employees affect their workplace.” (P. 1013.) Johnson’s essay begins to analyze these factors but acknowledges that additional empirical research is needed to address the organizational effects properly. Additional issues to address in future research would be: Why does the U.S. Border Patrol have such low numbers of women across the law enforcement spectrum? Why does CBP have higher numbers of women within immigration law enforcement and local law enforcement more broadly? Finally, it would be interesting to see how the immigration enforcement figures compare to other federal law enforcement agencies. It is possible that the organizational culture of each of these immigration enforcement agencies provides insights. Yet additional research is necessary to determine how different the agency cultures are, and what if any impact it has on the demographics of the officers.

In light of the images seen by the world in the Fall of 2021, Johnson’s call for increased scholarly attention to the growing number of women of color within immigration enforcement is timely. In addition to the question she identifies for further research, I would add the following: with regard to community effects, what are the strategies and techniques used by female officers that enable them to de-escalate situations successfully? To what extent can this lead to new forms of training that could have organizational effects? Additional organizational effects to explore would be, does an increase in the number of women and/or women of color within an enforcement agency change other aspects of the culture?

1. Bill Chappell, U.S. Border Agents Chased Migrants On Horseback. A Photographer Explains What He Saw, NPR (Sept. 21, 2021).
2. Id.