In the administration’s effort to speed up Donald Trump’s national deportation force and quickly hire thousands of new immigration agents, the U.S. Border Patrol is debating axing a “rigorous” polygraph test for some new applicants, an exam “mandated by the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 … in response to reports of agents being targeted for bribes by drug cartels and human-smuggling operations.” Because lord almighty, what could ever go wrong with not properly vetting armed agents who round up human beings for a living?
“The polygraph has given us a difficult time,” said Border Patrol Chief Ronald Vitiello on Wednesday at a conference in San Antonio on border security. “Not a lot of people are passing.”
Critics, though, say the changes to the polygraph program would lower the bar to get into the Border Patrol and leave it more vulnerable to unsuitable candidates and corruption.
“If they actually can’t meet the standards, it doesn’t mean we lower the standards to get a larger number who can meet them,” Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) said in an interview.
According to the agency, “roughly 60% of all applicants fail the polygraph now in use. Other changes being considered include giving U.S. Customs and Border Protection broad authority over background checks for applicants and extending the probationary period for new agents to two years.”
Sen. Harris told the Wall Street Journal that she fears a disregard for proper vetting will expose the agency to even more misconduct. A 2014 independent review already found that border patrol agents “have deliberately stepped in the path of cars apparently to justify shooting at the drivers,” with “67 shooting incidents from January 2010 to October 2012:”
“That’s why the polygraph was instituted,” Sen. Harris said. “We knew there was at the very least the possibility of corruption.”
Even the DHS’ inspector general agrees:
The Homeland Security Department’s inspector general, John Roth, also expressed concerns about changing the polygraph standards.
The “proposed changes fail to achieve the goal of shortening the hiring process” and “increase the risk that unsuitable candidates may be hired,” Mr. Roth said in a written response in March to questions from Ms. Harris submitted after he testified before the Senate Homeland Security committee.
Mr. Roth said the agency needed to identify other ways to make hiring “more efficient without sacrificing integrity and effectiveness.”
Apparently extreme vetting only applies to refugees, and not to anyone who wants a job under this administration.