From our April 2005 issue: John King, Superintendent of Big Bend National Park, responded to our March cover story, "Not all borders are equal" and our March 2005 editorial "Tear down this wall!" with the following letter.

Editor:

Rarely do I feel compelled to personally respond to newspaper articles that deal with Big Bend National Park, but the story entitled “Not All Borders Are Equal” that appeared in the March [2005] edition of The Gazette demands a response.

I appreciate your interest in and the obvious passion you feel for having the border crossings reopened in Big Bend NP. However, the conclusions that you have reached and the assertions that you make in your article are fundamentally flawed and beg to be corrected.

Your article goes into great detail about the border crossing situation at Glacier National Park and attempts to draw a corollary to the situation at Big Bend NP.

You freely acknowledge the most salient difference between these two areas – namely that the Goat Haunt area in Glacier National Park has been officially designated as a Class B Port of Entry. It is that designation, and that alone, that allows very limited cross border traffic into Glacier National Park. As you should well know, such a designation does not exist at Big Bend NP, and consequently we do not have the legal authority to allow such traffic.

You also go into detail about a 1998 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Customs Service and the National Park Service. You state that an “MOU exists between the NPS and CBP which designates three border crossings in Big Bend National Park (as class B ports of entry), and authorizes the cross designation of NPS rangers as Customs officers.”

You are, unfortunately, only half right. The MOU did, in fact, provide a temporary vehicle through which NPS Rangers could be cross designated. It does NOT, however, designate border crossings in Big Bend National Park as you allege.

The MOU in question, that you were provided a copy of, is entitled “Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Designation of Certain Officers of the National Park Service as Customs Officers”. In the preamble of the MOU there are two principal points expressed and stated as follows:

“Pursuant to his authority under 19 U.S.C. 1433 and 1459 and 19 CFR 101.4(d), the Commissioner of Customs intends to take all necessary steps to designate Boquillas, San Vicente, and Santa Elena as Customs stations for a temporary time and for the purpose of permitting certain border crossings in Big Bend National Park.

'Because it is a matter of mutual concern to the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) and the National Park Service (NPS) to have the temporary crossing points established in Big Bend National Park, the Commissioner of Customs and the Director, NPS, hereby establish the following guidelines for designating NPS officers as Customs officers under 19 U.S.C. 1401(i) for the purpose of assisting in the enforcement of Customs and related laws at the three designated stations.”

The good intentions articulated in this MOU unfortunately were not realized.

The Commissioner of Customs, for reasons unbeknown to me, was not successful in his attempt to “designate Boquillas, San Vicente, and Santa Elena as Customs stations for a temporary time.” So, contrary to the assertion made in your article, these locations were not then and have not since been designated as class B ports of entry.

The second goal of the MOU, namely training for and cross designation of NPS Rangers as Customs officers, did take place. Big Bend NP rangers (only two of whom still work at the park) were trained and cross designated in 1998. These designations, even for the two remaining Big Bend NP rangers, are long since null and void inasmuch as the MOU states that “designation under this procedure will remain in effect for a period of 180 days”. The issue of cross designation is really a moot point in that these authorities can only be exercised at designated Customs stations or official ports of entry. And, as we both know, none exist at Big Bend NP.

By way of clarification, though I am sure you already know this, there are essentially three ways that official ports of entry can be established: (1) by Presidential action, (2) through legislative action by the Congress of the United States, or (3) by administrative action by the Secretary.

On a personal note, I would very much like to see authorized crossings points established in Big Bend NP. The opportunity to visit the small Mexican villages adjacent to the park has for many years provided a wonderful cross-cultural experience for thousands of our visitors, not to mention the economic stimulus afforded to those villages.

Should crossing points be established in the future we will gladly work with our colleagues in the Department of Homeland Security to facilitate the reinstitution of cross border travel within the park.

If the status quo remains, however, we have no choice but to enforce the “law of the land” and prohibit illegal access into the park from Mexico.

You stated in your editorial “Tear Down This Wall!” that I “have the ability and the authority to enable cross- border travel in the Big Bend once again.” Nothing, sir, could be further from the truth.

Both your editorial comment and your article served to confuse and mislead people on a very emotionally charged issue. I can only hope that you choose to do the right thing and correct, in a subsequent issue of your paper, the extremely inaccurate information you have communicated to your readers.

John H. King
Superintendent, Big Bend National Park

Publisher John Waters responds:

Thank you responding to our article “Not All Borders are Equal” and editorial published in the March issue of The Big Bend Gazette.

You refer to the cross-border traffic in Glacier National Park as “very limited cross border traffic into Glacier National Park.” Yet, as we published in our aforementioned cover story, statistics from the October November issue of Customs and Border Protection Today (The official newsletter of the U.S. Border Protection Agency) prove otherwise: “Each year 37,000 tourists visit the Goat Haunt region, and some 7,000 of them remain in the area to hike or backpack south further into Glacier Park.”

Regarding the cross-designation of NPS Rangers as Customs officers and the two BBNP employees with this certification you wrote, “These designations, even for the two remaining Big Bend NP rangers are long since null and void inasmuch as the MOU states that ‘designation under this procedure will remain in effect for a period of 180 days.’ The issue of cross-designation is really a moot point in that these authorities can only be exercised at Customs stations or official ports of entry. And as we both know, none exist at Big Bend NP.”
For cross-border traffic to occur, a customs officer need be present; hence, this is as not a “moot point.”

Our research on the Memorandum of Understanding reached between the National Park Service and U.S. Customs relied almost entirely on documents directly from the Park Service. A memorandum from former Big Bend Superintendent Frank Deckert reads: “In 1998 the National Park Service Director and the U.S. Customs Acting Commissioner signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) which designated the three historic crossings as Customs station for the purpose of permitting certain border crossings in Big Bend National Park.” However, as your letter points out: “The good intentions articulated in this MOU unfortunately were not realized. The Commissioner of Customs, for reasons unbeknown to me, was not successful in his attempt to designate Boquillas, San Vicente, and Santa Elena as Customs stations for a temporary time. So, contrary to the assertion made in your article, these locations were not then and have not since been designated as class B ports of entry.” We accept and appreciate your correction on this point.

This is the story of a local public official moving an issue up the chain of command (from park headquarters in Panther Junction, to the Office of International Affairs of the Park Service, Office of the Chief Counsel of U.S. Customs, The Directors Office of the National Park Service, and the Office of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior – all in Washington, D.C.). We trust you will follow the good example set by your predecessor and do everything within your power as soon as possible to further the reality of legal cross-border traffic once again.

Our research brought this memorandum to your attention. We stand by the integrity of our research, our article and our editorial. We will continue to research public policy and will strive for even greater accuracy.