ICE AND BORDER PATROL PUT BADGES AND GUNS IN THE HANDS OF MEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF SEXUAL AND VIOLENT ABUSE
A 59-person record shows how federal vetting, supervision, and removal failures placed women, children, detainees, partners, and families within reach of men carrying government authority.
Across the documented cases, ICE, Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, DHS, and affiliated federal employers granted personnel badges, weapons, government access, supervisory power, or authority over vulnerable people. Women were required to report to officers who could influence their detention or deportation. Children entered agency-linked programs under the assumption that the adults supervising them had been screened. Partners and relatives lived beside federal employees whose positions supplied institutional credibility and, in applicable roles, access to government weapons and authority.
The Ohio Immigrant Alliance documented 59 men connected to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol, or affiliated federal roles. The record includes accusations, charges, convictions, and sentences, and each person’s legal status must be described precisely. Across those categories, 85 percent of the documented cases involved sex offenses, and nearly two-thirds involved children.
The cases followed different paths. In some, federal authority created direct access to victims. In others, the institutional failure appeared in hiring, supervision, continued employment, or the delayed removal of government power after warning signs emerged. ICE, Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, DHS, and affiliated federal employers must disclose what warning signs reached them, when they learned of them, and how long each employee retained federal authority afterward.
Andrew Golobic’s case shows how immigration-enforcement power can become leverage over a person already vulnerable to federal control. Golobic worked as an ICE deportation officer from 2006 to 2020 and spent approximately five years assigned to the Alternatives to Detention program. ICE gave him authority over reporting requirements, electronic monitoring, detention recommendations, and the movement of people under federal supervision.
A federal jury convicted Golobic of depriving a woman under his supervision of her right to bodily integrity through forced or coerced sexual activity. He was also convicted of obstructing a sex-trafficking investigation, witness tampering, and destroying records. Prosecutors said he deleted evidence after investigators approached him. In March 2025, a federal judge sentenced him to 12 years in prison.
Golobic did not encounter the woman as an ordinary civilian. He exercised authority over a person whose freedom and immigration case could be affected by his decisions. Refusing him could carry consequences connected to detention and deportation. Reporting him meant challenging an officer inside the agency controlling her supervision. ICE gave him the leverage that enlarged the coercion and made resistance more dangerous.
The documented record also reaches children placed inside agency-linked programs. Ramon Marquez served as a Customs and Border Protection officer associated with the Border Patrol Explorer Program, which brought young participants into contact with federal law-enforcement personnel and activities. The Ohio Immigrant Alliance report alleges that Marquez used that access to sexually abuse a minor participant and says investigators found inappropriate communications with another child connected to the program.
The federal role and agency-linked program allegedly created a trusted channel through which Marquez gained access to the minor participant. Parents and children encountered an officer presented through a government program as screened, credible, and safe. Border Patrol activities and facilities gave that contact institutional legitimacy that an unrelated adult would not possess.
Samuel Saxon’s case raises a different question: how long federal authority can remain in place after repeated warning signs. Saxon served as an assistant field office director in ICE’s Cincinnati office. The Ohio Immigrant Alliance report describes repeated police calls to his home and serious allegations of domestic violence against his partner. He later pleaded guilty to lying to a federal agent investigating him after a neighbor reported a domestic-violence incident. The reported violence and the federal guilty plea remain legally distinct.
ICE retained Saxon in a supervisory role during a period when police were repeatedly called to his home and serious domestic-violence allegations were reported. Violence outside an office cannot be dismissed as irrelevant when the employee commands other officers and exercises federal power over people facing detention or deportation. ICE must account for what it knew, when restrictions were imposed, whether his weapon or supervisory access was removed, and why federal authority remained in place.
These cases expose different parts of the same institutional failure. Golobic’s immigration-enforcement authority supplied direct leverage over a woman under supervision. The Border Patrol Explorer Program allegedly created trusted access to a minor participant. Saxon’s history raises questions about whether repeated warning signs produced restrictions equal to the power he retained.
Treating each case as isolated removes the employing agency from the decisions that placed authority in the person’s hands, reviewed complaints, controlled discipline, and determined whether access would continue. The men convicted of abuse were responsible for their crimes. ICE, Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, DHS, and affiliated employers remained responsible for the authority, access, supervision, and employment decisions surrounding their personnel.
DHS presents its vetting process as comprehensive and continuous. For victims, that promise matters only when new information produces protection. Every delay in removing a badge, firearm, supervisory role, or access point leaves another woman, child, partner, detained person, or person under federal supervision exposed to someone carrying government authority.
A background investigation completed at hiring cannot protect the public when later warning signs fail to trigger restrictions or removal. Federal agencies must be able to show when weapons were taken away, database access was suspended, youth-program contact ended, custody authority was withdrawn, and outside prosecutors were notified. A written policy does not protect victims while the employee retains the tools that can enlarge the danger.
Congress sits inside that accountability chain because Congress authorizes ICE and Border Patrol budgets, staffing expansions, detention capacity, weapons, databases, youth programs, and enforcement authority. Each expansion places more people under the control of employees whose access and conduct must be independently scrutinized.
Congress has not created a transparent national system requiring public disclosure of employee arrests, qualifying charges, convictions, suspensions, removed weapons, revoked credentials, or continued employment. Lawmakers cannot continue expanding immigration-enforcement power while leaving women, children, families, and detained people dependent on disciplinary systems operating behind DHS walls.
Effective safeguards must remove the specific powers that can enlarge the danger. Qualifying violent or sexual charges should trigger independent review and immediate restrictions on firearms, badges, custody authority, database access, youth-program contact, and supervisory control. Convictions for specified violent or sexual offenses should produce enforceable removal deadlines rather than discretionary internal handling.
Allegations involving detained people, supervised participants, children, subordinates, or the use of official authority must be investigated outside the accused employee’s command structure. Congress should require public reporting showing how many DHS employees were arrested, charged, convicted, suspended, retained, terminated, or allowed to retire while investigations remained open.
A woman supervised by ICE can face detention consequences for refusing an officer who controls her case. A child entering a Border Patrol youth program encounters an adult already presented as trusted and screened. A partner reporting domestic violence confronts a federal employee whose position carries institutional credibility and supervisory power. A person without secure immigration status can fear that reporting abuse will expose an entire family to enforcement.
Federal authority changes each of those encounters. It can make refusal more dangerous, reporting more difficult, and the person carrying the badge more credible than the person harmed. A gun, government database, supervisory title, or power over detention does not sit separately from the abuse when it increases access, fear, silence, or control.
ICE and Border Patrol did not merely discover that men within their ranks were accused, charged, or convicted of sexual and violent abuse. The agencies had already put badges and guns in their hands, given them access to vulnerable people, and supplied authority capable of magnifying fear and silencing resistance. Congress funded that power without building a transparent system capable of screening dangerous men out, stripping their authority quickly, and protecting the people placed within their reach.
The Ohio Immigrant Alliance’s 59-person record exposes how badges, guns, custody authority, youth-program access, and federal credibility can enlarge the danger when ICE and Border Patrol fail to screen, supervise, restrict, and remove abusive personnel.
Upgrade to a paid subscription to help Americans Against ICE document sexual and violent abuse by immigration-enforcement personnel, failed federal vetting, ignored warning signs, custody abuses, and the institutions that preserve government power after public safety has already been placed at risk.
Not that this begs to be stated but is anybody surprised?
Abolish ICE, immigration paperwork is a parking ticket not a violent crime! They pay fines and go to court, they pay bills and taxes, immigration is the foundation of this country.