Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

June 22, 2013

Doubling the Border Patrol? Not a Smart Idea

Filed under: Border Security,Budgets and Spending,Immigration — by Christian Beckner on June 22, 2013

Immigration reform legislation has been debated for the last couple of weeks on the floor of the Senate, and late last week a compromise emerged – in the form of an amendment from Sen. Corker and Sen. Hoeven – that appears to have secured enough votes for the bill to survive a cloture vote in the coming week and then move to final passage.  This New York Times story provides a good overview of the state of play.

One of the key provisions in the amendment (which is technically being wrapped into a larger substitute amendment) is $30 billion in funding over the next decade to add 19,200 new Border Patrol agents, nearly doubling the size of the Border Patrol from its current staffing level of 21,370 agents.

This proposal is a terrible idea – one that would be wasteful of taxpayers’ money and is not based on sound operational or technical analysis as to what investments are really needed to improve border security.

Before discussing this in depth, let me be clear: I would like to see broad-based and balanced immigration reform legislation be enacted, and it is sensible for a component of that legislation to be focused on border security, as is the case with ‘Gang of 8′ base bill.  Many of the border provisions in the base legislation are reasonable, including proposed investments in technology and infrastructure (although strong oversight is needed on these, given the history of SBInet) and the proposal to increase the number of Customs and Border Protection Officers (CBPO’s, who are different from Border Patrol agents).

However, the proposal to double the number of Border Patrol agents is different, and is something that deserves careful scrutiny by people on all sides of this debate before moving forward.

I have three primary concerns about this provision:

First, adding “boots on the ground” may make for a good soundbite, but it’s a costly and inefficient way to improve border security.   CBP spends around $3.2 billion/year today on personnel costs for the Border Patrol – a figure that doesn’t include the cost to train and equip them.  This $3.2 billion is already a very large chunk of DHS’s budget – as a point of comparison, it’s about 3-4 times greater than what the Department spends overall each year in support of its cybersecurity mission.  A proposal to double the Border Patrol would increase that total to over $6 billion/year in current dollars – and this would be an annual investment for the long-term, because of the difficulties associated with reducing such a workforce once you’ve expanded it.

Second, this proposal is not based on any real analysis about operational needs on the border.  Has anyone assessed what are these additional 19,200 agents going to do, or where are they going to work, or what infrastructure is needed to support them?  Not that I’ve seen, and I doubt that any analysis along these lines has been done.  And if we’re going to be making technology and infrastructure investments (e.g. fixed towers, UAVs, better comms) using funds available elsewhere in the legislation to improve the operational efficiency of the current Border Patrol agents, then why it is logical that we would also need twice as many of them?  As it is, we are already at the point where in some parts of the country, we’re seeing the “diminishing marginal returns” in border security that Secretary Napolitano spoke of a few months ago, exemplified by media reports where Border Patrol agents are fighting constant boredom.   Given this, I think it’s very hard to justify this proposal on its operational merits.

Third, it would be unwise to be spending billions of dollars to double the size of the Border Patrol when many of the other parts of DHS (and other key security-focused agencies) are struggling under the weight of four years of flat and declining budgets, topped off in the last few months by the cuts of sequestration.  For example, the Coast Guard is cutting personnel and continues to be delayed in its acquisition of its next generation of maritime vessels due to budget constraints.  (And keep in mind that the Coast Guard’s maritime border security requirements in the Gulf of Mexico and southern California will likely increase as the southwest land border becomes more secure).  The FBI is expecting that it’s going to need to furlough agents next year because of sequestration.  Nearly every part of DHS has felt the impact of budget cuts by Congress in the last four years – in many cases trimming out needed fat, but now to the point where the cuts are having an operational impact.   But now, suddenly, the Senate is proposing to spend tens of billions of dollars to double the size of the Border Patrol without one iota of analysis.

Given these three factors, I would hope that members of Congress in both parties would rethink this fiscally and operationally unwise proposal, regardless of their position on the broader bill.   There are many better ways to accomplish the shared goal of improved border security.  Some of these are already integrated into the base bill, and others, such as increased resources to investigate overseas human trafficking and smuggling organizations, and increases to the intelligence offices at CBP and ICE, and increases to state and local law enforcement grants in border states, would cost much less but collectively deliver a greater overall benefit to border security.

The agents who currently serve in the Border Patrol are hard-working and patriotic, and deserve our support.  But doubling their ranks doesn’t make any sense, and would be a fiscally irresponsible and operationally uninformed decision by the Congress.

May 28, 2013

Immigration Reform and the Gilovich Conjecture

Filed under: Immigration — by Christopher Bellavita on May 28, 2013

Immigration reform may make its way through the Senate soon. Its chances in the House are less optimistic.

What role will reason play in the latest immigration reform effort?

My answer is guided by Tim Gilovich’s observation (reported in The Righteous Mind, page 84):

When we want to believe something, we ask ourselves, “Can I believe it?” Then … we search for supporting evidence, and if we find even a single piece of psuedo-evidence, we can stop thinking. We now have permission to believe. We have a justification, in case anyone asks.

When we don’t want to believe something, we ask ourselves, “Must I believe it?” Then we search for contrary evidence, and if we find a single reason to doubt the claim, we can dismiss it. You only need one key to unlock the handcuffs of must.”

And — as I have noted before about the Gilovich Conjecture — much of this questioning happens below the level of consciousness.

Test the conjecture for yourself next time you are confronted with a controversial argument you want to believe, or one you don’t want to believe. For example, maybe something like the following:

Continuing to believe that evidence and logic influence public policy more than emotion and an adaptive unconscious, the Heritage Foundation issued a report a few weeks ago about immigration. The report asserts that “current immigration practices … operate like a system of transnational welfare outreach, bringing millions of fiscally dependent individuals into the U.S.”

If amnesty is a part of immigration reform:

“Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. …. This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs because it undercounts the number of unlawful immigrants and dependents who will actually receive amnesty and underestimates significantly the future growth in welfare and medical benefits.”

Does that estimate hold up? asks Wonkblog’s Dylan Matthews, as if has better access to evidence and argument.

“Not really. They [the authors of the Heritage Report] make a lot of curious methodological choices that cumulatively throw the study into question. It’s likely that immigrants would pay a lot more in taxes, and need a lot less in benefits, than Heritage assumes, and that other benefits would outweigh what costs remain.”

And then he writes a lot more about the subject, but — to be fair — not as much as the Heritage document.

Two days later, Wonkblog “put that piece in context” by noting one of the authors of the Heritage report wrote a PhD dissertation at Harvard about IQs and immigration that concluded (according to the dissertation abstract)

“The average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population, and the difference is likely to persist over several generations…. Selecting high-IQ immigrants would ameliorate these problems in the U.S., while at the same time benefiting smart potential immigrants who lack educational access in their home countries.”

A number of people on the political left and middle and right and the gaps in-between objected to the argument and its conclusions, no doubt after also reading the dissertation abstract.

Heritage quickly announced the dissertation was “not a work product of The Heritage Foundation. Its findings in no way reflect the positions of The Heritage Foundation.”

The Foundation then went into damage control, and apparently considered hiring professional damage controllers.

Two days later, the co-author (Jason Richwine) resigned from Heritage.

He was “guilty of crimethink,” tweeted Charles Murray, Richwine’s mentor. “The bashing from the right has been as mindless as from the left.”

Richwine was interviewed by Byron York of the Washington Examiner a few days after the resignation. York’s article offers a compassionate but realistic portrait of a young intellectual caught by surprise in a political and media shredder.

So, how did it happen? Richwine, the Harvard intellectual, thought he could discuss perhaps the most radioactive subject in America — a mixture of race, ethnicity, and group intelligence — in the context of another highly controversial topic — immigration — and act as if it were all a matter of scholarly inquiry. In addition, he made what was at best a careless mistake … and further damaged himself by making tone-deaf remarks during a public discussion in Washington. Given the intensity of the immigration fight now raging in Washington, that was more than enough to do him in.

Steve Colbert had a slightly different analysis of the Heritage report incident and its aftermath.

But all that is prelude to what I really wanted to present in today’s post.

Here is a 21st century policy argument about immigration in the United Kingdom titled “Mathematics.”

Hollie McNish is the author. Her 2 minute and sixteen second argument seeks to bypass the reason gene completely and go directly to the part of one’s brain that decides things.

Listen to her argument.

If you want to believe what she says, have your unconscious ask yourself “Can I believe it?”

But if you don’t want to believe the argument, direct your unconscious to ask “Must I believe it?”

I think there may still be a bit of time left to wait for Reason to get its policy act together.

Or maybe not.

July 12, 2011

Slavery in America: “I slept with 103 men,” she says. “That is the worst day in my life.”

Filed under: Immigration,Legal Issues — by Christopher Bellavita on July 12, 2011

Slavery still defiles the United States.

By some estimates (including figures from the CIA) as many as 50,000 people “are trafficked into or transited through the U.S.A. annually as sex slaves, domestics, garment, and agricultural slaves.”

The State Department has a lower figure. A few years ago, they reported “that 14,500 to 17,500 people, primarily women and children, are trafficked to the U.S. annually.”

Other people think the problem may be less significant than the 50,000 figure makes it appear.

“The discrepancy between the alleged number of victims per year and the number of cases [authorities] been able to make is so huge that it’s got to raise major questions,” said one criminologist. “It suggests that this problem is being blown way out of proportion.”

Or maybe something else:

“The biggest problem that we have combating these [sex trafficking] cases,” [a DHS official said], “is that once they hear the words ‘Immigration and Customs Enforcement,’ they immediately run. They do not trust us. They immediately think we are going to deport them.”

————–

I read a story Monday about something called T Visas.  The Trafficking Victims Protection Act… allows undocumented human trafficking victims to receive nonimmigrant status under some conditions, including agreeing to cooperate with law enforcement.

According to people familiar with the program, very few people are familiar with the program — victims or officials.

“Since T Visas became available in 2002, the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services has been authorized to issue up to 5,000 a year — or enough for 10 percent of the 50,000 men, women and children trafficked into the U.S. for prostitution and forced labor each year, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.”

In the last decade, about 2300 T Visas were issued; in 2010, 447 victims received visas.

(You can find out more about this Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service program at this link.)

————–

Azriel James Relph, an NBC News reporter, described how one person found out about the DHS, USCIS program.  Here is an extended excerpt:

On a recent sweltering afternoon, two women sat at a restaurant table in a small American town, sharing conversation and a cookie and keeping cool. The normally busy eatery was quiet, but even if it had been packed they would have been the oddest couple in the room – a woman who came to this country illegally and a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent.

….

“How’s your back? Is it treating you OK?” asked the agent.

“Very, very good,” replied the woman across the table in a heavy South American accent.

We can’t tell you their actual names. Special Agent Jones, her gold badge clipped to her belt and and ICE logo on her black government-issue polo shirt, often works undercover. Naming her could blow that. And her companion, whom we’ll call Laura, is a crime victim. Using her real name or showing her face could give her tormentors all they need to retaliate.

They are both women in their 30s, but the gray streaks running through Laura’s dark hair are suggestions of the pain she has endured.

Laura is a victim of human trafficking who risked her safety by testifying against the man who brought her to this country and forced her to work as a sex slave for at least seven years. Special Agent Jones was a part of the team that saved her.

….

Laura can’t remember some details of her ordeal, including how long ago she was smuggled into the U.S. — somewhere between 10 and 12 years ago, she reckons. But others — like how she got here — are seared into her memory.

She met a man in her home country when she was in her 20s. He swept her off of her feet, and told her he loved her. She took him to meet her family. When he asked her to go to the U.S. for six months, they cautioned against it, but she was in love and couldn’t say no. They boarded a flight north and only then, on the airplane, did he lay out what he really had in mind for her.

“You’re going to the United States,” she remembers him telling her, “to work like a prostitute.” Laura said she wanted to scream for help, but he told her to remember that he knew where her family was. “I have a lot of friends and I know where everybody lives,” he threatened.

It was a cold winter night when she landed in Washington, D.C. The man passed her off to a couple who took her directly to an old house. She laid awake all night in shock, listening to rats scrape around. All she could think about was how she wanted to phone her family — if only someone in this unfamiliar and unfriendly place could help her make a call.

But Laura had no allies in this frightening new land. She was now an unwilling sex worker in brothels catering to immigrant Latinos in Washington, D.C., Maryland, Atlanta and New York. She remained the “property” of her trafficker, who arranged her movements, as well as those of other women and girls he lured to the U.S. with similar false promises.

She remembers one especially horrific night in Maryland. “I slept with 103 men,” she says. “That is the worst day in my life.”

And she was not alone. “I remember, he say, ‘You no make money, because the other women [had sex with] 130.’ A lot of people don’t believe it, and say ‘No, it’s impossible.’”

Not only is it possible, it happens all the time, all across America, according to Bradley Myles, executive director of Polaris Project, a nonprofit that operates the National Human Trafficking Resource Center.

“Basically there’s this whole sex trafficking network that exists in the United States, and it predominantly targets and victimizes women and children from Latin American countries,” Myles said.

Fear of incarceration due to her undocumented status and concern for the safety of her family kept Laura from attempting escape or contacting authorities. But one day, that fear turned into hope, when Special Agent Jones came through the brothel door.

Three years ago, after approximately eight months of surveillance and undercover investigation — including late-night stakeouts, digging through trash, getting evidence any way they could — Jones and fellow ICE agents approached a house on a quiet street in an average American suburb and knocked on the door. They knew that the front door was not shielding a family sitting around a dining room table discussing their day, but a brothel where women and girls as young as 14 were being forced to have sex with “Johns” who paid $25 for 15-minute sessions. The women and girls worked all day and night, and almost never saw a penny.

On the day of the raid, Laura sat on a couch in the living room, where men awaited their 15-minute sessions, watching television. After seven years in the brothels she was no longer in high demand. New women and girls were constantly being brought in. The younger and fresher the faces, the more popular they were with Johns. The man she had fallen for all those years before in her home country still found a use for her though; she worked as the maid for this brothel.

She heard a knock on the door, peered out the window and saw the police. She didn’t say anything — she just started to cry as she opened the door for them.

Laura said she hadn’t cried about her situation in years. “You know, at one point you can’t cry,” she said. “You cry no more.” But as she realized what was about to happen, the tears came rushing back. “Crying because I am too happy — not afraid — because I knew that this is over.”

What happened next is a blur, but she remembers that the first person she saw come through the door was Jones. The officers told her they had arrested her trafficker. She asked if she was going to jail. They told her no.

The years of slavery had taken a physical and emotional toll on Laura.

“When we rescued her she appeared substantially older than her age,” said Jones. “She had a lot of baggage. A lot of mental and emotional distraughtness.”

Jones hoped to secure her cooperation as the prosecution built its case against her trafficker and the network he was part of. But her captors had told Laura over and over not to trust law enforcement, and she had no idea if she could really believe anything that an ICE agent was telling her.

“When I first met Laura, she didn’t trust us,” said Jones. “She actually made the case harder by saying that the other women that we rescued were all doing it voluntarily, that her trafficker was innocent. But that is usually the way these victims have been brainwashed to believe. It’s classic Stockholm Syndrome.”

Jones was patient. As one of the oldest victims, Laura’s testimony was crucial to the case. She decided to show her what her trafficker had deprived her of, and give her a taste of freedom.

“So we put her in a position where she could continue to thrive and see where she’s going to go,” she said. She arranged for Laura to get temporary status to stay in the country legally. She put her in touch with a relief agency that helped her find work, housing and mental health care. As Laura started to heal, Jones stayed in touch and kept asking for her cooperation, promising that her newfound freedom could be permanent. But Laura continued to resist.

After three years, Laura finally walked into the courtroom where her trafficker sat — the man she once thought she loved — and testified about her ordeal.

“I remember the day, but I no remember what I say,” she said, “because I so nervous.”

Her trafficker was found guilty of human trafficking. He is in federal prison now, and after five years, he will be deported to his home country. He is also required to pay restitution to Laura and the other nine women and girls he was convicted of enslaving

Working human trafficking cases, Jones has found an even stronger connection to her work. “These girls can be anybody’s daughter, anybody’s sister,” she said. “When I look at these girls — that could have been me.”

————–

My first thought after I read this story was sometimes DHS gets it right.

I talked about this case with a friend who works for the federal government and who knows a lot about trafficking.  I asked him what he thought about the story.  Here’s what he said.

————–

Trafficking is one area the United States is getting more right than most places and one where we have demonstrated world-wide leadership.

DHS getting it right? Being that they have the lead, I suppose, but do we need a DHS to get this one right? Not so sure.

As a nation, the US really has driven the modern anti-trafficking movement. Fall of the Wall, Globalization, Explosion of Internet really brought it to light. It has been a bipartisan effort beginning with President Clinton, continued by President Bush under whom the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) was signed into law, and since continued by President Obama.

Though it has been a bipartisan effort, the political left seems to focus more on forced labor and the political right on sex-trafficking.  The disparity can be so severe that our State Department under different party affiliations disagrees as to which is the greater cause of trafficking, by a wide amount.

But the US is not alone on the dispute as to what is trafficking. Much like discussions about what are inalienable human rights, there are still disagreements and a variety of different definitions for human trafficking world-wide.

On this point the US adopted the force, fraud, coercion, under 18 rubric for the TVPA.  There is no movement (across borders, state or national) required for human trafficking.

At first the TVPA required the State Department to rank all countries on their anti-trafficking efforts, and then tie US aid and funding to those efforts.

As you can imagine, this can become extremely political, very quickly; particularly in strategic parts of the world.

Initially, the US did not rate itself, but now it does. This is a good thing and has led to positive steps in the US.

There are Americans who believe we need strong international laws and that the US needs to buy into the laws. From that perspective, the US prescriptively set the bar and put people on notice regarding anti-trafficking efforts.

However, when we did that, very few states had human-trafficking laws on the books. In ten years, more than forty states put anti-trafficking laws on the books.  These laws complement the federal laws regarding trafficking. Penalties supporting these laws are much more severe.  This increases the cost criminals face doing business and is a legitimate part of doing business.

But it might lead one to say (much like the immigration laws) how can the feds and the states both have human trafficking laws? There are a lot of legal issues around that question, but it does create a gap.

It is true there is an apparent discrepancy between estimated trafficking numbers and actual criminal prosecutions brought.

I believe this is a result of the force, fraud, coercion requirement. Those are really hard things to prove save for the really egregious cases.

Look at the parties involved in the sex cases. Are the Johns going to appear as a fact witness? Of course not, we don’t even arrest them.

The women … I can’t even begin to put my mind around the psychological components to this: PTSD rates that are as high as combat veterans. They just want it to end.  They don’t care if someone is prosecuted or not. Think battered spouse.  Think rape victims.

My colleague just had a successful prosecution of a violent rape where the women failed to report it for over two years. She had been tasered and then raped, and she thought somehow she was to blame for being so foolish to get into that situation.

Many people make the argument that the women choose to get into the pay for sex game and then end up in a bad situation they choose not to get out of.  So they make two bad choices: getting into the game in the first place and then not walking away when they could. Thus, no force, fraud, or coercion, and no human trafficking, just bad choices.

I don’t know. On the labor side, one might similarly argue that a migrant worker knows they are coming to the US to work (the job may not be what they were promised or believed, but they know that is a reality).  They know it is illegal to do so.  They know they are going to be paid less than a US citizen.  They probably know it will be less than what they have been promised.  And they know their living conditions might be substandard.  No matter what they have been promised, they realize this.  Nevertheless, they still choose to come here and work because it beats the alternative.

Choices all around, right? Or force, fraud, and coercion?

DHS getting it right?

They are the current instrument.  The United States is getting it right.

 

 

 

May 8, 2011

Mexico City March

Filed under: Border Security,Immigration,Terrorist Threats & Attacks — by Philip J. Palin on May 8, 2011

On Sunday an estimated 20,000 marched in Mexico City calling for an end to violence by both the drug cartels and government. According to the New York Times at least 150,000 participated in some portion of the march which began on Wednesday. The mass rally was inspired by poet Javier Sicilia. His 24-year-old son and six friends were found dead near the resort town of Cuernavaca, a massacre that mirrored scores of others in Mexico’s brutal drug wars.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Sicilia hopes to turn Sunday’s demonstration into a mass movement to fight not only the drug cartels but also the government’s heavy-handed tactics in pursuing them. The leftist academic is a vocal critic of Mr. Calderón’s conservative government, which he says is too corrupt to resolve the problem. Mr. Sicilia hasn’t offered alternatives.

Mexicans have tried before to create a popular movement against criminal violence. In 2004, just before Mr. Calderón began his crackdown against drug gangs, several hundred thousand people gathered in the capital for a “March Against Insecurity.” But momentum stalled.

Nearly 40,000 people have died in drug-related violence since then, with authorities saying Monday that another 13 were killed in a shootout between military and drug gangs at a lake on the border with Texas. Mr. Sicilia and his followers hope the mounting toll is enough to create a popular groundswell.

Following is my own rough translation of Mr. Sicilia’s poem Zazen, with apologies and appreciation.

–+–

I
Feeling, Love, is to look at the wall
the white wall, clean before I pray,
light reflected, a plaster desert
clearly closed, pure boundary.

Sitting at the light of day is hard,
hard time without end, an empty wholeness
when body shifts, heaviness departs
and absence is assuring.

I open my Love in this gap
where I’m alone in a white desert
clean spacious and stark,

dusty light, absence without pride.
Nothing left of me I’m open
clearly this is where you spy.

II
Stung by your light and without hope
my body is in ecstasy for the day
dust cleared in the light of noon,
stubble burnt by Your dedication;

in the soft evening light of this January
light my bread and cold, wet room,
my wife, the city and joy
of my soul burns in your hearth.

What can I expect, if the fire
fully consumes me each day
and leaves only its quiet depths?

Everything in life is light so dear,
only my body is straw, wood and blade
light consumed on earth, is nothing.

 

(Editorial Note: On Tuesday morning I inserted this as a Sunday evening post. I began the post on Sunday but did not complete the amateur translation until Tuesday. Please find the Spanish original at A Media Voz.

July 22, 2010

Immigration: a religious dimension

Filed under: Immigration,Radicalization,Terrorist Threats & Attacks — by Philip J. Palin on July 22, 2010

This is the first of a two-part post.  Tomorrow please return to read, Terrorism: a religious dimension, which will demonstrate how the self-revelations offered below expose me as a proto-terrorist. 

–+–

There is some portion of basic bigotry in how the immigration issue can be engaged.  The us vs them, insider vs outsider sensibility that well-served our species for millenia persists.  This perspective can be inflamed by a variety of factors.

But it is another kind of us-vs-them — or I/IT — dismissal to only see bigots where there are, instead, self-critical moral agents seeking to find and abide by a set of principles, even a shared vision of justice, goodness, and truth.

James Carafano and Edwin Meese have written, “The key to an intelligent immigration policy is to remember one central truth: Immigrants who unlawfully enter and remain in the country are violating the law. An amnesty program that ignores this criminal behavior will only contribute to a general disrespect for the law. This is the wrong message to send. We want immigrants to follow the laws of the United States and take them seriously. The United States must continue to be a beacon to the world. The challenge is to create practical policies that can be fairly implemented and that make our national security a priority.” ( Please see: Rule of Law at Stake in Immigration Debate)

I am a self-defined conservative.  I am sympathetic to the logic of the argument set out by Meese and Carafano.  In this I almost certainly demonstrate an embrace of the “Strict Father” prototype proposed by George Lakoff.   There is a Moral Order. There is right and wrong.  It is crucial to clarify, as best we can, the difference between right and wrong, rewarding right and punishing wrong.  The rule of law must be preserved.  All of this describes my fundamental political predisposition.

Yet I have rejected the logic of my predisposition.

Over the last five years or so my lifelong and continuing identity with the Republican Party has been shaken as more and more of my party’s candidates take what I perceive to be an us-vs-them, I/IT, position relative to illegal immigrants.  In over thirty years of voting I had only cast two non-Republican ballots.  But in recent years I have several times voted for the Democrat mostly because I was repulsed by an otherwise qualified Republican candidate seeming to demagogue the immigration issue.

I am increasingly self-aware that this has become a classic single-issue test for me.  I will listen carefully for nuanced positions on most other political issues and will accept all sorts of policy compromises, except when I perceive (rightly or wrongly) that a candidate is going after illegal immigrants.  (I am, by the way, entirely in favor of strong employer sanctions, but this wrinkle doesn’t have much to do with being a proto-terrorist, so I will not explain further.)

How did this happen?

“For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God mighty and awesome, who is not partial and takes no bribe, who executes justice for the orphan and the widow and who loves strangers, providing them food and clothing. You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 10:17-19)

The gospel of Luke tells us of Jesus and a lawyer discussing another verse from Deuteronomy. They agree that the essential religious rule is, “To love the Lord your God with all your soul, and all your strength, and all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Then the lawyer, being a lawyer, asks Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”  Jesus answers the question with the parable of the Good Samaritan.  You can access the whole response in the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 10, verses 25-37

As I read it, whoever is in need is our neighbor. The scripture concludes with Jesus asking, “Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?  The lawyer answered, “The one who showed mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

As a matter of general principle, I do not perceive that religious arguments are sufficient for reaching political judgments in a secular pluralistic democratic republic.  But on this particular issue, my personal experience of faith compels me to an  attitude of love for strangers and mercy towards neighbor that — with surprising passion — trumps every other argument. On this topic, for me, the non-religious argument is hypocritical and entirely misses the point.  Immigration  is fundamentally an issue of love and mercy.

I am a white, male, privileged, graduate-educated, third generation proud American of English-Scot-French Protestant extraction.  Yet  in regard to our relationship with immigrants — especially the poorest, strangest, non-English speaking — I have become a religiously inspired zealot.

For further consideration:

Evangelicals join Obama on Immigration (New York Times)

Churches eye immigration’s upside (Politico)

Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Letter on Immigration (Most Reverend David Zubick, Bishop of Pittsburgh)

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life

April 28, 2010

But Wait, There’s More!

Filed under: Border Security,General Homeland Security,Immigration,Strategy — by Mark Chubb on April 28, 2010

Like many other policy wonks, I like few things better than a powerful metaphor that describes the state of thinking on an important issue or question. One of the comments provided in response to Jessica Herrera-Flanagan’s post last week presented just such an opportunity. Defining the mission of the Department of Homeland Security — and possibly by extension all of homeland security — in terms of gatekeeping and coordination gave me just such food for thought.

The power of a metaphor is sometimes not what it describes, but what it does not. That was the case for me in this instance.

Having spent most of my career working in or near local government, I have acquired a different, more instrumental view of the role of government as a provider and protector. As such, I usually see the range of options as representing a broad continuum of overlapping alternatives rather than a simple choice between competing conceptions of the good or right. These alternatives almost invariably involve subtle distinctions about the level or nature of the engagement between government and other stakeholders required to achieve a particular set of outcomes.

This framing helps me attend to both the means and the ends, because both matter to constituents and citizens. This is important, because it is often difficult to discern which will matter more in any given circumstance until a particular situation arises.

So what does this continuum look like for homeland security? I equate gatekeeping with command/control interventions where the output (keep undocumented an undesirable immigrants from entering the country) substitutes for the intended outcome (protect individual citizens, the society, its culture, and the economy from the adverse effects of illegal immigration). Coordination equates with little more than avoiding or minimizing conflicts rather than sharing the process of making meaning through the definition and resolution of those conflicts that inevitably arise in any complex, interdependent relationship.

Gatekeeping, as a command/control strategy, does a good job of avoiding the trap of focusing on inputs or input-output relationship while leaving unexplored the larger question of whether or not the output and outcome (secure borders and unfettered liberty) are related much less the same. Coordination all too often falls into the same trap, by assuming too much about the nature of the ends/means dichotomy and the relationships of these parts and the stakeholders to them. Perhaps this explains why our current approach to homeland security, especially as it relates to immigration control, is such a dismal failure?

communication-inspiration-continuum-b-w1

What then are the alternatives? Before considering alternatives we need to distinguish between means and ends. When we focus on the means, especially when we assume the goals or outcomes are already well-understood and shared by all participants, we may find it both expedient and efficient to focus our energy through command strategies that require little inspiration (especially on the parts of others) and only one-way communication (from us to them).

When the ends are shared, but multiple paths lead to the same destination and there is some risk that participants left to choose their own way will select intersecting paths that create conflicts at key junctions, we may engage strategies that seek to avoid or minimize the potential for such conflicts. Again, these strategies require little inspiration on the part of others. On the other hand, decision-makers and leaders do need sufficient imagination to foresee potential conflicts, especially if you hope to communicate your understanding of the end-game in terms clear enough and compelling enough to gain the parties’ consent to take actions that get everyone to their destination without getting in the each other’s way.

When means are scarce or ends require you to mobilize the efforts of others (sound familiar), a cooperation strategy often makes sense. Such a strategy involves commitments, which require a more inspired view of what’s at stake or what’s to be gained by one or all participants. As the number of participants, the complexity of the processes involved, or the scope and scale of the products expected to result from the processes expand, so too does the need for communication among those involved.

Complex problems, especially those that defy straightforward solutions, usually require a more inspired approach, which often if not always, requires participants to share commitments to both the means and the ends. A true collaboration does not require anyone to sacrifice their identity, but it does require them to work together in ways that create shared objectives and meaning, both of which often take the form of sacrifices for the sake of success.

Each of these strategies builds on the other. Even in a large and complex collaboration, some elements of a shared program may depend upon simpler strategies that involve cooperation, coordination or even outright command approaches. What gives these tactics meaning is the shared commitment among participants to defining when, where, how and by whom these approaches are employed.

What does all of this have to do with homeland security? Well in the case of border control for just one issue, the nation remains deeply divided about the nature of the problem. With the possible exception of the people of First Nations, we share an immigrant past. Our economy today depends in no small way on the contributions of immigrants, many of whom arrived here legally and others who did not. Even those here without appropriate documentation or legal status often contribute not only their labor, but their wealth to support the state and its citizen even when they themselves can neither access nor enjoy many of these services such as health care, social security, workers’ compensation insurance, and unemployment benefits.

The threats posed by illegal immigrants often arise not from their status or their habits, but the criminalization of their status by the host society. When we make it impossible for immigrants to participate freely much less fully in our society, we leave them little choice but to fend for themselves or find another way. All too often, they find the only way open to them is to associate with elements who have no regard for either their welfare or ours.

Applying a different lens to a homeland security issue like immigration and border control allows us to see the folly of our current approach. Gatekeepers can never fully secure our borders. Even if they could, some legal immigrants would find compelling reasons to remain in the country beyond the limits imposed by their visas. Criminalizing their status makes it more difficult to resolve the issues their continued presence presents to both us and them.

When people are forced to choose between liberty and security, as we have seen time and again since 9/11, they will almost always choose security. What then would happen if we choose to coordinate, cooperate, or even collaborate to resolve the issues related to immigration and border control?

Working with immigrant communities, immigrants’ home countries, local employers, labor unions, and government officials at every level to provide legal paths to economic participation and citizenship serves everyone’s interests. Such an approach does not involve an open door policy, but neither does it mean closing the gate after the horse bolts.

A collaboration would require careful consideration of the needs that inspire immigration and provide a safe haven for undocumented immigrants once they arrive. Such an understanding requires two-way, if not multi-way, communication that creates a clear understanding of the labor markets and conditions among all participants so they can craft safe, secure pathways for participation that not only meet everyone’s needs. Doing so would help temper prospective immigrants’ expectations while affording those who play by the rules appropriate opportunities to climb the ladder toward acquiring citizenship or permanent residence.

Such a process would not eliminate the need to set immigration standards, control borders, or deport those who violate the laws. We would still need to apply command/control and coordination strategies, but their place in striking a balance between security and liberty would be better defined and tied to an understanding of the economic incentives that inspire immigration. Moving toward creating such as system would require us to abandon an approach that does little more than make de facto criminals of those who come here to make a contribution that arguably provides mutual benefits to both them and us.

If we want more security when it comes to immigration and border control, we need to acknowledge and accept the inspirational power of liberty, in both an economic and cultural sense.  If we take concrete steps to expand access to it among those willing to work with us to build the nation, we will not only expand prosperity but extend the legacy of diversity that immigration has granted us as well. Together these benefits will almost certainly promote more stable, just, and secure borders and border control arrangements in the process.

April 26, 2010

Immigration: Front and Center

Filed under: Immigration — by Jessica Herrera-Flanigan on April 26, 2010

Immigration reform promises to be the hot topic in the coming weeks as it has moved up the list of policy priorities, thanks in part to a new Arizona law.

On Saturday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law SB1070, which requires Arizona police to question anyone “reasonably suspected” of being undocumented.  Under existing law, they could only require information on someone’s status if the person is suspected of a crime. Legal immigrants are required to have their immigration paperwork handy. The law is the most restrictive state immigration law in the nation and has generated a great deal of attention, especially for its potential to encourage racial profiling.

On Friday, President Obama criticized the bill and has ordered the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to monitor developments to assure that civil rights are not being violated.

On the Hill, the leading players on immigration reform have been Senators Schumer and Graham, who have been working on a bipartisan piece of legislation that addresses the three prongs of immigration:  1) Enforcement, 2) Future Flow, and 3) Pathway to Citizenship.  In late March, the Senators announced a framework for their bill, which was endorsed by President Obama.  They have been working on gaining additional support, especially from Republicans, when the Arizona law came along.

As the Arizona legislation was considering SB1070, Senators McCain and Kyl released a Ten Point Border Security Action Plan that included the deployment of 3,000 National Guard troops along the border, along with 3,000 Customs and Border Protection agents and lots and lots of miles of fence.   Both are advocating a border security first approach to addressing immigration issues.  Ironically, both Senators were supportive of past efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform but are now asserting that the federal government is not doing enough to secure the border.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated last week to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that immigration might be next on the agenda for the Senate, ahead of climate change which many thought was next in the queue. His remarks follow similar comments he made in Arizona that he was committed to immigration reform.   Senator Schumer is expected to reach out to a number of Republican Senators, including those President Obama called last week – Senators Brown, Murkowski, LeMieux, Lugar, and Gregg – in order to get a deal that can move forward.

Complicating things is that Senator Graham is also the leading Republican on the bipartisan climate change legislation.  The unveiling of that bill, which was supposed to be released by Senators Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham today, has temporarily been canceled.  While Senator Graham has not walked away from discussions with Senator Schumer, he did send out a letter to many involved in the climate bill process, stating that his participation in climate discussions was being adversely affected by Senator Reid’s decision to move immigration next.

In the House, Speaker Pelosi has indicated that the House will move immigration legislation — if the Senate passes something first.

A lot of activity with lots more expected.  There is little question that immigration reform is much needed — the question for policymakers is how to do it successfully so as not to replicate the failures of  the 2007 attempt to address the issue.

March 26, 2010

Immigration- In the Background

Filed under: Immigration — by Jessica Herrera-Flanigan on March 26, 2010

While health care may have been grabbing most of the headlines, the last two weeks have been busy on the immigration front. Just over a week ago, Senators Schumer and Graham released an framework for immigration legislation that they would like to move forward with in the near future. Last Sunday, somewhere between “tens of thousands to more than 200,000″ people descended on the National Mall for the “March for America: Change Takes Courage” to promote immigration reform.

On Tuesday, the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law held an oversight hearing on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), touching upon a number of programs including E-Verify and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, as well as the agency’s Transformation Program, designed to “transition the agency from a paper-based business model to a centralized and consolidated electronic environment.”

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee marked up two bills – S. 2960 and S. 2974 – that would allow immigrants living in the U.S. legally to work overseas without harming their immigration status. The first bill would exempt immigrants who are refugees or asylum grantees who are working for the federal government oversees to have their immigration status adjusted to permanent resident without being required to be physically in the U.S. for a year. The second would allow permanent residents to go home to assist in recovery efforts in their native country in the time of a disaster without an adverse effect on their opportunity for naturalization here in the U.S.

Also held yesterday was a hearing in the House Homeland Security Committee entitled “Visa Overstays: Can They be Eliminated?” Much of that hearing focused on the development and implementation of a biometric air exit system. Congress first requested an automated entry/exit system in 1996 as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).. The 9/11 Commission, in its final report, called for the creation of such a system. In 2007, congress mandated the use a system to biometrically track the exit of all foreign visitors from US. Airports by June 30, 2009. That deadline was not met.

During the hearing, Committee Members posed a number of questions to the witnesses, specifically DHS National Protection & Programs Directorate Undersecretary Rand Beers about the future of a biometric air exit system. Members specifically asked why the Department did not request any funding for the air exit program in its Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request. In response, Beers stated that since no decisions have been made on moving forward with a biometric exist system, it was impossible for the Department to predict costs. He did say that DHS would likely request funds in 2012 and that the estimates for the cost of any exit program could top $1 billion over 10 years. The decision on whether to continue with the program rests with Secretary Napolitano, who is evaluating its future.

Interestingly, even if a program was implemented, the Department – through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – would still have to track those who have overstayed their visas and not left the country. This effort is tremendous, according to testimony given by the DHS IG Richard Skinner and ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton. ICE, for its part, has focused on the biggest risks – fugitives, potential terrorists and criminals – in its efforts to track down those who have overstayed.

It is very likely, whatever happens on the comprehensive immigration reform front, that immigration and border security will remain a significant issue for the next several months. Among the things to look out for:

Comprehensive Immigration Reform:

    • Will Senators Schumer and Graham’s bill, in the current toxic environment in D.C., be able to garner support this year and be considered?
    • If something goes through the Senate, how will the House respond?
    • What role will the White House play in shepherding the issue through Congress?

    Border Security:

    • SBINet- what is its future?
    • Air Exit – what is its future?
    • How will the increasing violence along the U.S.-Mexico border affect our nation’s border security efforts?

    November 13, 2009

    RECAP/ANALYSIS: A Discussion on Immigration Policy with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano

    Filed under: Events,Immigration — by Jessica Herrera-Flanigan on November 13, 2009

    Trust.

    We are both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.

    Everyone recognizes that our current system is not  working and our system needs to be changed.

    Those were the central themes this morning when Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano spoke at the Center for American Progress (CAP) on immigration.  As the Obama Administration’s go-to on immigration reform, she has a daunting task ahead as the Administration and Congress tackle an issue that evokes strong positions from Congress, law enforcement, business, labor, religious leaders, and advocates -both pro and anti- across the country and political spectrum.

    There is no question that Secretary Napolitano’s creds on immigration are second to none.  As Governor of Arizona, she gained hands-on experience on balancing the conflicting complex needs and interests of various interests and organizations.  Arizona, after all, is 30% Latino, shares a 370 mile border with Mexico (which includes the  Tohono O’odham Nation that crosses the border and numerous National Parks) and has such characters as the controversial Mariposa Sheriff Joe Arpaio.   While Governor, she did a tremendous job of balancing the economic, enforcement, and family issues surrounding the border. On one hand, she once criticized the wall-only approach of many in Congress by saying “You show me a 50-foot wall, and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder.”  On the other, she was the first Governor to declare a state of emergency and call for the National Guard to patrol the border.  Having worked on the issues since 1993, Secretary Napolitano gets that immigration is a hard and politically volatile issue.

    Her remarks today, however, made it clear that the Obama Administration believes it can make progress on the immigration debate.   The Secretary’s remarks were especially timely as immigration reform is expected to be the next big issue to be tackled by Congress and the Administration after health care  (somewhere in the past month it snuck past climate change, another Administration priority, in the lineup).

    In her remarks, Secretary Napolitano made it clear that this was more than just about immigration. She started her speech by talking about a “new foundation for growth and prosperity,” mentioning health care, climate change and educational reform.  Immigration was the fourth item of that foundation, she said, in the Obama Administration’s determination “to deal with long lingering problems.”

    She noted that immigration has been a problem that been punted year to year, Congress to Congress,  Administration to Administration.  The Secretary said that the immigration story is one we all know. People sneaking across the border for jobs and economic relief.  Select employers flaunting laws by offering subwages to illegal workers, and a resulting population living in the shadows.  From a national security perspective, she said that the Department of Homeland Security needs reform to do its job of enforcing the law and keeping our country secure.  “Laws need to be reformed.”

    The Secretary described immigration reform as a three-legged stool:

    • First, it requires serious and effective enforcement
    • Second, it must address the legal flows for family and workers
    • Third, it must deal with those here in the country illegally

    By addressing these three items, the Secretary indicated the government could build responsibility and accountability into the process.  The three-pronged stool, she noted, also required three participants – employers, immigrants, and government.

    The Secretary noted that the last big immigration effort – in 1986 – failed, in part, because it promised enforcement but could not deliver.  She said “it would not happen again” and that “America needs enforcement.”  She indicated that the Administration fully intended to pursue reforms that address both immigration and enforcement.

    She then alluded to the 2007 attempts to pass comprehensive immigration reform by the Bush Administration (ironically, led by her predecessor Secretary Michael Chertoff, who also faced an uphill battle).  She noted that since then the immigration landscape has changed.   She went on to cite the progress that had been made in a number of areas at the Department of Homeland Security, including:

    • The Southwest Border Initiative announced last March by President Obama which includes assets from DHS, Department of Defense, and Department of Justice.
    • Increased focus on inspection and detection technology.
    • 100% screening of Southbound rail shipments.
    • And increased focus on manpower, technology, and infrastructure.

    The Secretary stated that these items are ones that Congress said were lacking in 2007 when immigration reform fizzled and she believes that the needed progress has been made and that the Administration is showing that it is serious and strategic in its approach to enforcement.  Among some things she said shows progress are:

    • The government has replaced policies that look tough with policies that are designed to be effective;
    • The government has redesigned state and local arrangements to attack the serious criminal alien problem;
    • DHS has expanded Secure Communities;
    • ICE has increased auditing of companies suspected in hiring illegal aliens;
    • DHS has been encouraging workplace compliance by expanding and improving E-Verify; and
    • DHS has expanded use of new biometrics technology that has helped increase the government’s ability for countering immigration fraud.

    So what can we expect in the near year?  Based on the Secretary’s comments today, here are the priorities for the legislation, which she deems a “sensible solution:”

    • Tougher smuggling laws;
    • An update of laws that don’t cover new means of moving stuff by bad actors (stored value cards were given as an example);
    • Interior and worksite enforcement law changes;
    • Changes to provisions relating to immigration-related fraud; and
    • a legal foundation to bringing illegal immigrants out of shadows.

    On this last point, the Secretary emphasized that our nation  won’t have a secure law enforcement/national security system if we have a significant segment of the population that remain in the shadows.   As part of that legal foundation, she would expect that there would be a number of requirements that would need to be met for individuals to gain legal status, including:

    • Registration Requirement
    • Fines
    • Criminal Background Check
    • Requirement to Pay Back Taxes
    • A Requirement to Learn English

    The Secretary made it clear that the effort should not just be an enforcement solution and that the reform must address families, businesses, and workers needs.  In sum, she made it clear – just as when she started – that “immigration must be fixed.”

    While most of the ideas described by Secretary Napolitano are not new and have been tackled in the past,  her outlined approach, while seemingly heavy on enforcement details, is certainly comprehensive.

    What comes next will be the real challenge. Will there be enough “immigration” in the proposed bill to win the support of advocates and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus?  Will there be enough enforcement to win over many of the “enforcement only” or “enforcement first” Members of Congress? Will it be able to maintain the support of a mosaic of business interests (tech companies, agriculture and seasonal employers, etc)?  Will it address the moral and ethic issues that many religious leaders, including the Evangelical right, feel need to be addressed? How does next year being a potentially volatile election year affect the proposed reform, especially for moderate and conservative Democrats (a group that would extend beyond the Blue Dogs, based on 2007 observations and statements)?

    If immigration reform is to be a success, the Administration needs a weathered professional who has seen what the fight ahead looks like.  It appears that they may have found their woman in the desert of Arizona in Secretary Napolitano.

    September 9, 2009

    Legal barrier to E-Verify removed (for now)

    Filed under: Immigration — by Philip J. Palin on September 9, 2009

    A web-based means for employers to verify the legal status of employees went into effect for government contractors on Tuesday, September 8.

    According to Chris Strohm with NextGov, “After months of delay, the Homeland Security Department implemented a rule requiring most federal contractors and subcontractors to use its E-Verify system to prove employees working on government contracts are legally in the country.”

    The rule has been the subject of an extended court challenge by business groups and civil liberties organizations.   The ACLU has argued, “The E-Verify system is based on the Homeland Security and Social Security Administration databases, which have unacceptably high error rates involving U.S. citizens’ records. Discrepancies between workers’ Social Security numbers and Social Security Administration records can result from many innocent factors including clerical errors, name changes due to marriage or divorce or the common use of multiple surnames.”

    In July the Migration Policy Institute released a report recommending several key improvements in the E-Verify program.

    On Friday a federal district court dismissed an injunction plea, which triggered implementation of the rule. The Department of Homeland Security’s United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency provides details on E-Verify at the USCIS website.

    September 8, 2009

    Fragments from September 10, 2001… Losing momentum with Mexico

    Filed under: Border Security,Immigration,International HLS — by Philip J. Palin on September 8, 2009

    This is the second in a series begun on Monday, September 7.

    Late on Tuesday, September 4, 2001 the President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, arrived in Washington D.C.  for a state visit.  On Wednesday key members of the US and Mexican cabinets met together. 

    Significant attention was given to developing a bilateral approach to immigration reform. President Bush cautioned, “This is a complex issue,” he said. “It’s going to take a while to bring all the different interests to the table. But we’ve made good progress so far.”

    But — with White House blessing — the Mexican President pressed hard for quick action on immigration. “We must, and we can, reach an agreement on migration before the end of this very year, which will allow us before the end of our respective terms to make sure that there are no Mexicans who have not entered this country legally in the United States and that those Mexicans who have come into the country do so with the proper documents,” Fox said.  (See more from CNN.)

    CNN also reported, “He and Bush also are expected to discuss anti-drug efforts and a shared border-control program.” 

    On Thursday, September 6 President Fox addressed a joint session of Congress.  Included in his remarks:

    Take for example our common struggle against the scourge of drugs. It should be clear by now that no government, however powerful, will be able to defeat on its own the forces of transnational organized crime that lie behind drug trafficking. Intense cooperation is required to confront this threat, and trust is certainly a prerequisite of cooperation. This is why, since I took office last year, Mexico has enhanced its cooperation with U.S. authorities. We have arrested key drug kingpins and have extradited drug traffickers wanted by the United States Justice. However, much more needs to be done. Trust will be crucial to enhance intelligence and information-sharing between both governments. We’re committed to becoming a full partner with the United States in the fight against drugs… 

    That night Lou Dobbs was in the CNN anchor’s chair for Kelly Wallace’s report on the speech and related news:

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I’m willing to consider ways to — for a guest worker to earn green card status. And yet I fully recognize there are a lot of people who’ve stood in line, who’ve said I’ll abide by the laws of the United States. And we’re trying to work through a formula that will not penalize the person who’s chosen the legal route and at the same time recognize the contribution the undocumented has made.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    WALLACE: Another big issue: conservative critics who believe President Fox’s plan would basically reward those immigrants who broke the law to enter the U.S. No one, Lou, really expecting a big agreement by the end of this year, but everyone believing President Fox’s visit has increased the urgency on an issue Congress and the president likely to focus on in the months ahead.

    Lou, back to you.

    DOBBS: Kelly, very comforting language used by the president, talking about guest workers, not referring to these people as illegal aliens, but rather undocumented workers. All of this, I presume, designed to soften some of the tension between the two men over the issue and also to, perhaps, assuage the Latino voting public.

    WALLACE: Well, certainly — you certainly know, Lou, that right off the bat the administration was very concerned that it was sort of being accused of supporting blanket amnesty for Mexican immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. President Bush saying he is against the “A” word.

    And so you do see him talking about a guest worker program; maybe finding some middle ground. Allowing more Mexicans to come to the U.S., part of this guest worker program, to work here and, of course, to have some benefits and send that money back to Mexico. It’s a way of some middle ground. Obviously a big political issue that — the fight is just ahead.

    Lou, back to you.

    Lou did not comment and moved on to the next story, a 200-point plunge in the Dow Jones.  But I wonder if this is when Lou Dobbs began to perceive the potential for exploiting the “A word”?

    On September 10, 2001 we were actively engaged in seeking innovative bipartisan and bilateral solutions to immigration, drug enforcement, and border issues between the United States and Mexico.  Lou Dobbs was not yet pandering for viewers.

    Should we repudiate such September 10 thinking? 

    Almost eight years to the day after President Fox landed in Washington, his successor reported to the Mexican Congress on his intense struggle against murderous drug cartels. 

    On September 2, 2009, CBS News reported, “‘The past year has been a different year,’ said President Felipe Calderón during his third state of the nation address Wednesday. Different must be a euphemism for horrible. This was bound to be a difficult year to summarize for Mexico’s beleaguered President. In the past year he has been battered with several challenges: the world economic recession, the influenza outbreak, diminishing oil resources, the worst drought the country has seen in years, escalating drug violence, topped by the world’s belief that Mexico is ungovernable.”

    Instead of repudiating September 10 thinking, we might mourn the opportunities lost in the years since.

    May 14, 2009

    Second Day of Congressional DHS Budget Hearings; FEMA stays in

    Filed under: Budgets and Spending,Immigration,Preparedness and Response — by Jessica Herrera-Flanigan on May 14, 2009

    Yesterday, Secretary Napolitano appeared on Capitol Hill for a second consecutive full day of hearings on the FY2010 proposed DHS budget.   In the morning she was on the House side, testifying before the House Homeland Security Committee. In the afternoon, she switched over to the Senate and testified in front of the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.

    During the hearings, Secretary Napolitano faced pointed questions on the elimination of funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) and the 60% cut to Fire Act grants  (See my May 8th posting below assessing the Homeland Security Budget Numbers for more information on these cuts).   On SCAAP,   Members put her in awkward spot of having to defend a cut to a program that is 1) not within her Department and 2) that she had supported while Governor and Arizona.   The Secretary noted that the program – as well discussion of its elimination – falls with the Justice Department’s purview and refocused the discussion on what is in her jurisdiction – DHS’ efforts to address the flow of illegal immigration into the country.   As noted in my earlier posting, expect SCAAP funding to be partially, if not fully, restored by the appropriations committees in the FY2010 spending bills.

    On Fire Grants, Members  – in all four hearings – expressed concerns about the cuts. While some of the money was transferred over to SAFER Grants (recruitment and hiring), Members remain committed to providing fire departments with equipment purchasing funds.  The Secretary did attempt to address this issue by mentioning funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (aka stimulus bill), but that argument did not appear to convince Members to support the cuts and movement of funds.  Rob Margetta at CQ Homeland Security has a good description of Member reaction in his story detailing the hearings.

    Speaking of first responders, the White House formally notified Congress yesterday that FEMA will remain within the Department.  This was reinforced during the hearings yesterday when Secretary Napolitano was asked about whether FEMA would stay in DHS.   Perfect timing for a decision, as the Senate yesterday confirmed FEMA’s new Administrator, Craig Fugate, after Senator David Vitter (R-LA) dropped his hold on the nomination.  Vitter dropped his hold after he received a letter from FEMA committing to working on solutions that meet the needs of those affected by disasters.  Word is that Administrator Fugate reports to duty on Monday.  With hurricane season only a few weeks away, this appointment (and the decision to keep FEMA in DHS) is both timely and critical.

    Interestingly enough, the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee is holding a hearing this morning at 11 am on “an Independent FEMA.”  The hearing will focus on  FEMA “and how it has functioned since its placement in the Department of Homeland Security.” DHS is not slated to testify but it should be interesting to hear what the panelists say about the White House decision, especially in light of Chairman Jim Oberstar’s (D-MN) push for an independent FEMA.  He and other T&I Members introduced H.R. 1174, the FEMA Independence Act of 2009, back in February.

    April 7, 2009

    America echoes Ankara

    Filed under: Immigration,Strategy,Terrorist Threats & Attacks — by Philip J. Palin on April 7, 2009

    President Obama’s Monday speech in Ankara had several audiences and as many purposes.  In the United States it will be heard and read with particular care by the Muslim American community.

    “So let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam,” has been the line most quoted from the speech. The President continued, ”In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical not just in rolling back the violent ideologies that people of all faiths reject, but also to strengthen opportunity for all its people.”

    The United States, unlike Europe and elsewhere, has not yet suffered from homegrown Islamist terrorism.  Fundamental to our defense-in-depth has been effective economic, political, and cultural integration of Islamic residents.  While in Europe many Muslims are treated as second-class citizens or worse, the American Muslim community overall is better educated and more affluent than average. 

    The President explained, “We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans.”

    Muslims make up less than  two percent -  2.35 million to 3.5 million - of the US population (estimates differ).  A 2007 Pew Research Center survey of Muslim Americans found them to be “largely assimilated, happy with their lives, and moderate with respect to many of the issues that have divided Muslims and Westerners around the world.”  A Washington Post-ABC News survey completed on March 29 found, however, that 45 percent of Americans self-assess they “do not have a good basic understanding of the teachings and beliefs of Islam” and 48 percent admit to having “unfavorable” views of Islam.

    There is also concern that greater difficulty integrating some recent Somali immigrants may make that Muslim community more vulnerable to radicalization.

    In the substantive close of his address to Turkish parliamentarians the President offered, “There’s an old Turkish proverb: ‘You cannot put out fire with flames.’  America knows this. Turkey knows this. There’s some who must be met by force, they will not compromise. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy. That is the future we must work for, and we must work for it together.”  

    In a joint statement the American Muslim Task Force on Civil Rights and Elections said, “The American Muslim community believes President Obama’s new policy of dialogue and mutual respect will serve our nation and the cause of world peace and stability much better than past policies of unilateralism and confrontation.” 

    But the full AMT statement gives even more attention to  “the deteriorating relations between the FBI and American Muslims, the dissemination of inaccurate and agenda-driven information by DHS-recognized fusion centers, and Muslims’ concerns about Justice Department guidelines implemented in December 2008 that allow race and ethnicity to be factors in opening an FBI probe.”

    Today the President will conclude his visit to Turkey meeting with religious leaders and students.

    Related Links:

    Obama’s entreaty to Islam surprises Muslims from the San Francisco Chronicle

    LI Muslims praise Obama’s speech, but want action from Newsday

    The Muslim next door from Newsweek

    America at a Crossroads: America’s Muslims from the Public Broadcasting System

    February 25, 2009

    Napolitano Testifies

    Filed under: Border Security,Congress and HLS,Immigration,Intelligence and Info-Sharing,State and Local HLS — by Philip J. Palin on February 25, 2009

    If you missed the webcast, Secretary Napolitano testified this morning and into the early afternoon before the House Homeland Security Committee.

    In a brief summation of her prepared remarks the Secretary highlighted three priorities for, as she said, “kicking the tires” at the Department of Homeland Security:
    1. Immigration enforcement,
    2. FEMA working with others, and
    3. Sharing intelligence and analysis.

    The committee’s follow-on questions did not give much attention to immigration policy, probably because this is mostly in the Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction. But border security – and especially escalating violence in Mexico – was the focus of many members comments and questions. In response the Secretary noted the Mexican government is undertaking serious and much needed action against narco-terrorists. DHS is attempting to assist by reducing the southward flow of weapons and money. But the Secretary cautioned against militarizing the border, while promising a vigorous response if local authorities perceive the need for help with troubles boiling over the border.

    (Shortly after the House hearing concluded Attorney-General Holder announced the arrest of over 750 individuals associated with Mexican drug cartels.  For more see an AP report and The Washington Times. )

    When Congressman Mike Rogers (R-AL) asked whither-goest-FEMA, the Secretary noted,  “I have not yet had a conversation with the President,” and was clearly keeping all options on the table. Still neither the Secretary nor the Committee seemed enthusiastic about FEMA being decoupled from DHS. Several members of both parties expressed opposition to such a move.

    On intelligence gathering and analysis the Secretary gave particular emphasis to the role of non-federal assets. She mentioned that state and local authorities have “more eyes and ears than the federal government will ever have.” In response to several questions she went out of her way to emphasize a leading role for state and local public safety in the national intelligence enterprise.

    In response to a question regarding Mexican drugwar violence the Secretary mentioned, the “best intel is often available from the local sheriff.”  Congressman Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) commended the Secretary for her commitment to “bottom-up intelligence.”

    This was the Secretary’s inaugural appearance before the Committee.  Some additional thoughts later tonight or early tomorrow.

    (On Thursday morning the Secretary’s testimony was covered by the Washington Post, New York Times, and other media.)

    February 24, 2009

    Immigration Team Emerging

    Filed under: Border Security,Immigration — by Philip J. Palin on February 24, 2009

     

    Secretary Napolitano has appointed Esther Olavarria Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy.  The Olavarria appointment further strengthens the “fix immigration team” being assembled.  She was part of the Democrat’s so-called “shadow government” at the Center for American Progress where she focused on immigration policy.

    John Morton, a Justice Department career professional, will be nominated by the President to serve as Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  Until last month Morton was Acting Chief of the DOJ Domestic Security Section.

    More background on both appointments is available in the DHS news release.

    At the time of her nomination Secretary Napolitano was widely seen as a Governor who effectively threaded-the-needle with tough border security that avoided anti-immigrant fear-mongering.

    In one of her first official acts the new Secretary directed “department offices and components to work together and with state and local partners to review and assess the plans and policies to address: criminal and fugitive aliens; legal immigration benefit backlogs; southbound gun smuggling; cooperation with the National Guard; widows and widowers of U.S. citizens; immigration detention centers; and electronic employee verification.”  On February 20 she was to have received oral reports on this review .

    According to Monday’s USA Today, quoting DHS sources, the economic recession is contributing to a decline in illegal immigration.  This could contribute to a political environment more conducive to crafting an immigration policy fix.

    April 16, 2008

    Fusion Center Hearing Thursday; Korean Visa Waiver MOU Friday

    Filed under: Immigration,Intelligence and Info-Sharing — by Jonah Czerwinski on April 16, 2008

    Thursday, April 17

    2:00 PM EDT
    Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis Jack Tomarchio will testify before the Senate Homeland Security Governmental Affairs Committee, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration on state and local fusion centers
    342 Dirksen Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC

    Friday, April 18

    2:00 PM EDT
    Secretary Michael Chertoff will sign a memorandum of understanding on the Visa Waiver Program with Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Yu Myung-hwan followed by a press availability
    Ronald Reagan Building
    U.S. Customs and Border Protection
    Press Briefing Room
    1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC

    Next Page »