2008 August | Security Debrief - a blog of homeland security news and analysis

Archive for August, 2008

E-Verify and new technologies will force Congress and the country to deal with illegal immigration

Friday, August 29th, 2008

Following the raid by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) last week at an electronics plant in Mississippi that identified almost 600 illegal aliens working in the facility, The Washington Post ran a story Thursday about the alleged “Catch-22” employers find themselves in regarding the new E-Verify employment eligibility program. Companies are complaining that even if they enroll in E-Verify, under which new hires have their Social Security numbers verified, they still remain at risk for enforcement actions by ICE – this is what happened to Howard Industries. And, it is argued, if they fail to enroll, that may lead ICE to target them for enforcement action.

I haven’t seen any proof that ICE is either targeting companies who use or do not use E-Verify, but the simple fact is that there is no shortage of business targets for ICE. The harsh truth is that upwards of 10% of workers in most industries described as low-skill – roofing, landscaping, hospitality, etc – are illegal. ICE’s only problem is having some proof that a particular employer knows that their workforce falls into this situation.

The ironic thing is that both the business community and DHS have asked Congress to pass legislation that would not only make employment verification a routine part of running a business, but also grant legal status to most of the people who are targeted by these types of ICE raids. When Congress failed to pass any major immigration legislation last year, both sides had to retreat to their familiar corners. Business has argued that they need these workers to fill labor-intensive jobs, and they are faced increasingly with a system, E-Verify, that will smoke them out before Congress is able to provide legal status to these employees. While business groups have legitimate concerns about the reliability and accuracy of E-Verify, they have not asked Congress to fund the types of IT investments that would create a system to drop the error rate.

Meanwhile, DHS ramped up raids and regulatory efforts to expand E-Verify to put employers and employees on notice of possible illegal employees, saying it has no choice but to enforce the laws as written – even if those tactics mean individuals and companies who would have benefited from the DHS-backed immigration bill are punished.

At the same time, for many decades, society has allowed states to issue identification documents which were easily forged or obtained by illegal aliens. Of course, it is these very documents which are the core of the current system employers use to check an employee’s status. While many states have improved issuance systems since 9/11, the uproar over state rights has delayed implementation of more rigorous driver’s license standards (but not a national ID, as critics claim) under the REAL ID law.

Employers cannot be expected to be forensic document experts analyzing the thousands of documents in circulation, so we shouldn’t be surprised if illegal aliens use lenient state laws to get or forge identification cards or steal someone’s identify. While checking the Social Security number under E-verify will identify some imposters or thieves, more needs to be done. States must meet their REAL ID obligations and tighten up laws around identity theft and false documents in order to help combat illegal immigration. Congress should provide healthy funding to states to do so. Additionally, Congress should fund mechanisms for employers to quickly and accurately compare pictures of visa and driver license applicants to potential employees to determine their status in a timely manner. And we as a nation need to look at proven technologies that can address these issues by piloting the use of biometric identification for sensitive workplaces or industries with high rates of illegal employment.

Employers are indeed caught in two Catch-22’s but not the one described in the article. First, federal and state governments need to ensure that an employer who wants to play by the rules can actually distinguish between legitimate employees and legitimate documents before offering someone a job. Right now, they cannot, and that’s the real dilemma. Second, while employers can see legislative relief around the corner in the next Congress, ICE may arrive first.

It looks like there will not be a legislative resolution for these issues this year, but the next President and next DHS Secretary will have no choice. Technology is forcing the country to recognize the reality of illegal employment, and E-Verify is just one part of that new reality.

Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Immigration & Visa Policy, Law Enforcement | Comments

DHS: Throwing the Gauntlet at Employers & Undocumented Workers

Thursday, August 28th, 2008

If there were any lingering doubts on whether DHS and ICE were committed to aggressively enforcing immigration laws at the workplace, ICE’s worksite enforcement operation at Howard Industries resulting in almost 600 arrests should eliminate them. The 600 arrests marks the largest historical arrest total at a single worksite, exceeding the recent record of 400 set at Agriprocessors in Iowa just three month ago.

Yes, the 600 arrests in the grand scheme of the estimated 12 million undocumented aliens in the U.S. may seem a speck in the field on immigration control. However, this operation coupled with other recent efforts such as the Agriprocessors raid and last December’s operation at multiple Swift & Co. meat processing plants resulting in over 1,000 arrests clearly defines ICE’s commitment to increased enforcement actions against employers. The numbers for this fiscal year do not disagree with this view. On worksite enforcement, ICE reports that through August of FY 2008, it has:

* Made more than 1,000 criminal arrests tied to worksite enforcement investigations;
* Criminally arrested 116 owners, managers, supervisors or human resources employees who now face charges including harboring or knowingly hiring illegal aliens;
* Criminally charged and prosecuted the remaining workers for charges including aggravated identity theft and Social Security fraud; and
* Made more than 3,900 administrative arrests for immigration violations during worksite enforcement operations (now more than 4,500 with the Howard Operation).

The message cannot be more clear that employers should consider themselves fair game in our Nation’s ongoing attempts to grapple with our broken borders and broken immigration system. No longer am I seeing corporate clients merely facing a civil fine after and ICE I-9 audit. Instead, the game has dramatically changed to one of criminal prosecutions and search warrants coupled with dramatic large scale worksite operations that ultimately costs companies goodwill and millions in lost production costs that exceed any possible civil fine.

What is even more impressive is ICE’s commitment of large numbers of Special Agents and Detention Officers and detention bed resources to conduct such operations. It was reported that ICE had been investigating Howard for several years based on tips from union members (a point I will elaborate on in a later entry). Operations requiring the detention and interviewing of potential undocumented workers is intensive, requires time, and can require several hundred ICE agents as demonstrated in the Swift & Co. meat processing raid. And the resource commitment continues when ICE detains individuals as they are processed for removal. In the Howard operation, ICE reported that approximately 475 individuals were being detained. At a conservative estimate of $90 per day to detain one individual, the daily detention costs for this operation would be $42,750 per day, just short of $300,000 in detention costs for a week. These are serious numbers that again emphasize ICE’s intensity and commitment to worksite enforcement operations. Indeed, the gauntlet has been thrown down.

The industry in which Howard Industries operated in also underscores the opening of the playing field when it comes to ICE’s targeting of employers. Past operations have focused on critical infrastructure worksite locations such as airports and military bases or on industries with historically higher percentages of illegal workers such as restaurants and the meat and poultry processing industries. Howard Industries operates in the electrical and computer technology arena. According to its Web site, Howard Industries produces power products for utilities and commercial/industrial customers, over 190,000 technology-related solutions, medical technology products for hospitals and clinics, and industrial and commercial lighting products. Note that I did not mention a single chicken, produce that needs to be picked, or a hotel or restaurant name in describing Howard Industries. It should be understood that when it comes to today’s ICE worksite enforcement, it is a wild card that can point to any employer in any industry.

Worksite enforcement is not a novel theory – the concept was created over 20 years during the passage of the last immigration amnesty as a counter-weight to future illegal immigration. The fact that federal government is actually applying it to employers is the novelty. To unbiased immigration scholars and philosophers, the concept is accepted as a necessary tool to deter illegal immigration by eliminating the job magnet that draws the vast majority of illegals who are economic migrants. Further, effective worksite operations serve as a disincentive for unscrupulous employers to knowingly hire undocumented workers. During the recent immigration reform debate, it was viewed as one of the pillars to fixing our immigration system.

Today, an increasingly popular perspective is that the worksite enforcement concept is now being utilized by the Administration in a different manner, that being to initiate a reign of pain in hopes of corralling the employer community and divided public into compromise on and passage of comprehensive immigration reform. If that is what it takes to begin fixing the overall immigration system on both the benefits and the enforcement side, the strategy and cost may be worthwhile. However, until this goal is achieved, the message is clear: employer and employee casualties will continue to mount on the negotiation table as far as this Administration is concerned.

Tags: Immigration & Visa Policy
Posted in Immigration & Visa Policy | Comments

Pakistan: What is the United States’ Next Move?

Thursday, August 28th, 2008

Pakistan: Sliding into Chaos
The resignation of President Musharraf brings to an end an important yet turbulent chapter in US – Pakistan relations since 9/11. The United States faces today a Pakistan that lacks any form of consensus for the following reasons:

*The Pakistan People’s Party under the leadership of Mr. Asif Zardari and the Pakistan Muslim League – N under the leadership of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif do not see eye to eye on most issues, more especially the direction the country should take in dealing with the rebellious tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. The dispute over the Judges must be seen within that context in order to better understand the real motive behind the PML-N’s decision to quit the coalition government.

*The tribal areas are becoming exceedingly ungovernable and security is deteriorating very fast creating a more secure environment for Al Qaeda and its terrorist infrastructure.

*The army’s morale is sinking very fast due to what seem to be insurmountable difficulties the country is facing: a Pakistani insurgency in the tribal areas, a Taliban insurgency in Pakistan aimed at re-establishing Taliban power in Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda.

*The reigning in of elements of the ISI that the late Benazir Bhutto referred to as “the Core” and who have been collaborating with the Taliban has so far achieved very limited success.

*Mr. Zaradari better known as “Mr. ten percent” does not enjoy the same level of support among the people of Pakistan as did his late wife, Benazir Bhutto.

Today, Pakistan is fractured. It may become the scene of a number of internal wars and become totally dysfunctional as a nation-state rendering it quite attractive to terrorists allover. What should the US do?

Kill the Guard or Eat the Grapes?

The Lebanese have a famous saying “do you want to kill the guard or eat the grapes” that fully illustrates today’s US dilemma. Let me explain. A group of young kids wanted to eat grapes from someone’s private vineyard but found them protected by a security guard. Instead of discussing ways to bypass the guard and get safely to the grapes, the kids started arguing over how to kill the guard!

The moral of the story for the United States in the context of Pakistan is quite simple. The tribal areas are “the guard” and Al Qaeda is “the grapes” in this analogy. Does the US want to fight the tribes or destroy Al Qaeda? The current US policy is turning poor populations of Pakistan that are culturally conservative, religiously devout, and tribally structured into anti-American militant insurgents. In addition to an insurgency led by the Taliban whose objective is to regain power in Afghanistan, there is now another growing and potentially much more dangerous insurgency that is Pakistani at its core. The main ingredient fueling this Pakistani insurgency is what the military refer to as “collateral damage” which can be understood even if not accepted by culturally sophisticated people but is always seen as “murder” by more primitive people living in a tribal context, driven by emotions, and governed by a complex set of values such as honor, pride, and revenge.

US Options
The increasingly deteriorating situation in Pakistan can quickly get out of hand and make Pakistan an ungovernable country with potent insurgencies spreading to the various regions of the country. What can the US do in this new fast developing context?

Option 1: Stay the Course
The US can continue the current policy of pressuring the Pakistani armed forces to fight more aggressively the insurgents and Al Qaeda. From a cultural intelligence perspective, the continuation of such policy will create more anti-American insurgencies that will gradually develop into Anti-American terror groups – a welcomed outcome by Al Qaeda and a disaster to the United States.

Option 2: The “Petraeus” Counterinsurgency
The US can take David Petraeus’s approach to counterinsurgency and adapt it to the Pakistani context. While doable in theory, current conditions on the ground in Pakistan are no longer favorable. The Pakistani military is ill equipped and badly trained to carry out such a mission and the current political environment lacks the consensus necessary for the adoption of such a policy. This option should have been in place in Pakistan in 2003 to coincide with the invasion of Iraq. It may be exercised at a future date under better political and military conditions in the country.

Option 3: Positive Engagement
This option is the most complex of the three but has the most chances for long term strategic success on the part of the United States. Currently, the US is seen by most Pakistanis as interfering in their internal affairs and attempting to sway the politics of the country in a direction that would enable it to continue its current military-focused policy course – something that Pakistanis are increasingly seeing as not being in the interest of their country and is fueling resentment towards the United States.

This third option requires the United States to do the following:

*Help the Pakistanis build a “national unity” government in order to affect positively conditions on the ground in favor of the war on terror.

*What US Ambassador Khalilzad is allegedly doing is very harmful to long term US interests in that country and region (incidentally, he did the same thing while he was Ambassador to Iraq. His attempts to meddle in and micromanage the internal affairs of the Iraqis brought about Shiite resentment towards the United States and directly contributed to Iran’s increased soft power in that country).

*When viewed as an honest broker assisting the PPP and the PML-N in forming a national unity government, the US can gain extraordinary leverage against the real enemy in Pakistan, Al Qaeda. A more fractured Pakistan will undoubtedly provide a safer environment within which terrorists can thrive and prosper.

*Help broker a political arrangement between the new national unity government and the tribes in the conflict areas. This will directly affect the locals’ perception of the United States and can almost overnight turn the tribes into allies. From a cultural intelligence perspective, it is imperative to remember that in that part of the world, emotional intelligence is much more dominant that cognitive intelligence. A newly brokered arrangement with the local tribes can be further supported by US economic and social assistance. Such an arrangement is necessary to neutralize the Pakistani insurgency, weaken the Taliban, and make it much more difficult for Al Qaeda to operate.

*Build up and strengthen the Pakistani military’s counterinsurgency capabilities with a special focus on the Taliban. The Taliban must be neutralized in order to reverse the destabilization trend within parts of Pakistan and more especially Afghanistan. From a cultural intelligence perspective, it is imperative to remember that, in addition to being Islamist fundamentalists, more importantly, the Taliban are a Pashtun nationalist movement. The current policy is reinforcing the Taliban’s nationalist stance among the Pashtun tribes thus increasing their appeal and base of operations in that region of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. The goal of the United States should be to render as obsolete as possible the nationalistic appeal the Taliban currently enjoy. Once reduced to being only an Islamist fundamentalist organization, their influence would be greatly diminished. Let us for a moment reflect on a difficult truth. Had the Taliban not given refuge to Al Qaeda, what national security threat would a fundamentalist Afghanistan have posed to the United States and its allies? Some may even argue that it was the imposition of total isolation on the Taliban in Afghanistan that presented the opportunity for Al Qaeda to move in and provide “aid and comfort” to the Taliban.

With Musharraf out of the way, it may be easier for the United States to turn the page and adopt a new approach to its bilateral relations with Pakistan. This window of opportunity is closing fast and, if missed, it will be replaced by creeping chaos with dire geostrategic consequences to US interests, nuclear proliferation, relations with India, Afghanistan stability, Iranian influence, and of course the war on terror.

Tags: pakistan
Posted in Ideology & Public Diplomacy | Comments

Obama Stands by Attacks on Immigration Agents, Calls for Review of ICE Policies

Wednesday, August 27th, 2008

Homeland Security Today – news and analysis – Obama Calls for Review of ICE Procedures

While Obama says he does understand ICE officers are public servants sworn to uphold the law, he believes immigration enforcement policy requires a “top-to-bottom” review to correct a broken system, an Obama campaign spokesperson told HSToday.us.

“He has heard communities express concern that ICE enforcement activities have not exercised the necessary balance between respect for civil liberties and the manner in which they enforce the law,” said Moira Mack, deputy national press secretary for Obama for America.

Editor’s note: Security Debrief contributor Chris Battle has written about the increasing trend of members of Congress attacking ICE for enforcing the laws passed by Congress. His most recent column on this topic (”Frankenstein’s Law”) can be read in U.S. News & World Report.

Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Congress, Politics & PR, Immigration & Visa Policy, Law Enforcement | Comments

Denver: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Begins

Wednesday, August 27th, 2008

When all is said and done, some will argue that Denver PD had a hand in fueling the violence that ensued while the world’s attention was focused on the political drama unfolding in their city.

Though we haven’t seen (much of) anything yet, violent conflicts seem increasingly likely. When the critics voice their concerns about how the Denver PD handles the situation, I will be one of them; regular readers will know that this will not be a sudden volte-face, but the continuation of months of related commentary leading up to the Democratic National Convention.

We are only entering Day 2 of the Convention, and already there is footage of police violence, the threats of lawsuits and the very negative PR stories of the elderly being gassed. Footage on YouTube clearly shows the deployment of the media in amongst the crowd rather than with the police (always a mistake that pre-positions the media response to be pro-rioter), the police equipped with long batons (harder to control the strike) but without shields. The prominent inclusion of less lethal weapons is concerning but understandable given their tactics. However, the inclusion on the base line of lethal weapons (particularly in the hands of a very-nervous looking officer who appears seriously out of his depth) is not only tactically inadvisable, it is almost asking for a panicked, bad shoot.

The lack of shields means that the police must go forward or back – they cannot simply block a crowd and allow them to burn themselves out, or create a stand-off zone. In effect, the police are pre-disposing the protestors towards violence. There are protestors who clearly want a fight and are willing to start one; the lack of shields means that as soon as bricks or worse start being thrown we will be straight into Denver PD using less lethal, or possibly given what we saw today, lethal, weapons. This will be a PR disaster for both them and the Demoorats. The mounted police look great, and are intimidating, but only up until that first brick is thrown, at which point they become a quarter ton of squealing, kicking drama that poses as much threat to the police as to the protestors.

Most worrying is that there are no police outfitted with basic equipment, keeping the policing profile low until escalation is required. Instead, the police are causing the escalation. By reacting offensively to every incident and expecting violence, they are simply inciting more violence. This will inevitably lead to a general increase of antagonism through the next few days, and a major standoff is becoming more and more probable by the hour.

The Denver PD have already created the rod for their own back – we can only hope that they analyze the events so far, take a deep breath and act proactively to de-escalate the situation. This is not to say that they retire the riot-equipped police, but that they deploy a first line that is not fully equipped and reacting violently to protestors.

There are serious storms on the horizon – the Denver PD should be keeping the protests as peaceful as possible in order to prevent their attention being distracted. I worry, however, that is not going to be the case.

Tags: Law Enforcement
Posted in Law Enforcement | Comments

Why ICE’s Scheduled Departure program Will Continue to Fail

Monday, August 25th, 2008

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has announced the termination of the short-lived Schedule Departure program that offered illegal immigrants with outstanding orders of removal the opportunity to turn themselves in.

In exchange for voluntary compliance, ICE had offered these forthcoming individuals the opportunity to wind down their affairs in the U.S. without the risk of an ICE fugitive operations team showing up unannounced to detain them. The program was issued in response to the fact that over the last 20 years, when the last amnesty was issued, over 600,000 individuals have had their “due process” before immigration judges, the board of appeal, and/or federal courts, but decided when they were ordered deported, that all bets on due process were off.

In response, ICE has implemented an increasingly successful fugitive operations program. Apparently it is too successful, as it has become the target of criticism from some segments of the public and members of Congress that its fugitive operations program was disrupting and frightening immigrant communities at large.

In response to the criticisms for being too successful, ICE was compelled to offer the Scheduled Departure program — in essence extending a fig leaf to the thousands of fugitive aliens to voluntarily present themselves for deportation and avoid the potentially uncomfortable prospects of being arrested suddenly at home one morning.

Was it surprising that less than 10 fugitives accepted this fig leaf offering? No. It would be hard to believe that at this time such a voluntary program would result in large participation from a fugitive alien community benefitting from a large playing field in which to hide.

More interesting is the fact that the offer, in essence, called the pro-fugitive alien population’s bluff. Would they agree that fugitives should comply with deportation orders if offered “humane” conditions to comply? Apparently not.

Based on the results of the Scheduled Departure program, “humane conditions of compliance” for the majority evidently means not complying at all.

The grand ridicule of the program by fugitive alien advocates reflected the offense being taken for presenting a voluntary program that otherwise offered no incentive to comply. Was this response unexpected? Again the answer is no.

Why did this program — and the concept of an honor system when it comes to deportation — fail? The underpinning is the established view by the fugitive population and its supporters that judicial orders of deportation are really not “final” decisions in the immigration game, but just part of a complicated process of prolonging one’s illegal stay in the United States.

I reiterate that fugitive aliens are individuals who took full advantage of due process and would have been the first to hug and embrace it if “due process” resulted in them obtaining legal status. ICE offered the opportunity to fulfill “due process” by participating in the execution of their judicial order of removal. This would make sense if everyone respected judicial orders and due process 100% of the time, but this is not the case in immigration. Why?

The problem and the solution lies with Congress and the immigration laws it for some reason continues to embrace as workable. Currently, our immigration laws provide absolutely no incentive for an alien to voluntary comply with an order of removal.

Further compounding this disincentive to comply is the fact that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are economic migrants wishing to earn higher wages to send money home to feed their children and families. The economic incentive is to not comply — and to continue working for U.S. wages for as long as possible while one of ICE’ fugitive operations teams attempts to find the equivalent of a needle in the United States haystack.

The longer one remains in the U.S. and works, even as a fugitive, the more that individual’s loved ones will benefit. But wait, there’s more. The longer a fugitive earns wages, the more funds they earn to pay-off their smuggler’s fees – saving themselves and their family from physical pain on collection date.

So, the system as created by our immigration laws is cooked to encourage absconding. Thus, the basis of why any immigration honor system for deportees, including the Scheduled Departure program, will fail in the United States.

To show how perverted our laws are, let us examine a true hypothetical – where a non-detained individual ordered deported actually complies. That individual would get deported at government expense and would be subject to a 10-year bar to re-entry into the United States. If they wish to re-enter the United States within 10 years, they would have to seek a “waiver.” Some will get it, others will not. Meanwhile they are back home, often in a poor region, wondering how long their savings from the United States will last and how they will continue to be able to feed their children, provide medical care, and send them to school – if the kids are not working themselves.

What happens to who abscond and are caught 7 years later by a fugitive operations team costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars to operate? Exactly the same thing as the honest deportee, except that the dishonest fugitive was able to work for 7 more years in the United States and send remittances to his family during this period.

Mr. fugitive feels better because he has a larger nest egg at home to take care of his family. Making it sweeter for Mr. Fugitive, he too can seek a waiver for his 10-year bar. Some will get it while others will not.

It does not take a shrewd attorney or fugitive to do the math and figure out which curtain offers the best prize. Can anyone really criticize Mr. Fugitive for his decision, aside from his lack of respect for our concepts of due process and legal compliance? I personally believe that if the honest deportee passes a head examination, they should be rewarded with either a waiver or citizenship for being one of the very few honest deportees who respects our concept of fair play. At least give him a waiver for any civic exam in the immigration process.

The government and the public, as with many issued in immigration, have struggled with this issue over the last 20 years. To the credit of Congress, much needed fugitive resources were provided to ICE after 9/11. To ICE’s credit, they have caused a dramatic shift in the fugitive alien arena with fugitive operations making it clear that any day as a fugitive alien could be your last day in America.

Those that believe due process is served only when the alien is granted status will continue to criticize ICE for its efforts. Even the most humane and gentle fugitive operations, or programs like Scheduled Departure, will continue to be criticized.

And non-detained aliens ordered deported will continue to run and hide across the United States to help their loved ones in their home country and keep smuggler debt collectors off their back.

Even more certain is that all of this will continue as long as Congress fails to create some incentives for being an honest deportee and greater disincentives for flouting our laws and absconding.

Interestingly, ICE’ fundamental goal to create disincentives to absconding and its critics complaint of the lack of incentives in Scheduled Departure are not diametrically opposed – both views highlight key component to the solution to our fugitive woes. Perhaps the Scheduled Departure program as a case study to promote a Congressional solution was not so bad after all.

Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Immigration & Visa Policy, Law Enforcement | Comments

Frankenstein’s Law: Congress Should Attack Immigration Laws, Not Immigration Agents – US News and World Report

Friday, August 22nd, 2008

Frankenstein’s Law: Congress Should Attack Immigration Laws, Not Immigration Agents – US News and World Report

Lawmakers’ use of “Gestapo” tag is wildly out of line, former immigration official Chris Battle (and Security Debrief contributor) writes in US News & World Report.

Posted in Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Law Enforcement | Comments

Immigration: Enforcement or Politics?

Thursday, August 21st, 2008

In light of the recent controversies provoked by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement more aggressively pursuing its mission with regard to worksite enforcement, the following article in the current issue of Business Week is worth reading:

Immigration: Enforcement or Politics?

In the absence of federal immigration reform and with an election coming, Homeland Security’s workplace crackdown is getting both praise and criticism

Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Congress, Politics & PR, Immigration & Visa Policy, Law Enforcement | Comments

Is ICE Too Aggressive or Not Aggressive Enough? Depends On the Critic

Wednesday, August 20th, 2008

Ruben Navarette Jr., a columnist and editorial writer for the San Diego Union-Tribune, wrote a column this week critical of Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s Operation Scheduled Departure, a Department of Homeland Security program specifically designed to address criticism of ICE as it enforces the nation’s immigration laws.

The column called the Operation “pitiful” and evidence that “a gargantuan government agency with more than 16,000 employees and a $5 billion budget suddenly throws up its hands and gives up one of its major responsibilities.”

“As it stands, most illegal immigrants are probably more likely to be struck by lightning than to ever be paid a visit by ICE,” asserts Navarette. “Do-nothingism is a reputation the agency has worked hard to build. Just ask any local or state police officer who, having run across an illegal immigrant and done his duty by calling ICE to pick him up, waited and waited only to eventually realize that no one was coming.”

Uh huh.

Navarette’s line of criticism is as common as it is misinformed. When agents at ICE aren’t being criticized for not being aggressive enough, they’re being attacked for being too aggressive.

The attack from Navarette comes on the heels of comments by Senator Barack Obama at a rally in July in which he stated that “communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raid.” Obama was only a little more kind than U.S. Representatives Luis Gutierrez and Sam Farr, who called ICE agents the “Gestapo.”

Why were ICE agents compared to the murderous organization run by the Nazis during World War II? Well, just as Navarette claims ICE is a “do nothing” agency (that is, not enforcing immigration laws), Gutierrez and Farr and Obama claim ICE is so busy “doing something” (that is, enforcing immigration laws) that it has become the evident equivalent of an organization that once engaged in racial cleansing.

Does anybody wonder why the INS was such a demoralized agency at the time it was broken apart and merged in the DHS?

Operation Scheduled Departure is a DHS/ICE pilot program that allows “fugitive aliens” with no criminal history or threat to the community an opportunity to remain out of custody while they coordinate their removal with ICE.

“Fugitive aliens” are aliens who have failed to depart the U.S. based upon a final order of removal, deportation, or exclusion from a U.S. Immigration judge. Operation Scheduled Departure commenced on August 5th and will run through August 22nd in Santa Ana, California, San Diego, Chicago, Phoenix and Charlotte, NC.

The program, according to an ICE press release, “addresses concerns raised by aliens, community groups, and immigration attorneys who say ICE unnecessarily disrupts families while enforcing the law … by participating in the Scheduled Departure Program, those who have had their day in court, and have been ordered to leave the country have an opportunity to comply with the law, and gain control of how their families are affected by their removal.”

When researching this story, I did not discover any indication that Operation Scheduled Departure is being conducted in lieu of continued “ICE Fugitive Operations.” Indeed, as a former special agent in charge of ICE’s largest field office (New York), I can assure Navarette that his notion that ICE agents aren’t aggressively enforcing the law is misguided. (However, something tells me that Navarette isn’t interested in hearing facts from the folks actually running the program.)

In 2008, over 28,000 fugitives and immigration status violators have been arrested by ICE. Clearly, any “fugitive” that does not take advantage of the operation will be subject to arrest and incarceration as a “fugitive.” Of course, then ICE agents will be attacked by other columnists and the media, not to mention opportunistic politicians, as being terrorists and the Gestapo.

Under such a highly charged political environment, in which the country is divided and the country’s political leaders have failed to show leadership, those of us who worked at ICE and those good men and women who continue to do their jobs, know better than to expect a fair shake. Still, you’d at least think some of the critics would bother to check out the facts or do a modicum of research before launching their attacks.

Clearly, ICE intends to continue its successful “Fugitive Operations Program” as it will add, in the next two months, fourteen new teams to the ninety teams already established. That hardly sounds like an agency that isn’t pursuing its mission.

Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Congress, Politics & PR, Immigration & Visa Policy, Law Enforcement | Comments

Anti-Defamation League Blasts Gutierrez for ICE-Nazi Comparison

Tuesday, August 19th, 2008

The latest criticism of Congressman Luis Gutierrez for his outrageous comparison of ICE agents to Nazis comes from the Anti-Defamation League. In an August 14 letter to Gutierrez, the ADL calls upon the congressman to repudiate his “inappropriate and insensitive” remarks.

The ADL goes out of its way to note that it has always been a staunch supporter of immigration reform, but that Gutierrez’s attacks debase the public debate:

As a longtime ally of the Anti-Defamation League on a range of domestic and international issues, I know you are aware of the League’s leadership in pressing for comprehensive immigration reform — and in exposing the virulent and anti-immigrant and xenophobic rhetoric that has emerged as part of the divisive national debate over immigration. Whatever your views o nthe tactics and enforcement methods of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, however, it is highly inappropriate and insensitive to suggest that actions taken by these agents in any way resemenble actions taken by Nazi Gestapo agents in World War II.

The ADL is right. Congressman Gutierrez (as well as Congressman Sam Farr, who parroted Gutierrez’s attacks) should apologize. The nation’s immigration laws do need reform. However, the failure to achieve such reform lies on the shoulders of Congressman Gutierrez and the rest of his colleagues in the U.S. Congress, not upon the men and women at ICE, who have been tasked by Congress itself to enforce these very (outdated) laws.

Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Congress, Politics & PR, Immigration & Visa Policy, Law Enforcement | Comments

What the Olympics Have Taught My Family

Monday, August 18th, 2008

Like a lot of families around the world, my family has spent the past week enjoying the Olympic Games. From the breathtaking pageantry of the Opening Ceremonies to the ‘Gold-palooza’ of Michael Phelps performances, all of us have found ourselves in awe of what we have watched. I’ll be honest – at the outset of the Olympics my wife and I found ourselves wrestling with how we were going to handle these Games. Neither of us thought we would restrict our kids from watching the athletes compete but we did wrestle with what we would tell them about the Games host. I’ve never been shy about much in my life (my family, friends and professional colleagues can attest to that) but my anger at the Chinese Government (not its people) runs pretty deep.

In the Summer of 1989, men and women a world away from the one I occupied at the time found their dreams and aspirations brutally crushed by the tanks and soldiers of the Chinese Army. What had started as an amazing display by members of my generation calling for freedom ended in what can only be called described as a State-sanctioned murder. Every generation has its ‘wake-up call’ moment for the harsh reality of the big, bad world and for me and my fellow members of Generation X it was the mind-numbing slaughter in Tiananmen Square. It is something that I’ve never forgotten or forgiven. Nearly twenty years later what was I as a parent to tell my kids about what they were about to watch?

When the Games were awarded to China I was not thrilled. I thought it was an insult to those that died nineteen years ago as well as to the ‘professed’ spirit of Olympic movement. Why should the world reward a nation who uses bayonets and tank treads on its best and brightest and then has the gall to act as if nothing happened? The IOC thought nothing of that fact but it left the challenge of explaining the worthiness of its host-nation decision to our children without any type of respectable guidance.

As someone who has spent big chunks of his career working and writing for a lot of different occasions and audiences I am very familiar with the term, ‘putting lipstick on a pig.’ Explaining the ‘worthiness’ of China as a host-nation I found to be one of those occasions.

In addressing the ‘China’ issue my wife and I explained to our oldest two children that in every country there is great history and good people but sometimes there are bad governments who are in charge of both and want the world to see something that is not reality. Instead they put forward an image of what they want people to see. Both asked the classic human question, “Why?” and that was perhaps the hardest part to answer. Responding with the classic parental retort, “Because that’s the way it is” seemed empty but what was there to say?

The world is full of cold realities and explaining that there are people out there who believe the best way to lead a people was by an ‘iron grip’ rather than giving them freedom, voice and opportunity was very difficult to explain or comprehend – even for adults. As we explained this situation to our children, my wife and I couldn’t help but feel that this was one of those moments that the babies we once held were growing up to take their share of ownership of the world. Fortunately as this lesson was being imparted, the captured imagery, the human stories and the actions of these Olympics yielded a number of other great lessons both serious and fun for my family to share. These included:

1. Regardless of their country of origin, focus, sacrifice and hard work are the core ingredients that got every athlete to the Olympics and they are the same ones that will yield success in any path of life.

2. Winning is important but winning with class, integrity and humility says even more than shattering World Records – See anything associated with Michael Phelps.

3. The President made the absolutely right call in going to Games – He did the American thing while there too – he spoke his mind, went to church, cheered his heart out and got to hang out with some great girls in bikinis.

4. Selecting a cute child to be the ‘face’ of your nation over the child who can give them a ‘soaring voice’ (as well as a ‘cute face’) is a shallow lie. – See the child lip-synching scandal or refer to the Milli-Vanilli ‘experience.’]

5. Talking trash will always come back to bite you in the end – No doubt about it – See the French Swim Team in the 4×100 Relay

6. Silver Medals shines brighter than Gold when there is no question about the integrity (the ages) of your team or the scoring system. See the Chinese women’s gymnastics team.

7. English subtitles should be used when Bela Karolyi, the legendary gymnastics coach is your in-studio commentator. So should a wardrobe consultant – starting with dress shoes and socks.

8. It is possible for children to get ready for bed (rooms picked up, bathed, teeth brushed) in record time if there is something that is worth watching on TV and their parents join them in watching it.

9. Music may be an international language but a high-five between athletes, coaches and fans needs no translation.

10. My children have learned that they live in a land where they can say what they want, pray what they want and do what they want and seeing another land where those things and more are not possible despite the ‘face’ it shows to the world is even evident to the eyes of a child.

I’m glad my kids saw all of these lessons and more. More than anything I’m glad they were able to witness together the triumph of the human spirit and that burns brighter and longer than any Olympic flame.

Tags: olympics
Posted in Ideology & Public Diplomacy | Comments

Security Debrief’s Marty Ficke Discusses Law Enforcement Tip Lines in USA Today

Friday, August 15th, 2008

Psst, information tips on the rise from public to FBI – USATODAY.com

Numbers spike with publicity, [the FBI's John] O’Neill says. An Oprah segment on child predators spurred a flurry of activity. He credits the steady rise this year to growing public interest in news events, such as the upcoming presidential election and the Olympics.

“When you have two candidates talking about terrorism, then you have the public thinking about terrorism again,” he says.

Terrorist attacks elsewhere, such as the London subway bombing, also generate more tips, says Martin Ficke, a retired special-agent-in-charge for Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement in New York City.

The 9/11 Commission found that intelligence and law enforcement agencies did not connect the dots that would have linked the terrorists to one another and to the hijacking plot, Ficke says.

“The government wants that little piece of information. When in doubt, call it in,” he says. “It may be the one piece of the puzzle that the investigator needs.”

Posted in Law Enforcement | Comments

Private Sector Has Most at Stake in Supply Chain Security Matters

Wednesday, August 13th, 2008

In the 2007 run-up to the vote on legislation mandating that 100 percent of all cargo be scanned before entering the United States, many in the private and public sectors were surprisingly quiet, especially considering the damage such a mandate will inflict on American trade. Looking back, it is clear that too many folks in both the private and public sectors were overly confident that Congress simply would not pass such an obviously self-destructive piece of legislation. Unfortunately, that confidence was misplaced. In Washington, political posturing often trumps common sense.

Without a strong alternative voice educating the public about why 100 percent scanning would not only undermine the American economy but also make the country less safe – and without pro-active, positive alternative solutions – the mandate was quickly passed into law.

The deadline for air cargo is bearing down in 2010 and that for maritime cargo quickly follows in 2012. Considering how this will require massive restructuring and rethinking of both business and security models, those deadlines are practically bearing down upon us.

Other than protesting that such deadlines can’t be met, I am surprised by the lack of organization on the part of those who understand the negative consequences of this mandate.

In discussions I’ve had with certain sectors, there is still a certain disbelief that Congress will follow through or that a new Administration might change things. But the Administration does not write the laws – Congress does. Any anybody who thinks Congress isn’t serious, isn’t paying attention.

Just this month the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee wrote two separate letters – one to TSA Administrator Kip Hawley and one to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff – that criticized DHS in scathing terms for admitting it may not meet the deadlines imposed by Congress to begin enforcing 100 percent scanning.

In a news release highlighting the letter to Hawley issued by Thompson, he led with a headline chiding TSA that “ALL CARGO” (emphasis in the original) must be scanned. This was in response to TSA’s effort to scan only domestic cargo while excluding international cargo.

Thompson followed up with a letter to Chertoff, accusing him and the rest of the leadership at DHS of trying to “thwart the will of the American people on the issue of 100% scanning.” He capped the letter a demand that Chertoff get back to him, in writing, explaining “By what authority did you determine that you could ignore the congressionally mandated 100% scanning requirement?”

For those who recognize the inherent flaws of a 100-percent-scanning model, now is the time to start making a case to the members of Congress and the general public. I suspect that even those most ardent backers of the 100-percent model are open to reason. We all want to make our country safer.

It is unfortunate that some politicians and special-interest groups are willing to demagogue this issue and accuse anybody in the private sector who opposes them as putting self-interest above national security. Those with the most at stake – in terms of lives as well as bottom lines – are the private-sector companies who are most engaged in the supply chain. They are the ones who have personnel and family at risk should an incident occur; they are the ones whose entire livelihoods depend upon the efficient but secure movement of goods; and they are the ones taking the most risk.

Does it not make sense, then, to listen to those with the most at stake? The notion of 100 percent scanning of cargo makes for good political rhetoric but lousy security. However, without an alternative vision, 100 percent scanning will remain the law – to the detriment of everybody. And all too soon, the negative consequences of this mandate will be felt across both private and public sectors.

It’s not too late to make the case that there’s a better way, but we do have to present such a case. Those with the most at risk, and with the most knowledge of supply chain security, should come together and offer a better plan.

Tags: Supply Chain Security
Posted in Supply Chain Security | Comments

Beijing Offers Lessons on Security Planning for Democratic and Republican Conventions

Tuesday, August 12th, 2008

The Chinese were flustered recently when two British and two American protesters managed to unfurl a huge ‘Free Tibet’ banner on top a massive pole in Beijing. The banner must have been a pretty substantial roll of fabric. How did the protesters manage to move it to somewhere prominent, then set and unfurl it on a high pole without being detected? One cannot deny the efforts the Chinese have committed to preventing this occurring, which casts some doubt upon the ‘throw as much manpower at the problem as you can manage’ model. This is a model in use in the Western world; you see it a lot among huge police departments like the Metropolitan Police in London and the NYPD in the USA who can afford to throw masses of manpower at a problem.

The protest in Beijing provides last minute lessons for security planners at the Democratic and Republican national conventions in Denver and Minneapolis.

First, there should be strong resistance to the idea that you can protect against all threats. You simply cannot harden every target. This is not a matter of willpower or conviction. The truth is that there are limited resources and they must be used strategically. Even throwing masses of manpower at a problem will not suffice because the resource that ends up being spread most thinly is money, not personnel. All the personnel in the world, without the proper equipment and training, are of little help.

Additionally, experience and risk doctrine tell us that disasters, including man-made ones, can occur from effective offensive planning – or a co-incidence of events that no one anticipated. Security plans must provide for unknown contingencies – for example, a situation in which the response to a supposed attack is, in actuality, the true target of attack. In Northern Ireland this was a common practice.

Finally, planners should treat security as a matter of a criminal matter rather than a terrorism matter. Indeed, I believe that terrorism should always be treated as a criminal matter. Protesting may hide a more nefarious purpose, but it may not.

Protesters must be able to protest freely and effectively; otherwise, we risk turning such protests in Denver or Minneapolis into Beijing, an analogy that you can be sure a raft of editorial and op-ed writers are itching to use during the Convention season.

Trained terrorist organizations seek to win popular support by provoking governments into over-reaction — shutting down freedoms and liberties, and otherwise taking actions that open them to charges of tyranny. By being fully prepared for all contingencies, while also maintaining proper respect for the law and civil liberties and the reasonable (meaning restrained) use of force, governments and security planners eliminate one of the most powerful tactics of terrorist organizations.

We can only hope that Denver and Minneapolis are truly prepared for every threat, and that every part of the law enforcement and intelligence community are aimed at all threats without segregating them into “criminal” and “national security” threats — for specialisation is the route to cracks and differences. Such cracks and differences present opportunities for both activist protestors and terrorist organizations to exploit. And we may not always be able to tell the difference.

Posted in Law Enforcement, Private and Physical Security | Comments

Federal Law Enforcement Reacts Angrily to Obama, Gutierrez Attacks on ICE

Friday, August 8th, 2008

The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) recently sent an angry letter of protest to presidential aspirant Barack Obama challenging his characterization of ICE agents who enforce immigration law as terrorists. And today, ICE Assistant Secretary Julie Myers sent a letter to Congressman Luis Gutierrez requesting an apology for calling ICE the “Gestapo.”

In his letter to Obama, FLEOA President Art Gordon criticizes remarks he said Obama made at a La Raza convention this past July: “I take great exception to your disparaging remark [that] ‘communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids.’”

Gordon does not hide his frustration at the increasing habit of politicians to blame ICE agents and other law enforcement for carrying out their sworn duty with regard to immigration: Enforcing the laws passed by Congress. He sarcastically notes that it is Congress that has failed to pass immigration laws, leaving federal agents in the difficult position of enforcing the outdated law even as Congress fails to enact reform.

“It’s one thing to remark intelligently on the need for immigration reform,” Gordon writes, “but it’s quite another to berate ICE law enforcement officers who are risking their lives to enforce the laws passed by Congress. To wit, your quotation might have read better if you stated ‘… communities are terrorized by the antiquated laws passed by Congress.’ You, and your fellow members of Congress, have yet to enact any meaningful legislation that would bring about true immigration reform. Your bipartisan fumble should not translate into labeling our members as terrorists by implication.”

Gordon concludes his letter noting that many of the men and women of ICE were part of the first responder community during and after 9/11 and who continue to risk their lives for the security of their country. He invites Obama to meet with the officers of FLEOA to get a better grasp of the law enforcement mission and community.

I’ve written repeatedly on this matter of politicians — particularly members of Congress — failing to enact immigration reform but then attacking ICE agents as convenient scapegoats. Besides Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi characterizing agents as terrorists, you also have Reps. Luis Gutierrez and Sam Farr calling them the “Gestapo.”

ICE chief Julie Myers rightly called on Gutierrez to apologize. In an August 8th letter to the congressman, she wrote: “These comments cross any line of decency and are an affront to the men and women at this agency who perform their sworn duties, often at great personal risk. Most troubling, irresponsible comments like these, vilifying law enforcement officers, can have a significant impact on officer and public safety.”

Myers is right. As she notes in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, many members of Congress want to change current immigration law. More power to them. The law is in need of reform. However, they need to turn their criticism inward. These scapegoat attacks are so shameful on their face, little additional comment is necessary. It’s a very troubling trend.

It’s time for the political class to grow up. Members of Congress need to work in a bipartisan fashion to find a solution rather than continue attacking the good men and women of ICE for simply doing their job — a job required of them by Congress.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Immigration & Visa Policy, Law Enforcement | Comments

Congress to DHS: 100 percent scanning must be enforced

Friday, August 8th, 2008

A week after dressing down TSA for suggesting that Congress did not really mean for all air cargo to be scanned, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson followed up with a letter to DHS accusing it of trying to undermine congressional intent to fully scan 100 percent of all cargo — both air and maritime.

In an August 5th letter Thompson accused DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff of engaging in “a concerted effort to thwart the will of the American people on the issue of 100 percent scanning of U.S.-bound maritime cargo.”

Thompson asserts that the law gives adequate time (five years — until July 1, 2012) for DHS to find and implement new technologies and operations to implement the 100 percent scanning mandate but that DHS is purposefully ignoring congressional intent.

Thompson proceeds to list a variety of comments coming from DHS officials that suggest 100 percent scanning is unwise, including comments by CBP Commissioner Ralph Basham that it would undermine DHS’s risk-based security model. Thompson responds: “I could not disagree more.”

Thompson goes on to note that Chertoff has in the past made comments that the 100 percent scanning law was a better political soundbite than security model and might cripple trade and that “opening and inspecting 100 percent of the containers that come into this country” would “be in the end of our ports.”

The Chairman ends his scathing letter with a demand that Chertoff respond in writing to a series of questions, such as:

What resources and plans are in place for his successor to carry out the congressional mandate for 100 percent scanning

Given that the 2012 deadline is looming, provide a report on steps taken to meet the mandate

By what authority did DHS determine it could ignore the “congressionally mandated 100 percent scanning requirement” in favor of the less severe approach of scanning only cargo in “high risk trade corridors.”

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Maritime & Seaport Security, Science & Technology, Supply Chain Security, Transportation Security | Comments

A Picture Tells a Thousand Words

Tuesday, August 5th, 2008

That old challenge raises its head again … balancing the threat of terrorism with the needs to support free speech in a controlled manner.

Denver PD, a 660 strong force that will be swelling with reinforcements under mutual aid arrangements to around 3,000, is coming under increasing scrutiny before the Democratic National Convention hits town late in the month. There are discussions about how the budget has been spent, speculation about whether the police are using the security restrictions to stifle free speech, and wonderment about how the Convention will be policed. The photograph published in the New York Times online today is suggestive, and leads to a discussion on the matter of tactics. Interestingly, the comment is made that the Denver PD is not the NYPD, but potentially, the NYPD has significantly influenced how business will be run.

Lacking information, it is easy to scare-monger and criticise, of which there is a growing trend, both from the media and organisations such as ACLU. The police are responding in an appropriate manner – there are potential threats to public order, and to not be ready to deal with the worst case scenario would be negligent. However, their activities are not being presented in this way.

What is evident is that there has been no PR offensive by the Denver PD in demonstrating their willingness and ability to deal with crowd disorder, by demonstrating tactics and capability. By failing to do so, they have encouraged increasingly wild speculation, and herein lies the rub. Denver PD has not been forthcoming with the public, media or protestors about their intentions or abilities, which has allowed speculation to run rampant.

Yet none of these would compromise the ability to counter the terrorist threat. Be it by design or through the law of unintended consequences, speculation is rife, detail is sparse and the Convention cometh. Little has been done by Denver PD to assuage worry or promote an air of steely and determined competence. The real lesson – the development of any capability, including public order management, is not simply about buying kit or doing training. It requires a systematic approach that considers the context and political and legal environments, which leads to the development of doctrine and policy, which drives the consideration of what tactics are appropriate and what equipment supports those tactics and from that how to logistically support the plan. With these decisions made, a timeline is mapped out and effective briefing of the public, politicians and the media to create buy in at all levels is conducted.

There seems to have been a lack of the briefing stage, probably influenced by ‘security concerns’. The Denver PD did hold some briefings with the public/protestors, but chose not to address the issues, The Denver PD was extensively briefed by police departments, such as NYPD, who have significant policing of public order experience – a popular response is flooding the streets, easy when you have the manpower. Arguably, applying big city public order solutions (New York, London) to small city integrated terrorist threat and public order problems aren’t the best plan. By the end of the month, all will be revealed….

Tags: Law Enforcement
Posted in Law Enforcement | Comments

Let the Games Begin!

Monday, August 4th, 2008

Have you ever started to say a word only to change your mind mid-way and end up uttering something that was neither intelligible nor actually in the English vocabulary? Here’s a quick example: as a child I was fighting with my sister and started to call her a “jerk.” However, mid-stream, I decided she was really more of a “dork” than a jerk so I switched insults and ended up calling her a “jork.” Got the idea?

Good, because when it comes to China and the Olympics I’m frustrated and all I can say is – President Bush is acting like a royal jork! I’m coming down on him instead of China for one simple reason – The President knows better. It’s the same reason I reprimanded my three-year-old instead of my one-year-old when they playfully dumped Gatorade on my laptop: the eldest knows better and so I expect more of her.

Is China a big jork too? Sure, but because we’ve never taken them to task on much of anything, it hardly seems right to lash out now for continuing to act like a spoiled brat on Red Bull. Think about it. China takes swings at its neighbors, its citizens, and the U.S. like Kid Rock in a Waffle House and we respond by issuing hollow statements to express our “deep disappointment.” Wow! Don’t be too hard on them Mr. President!

As conditions of hosting the Olympic games, China promised to (among other things) decrease its human rights violations; reduce the nation’s air pollution; and provide international media correspondents with unfettered access to the Internet. Wondering how things have turned out? Let’s check the headlines:

Police arrest 200 protesters in Guizhou revolt(6/30/08)
Olympics triggering human rights violations in China (3/10/08)
Pollution in China’s Air Creates Concern About Beijing Olympic Games (6/24/08)
URI researcher: China can’t fully fix air quality problem for Olympics (7/14/08)
China Blocks Internet Sites for Foreign Journalists Covering Olympics (7/30/08)
China breaks word, censors world media at Olympics (7/31/08)

Wow! Now that is the Olympic spirit! But that’s not the worst of it. The headlines that REALLY bother me are the ones that relate to how China is launching cyber attacks on America’s most sensitive security systems like a fat kid on a mission for doughnuts:

U.S. Air Force sets up cyberspace command against continuing China attacks 4/10/08
Chinese hacked computers, U.S. lawmakers say 6/12/08
Chinese Hackers: We Tapped Into Pentagon 3/08/08

It boggles my mind that China can beat down monks like rented mules, rack up enough air pollution to choke an elephant, restrict the “free” press without batting an eye, and attack our nation’s networks through repeated cyber attacks without suffering any consequences. How is it that they get a free ride where other countries wouldn’t?

Is it because of our trade deficit, the fact that they manufacture everything, or the bummer of a truth that they have over a trillion U.S. dollars stored in their national treasury? Maybe, but either way, I’m sick of it. How about we actually grow some “Texas size” cajones and demand to trade on equal terms, stop importing lead-lined Barbie dolls, and stop depending on them to finance our debt and our wars! Take a step back and ask yourself whether Reagan, Kennedy, or Roosevelt would have put up with this – somehow, I doubt they would.

What happened to the good old days when America was a global leader, both economically and morally? We used to feel compelled to flex the national muscle of our economic prosperity to leverage our status as world leader and hold nations like China accountable for their actions. We did it through sanctions, harsh statements, and taking symbolic stands (like boycotting the Olympics).

Today we seem to have adopted a different, and in my view a less sound, approach. This go around, our President will fly half-way across the globe to shake hands with Chinese President Hu Jintao and smile for pictures while the idea and ideals of America fade into the thick polluted air of a nation that wreaks of human rights violations, free speech oppression, environmental disregard, and national security concerns. Way to go for the Gold, Mr. President!

Incidentally, if you want to know who else has earned a spot on the medal stand of apathy here goes:

Silver medal: This is a tie between John McCain and Barack Obama who collectively have managed to take a firm stance on every issue under the sun except China or the Olympics. Hey fellas, what ever happened to “out with the old and in with the new?”

Bronze medal: This is a tie between Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Thanks for not passing a single resolution to express the opinion of Congress that this is a bad/disappointing/concerning/mildly troubling/terrible situation. These two “winners” throw rocks at the President and the GOP for a million different reasons, yet happen to be completely off the radar when it comes to addressing Beijing. Weird, huh?

I guess the only real question now relates to which anthem will play when these “medalists” line up to receive their honors…? Wanna take a guess?

Read L. Vance Taylor’s biography here.

Tags: olympics
Posted in Ideology & Public Diplomacy | Comments

Debate Over Common Sense Oversight for DHS

Friday, August 1st, 2008

On Wednesday, The Heritage Foundation hosted Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Alabama) and a panel of commentators to discuss the chaos in Congress’ oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. Congressman Rogers, who is the ranking member on the Management, Investigations and Oversight subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee, did an outstanding job of setting out the foundation for why the current system of oversight is broken and why that creates unnecessary vulnerabilities.

I was honored to be on the panel, chaired by Jim Carafano, along with DHS Deputy Secretary Paul Schneider and John Gannon (now with BAE Systems) who was the first Chief of Staff for the House Select Committee on Homeland Security. We were surprised by the large audience in attendance, given this t might be considered an “Inside the Beltway” issue. But the issue IS important and the problems with having 86 Congressional Committees oversee DHS activities are immense.

It is not just the 128 hearings and over 1750 briefings that DHS has been required to attend thus far in 2008 that overly ties down Department officials at a time when the focus should be on transition issues and threat mitigation instead of serving as a Congressional “whipping boy.” It is the countless “unreported” calls and letters from Members of Congress that constitutes more “overkill” than “oversight.” No need to rehash the logic behind the 9-11 Commission Report that explained why oversight jurisdiction should be consolidated in a single oversight committee, much as Congress has done with other federal agencies – Congressman Rogers did that quite well yesterday.

Fellow Security DeBrief blogger Tom Blank asked one of the best questions of the session – and that was why wasn’t the Department more assertive in standing up to unreasonable Congressional demands, and why didn’t DHS provide Congressional committees with the actual “cost” of meeting their demands? It was a very fair question, and Deputy Secretary Schneider recounted his initial experiences after joining DHS where one congressional committee threatened him with a subpoena if he did not appear – and it was not from one of the “primary” oversight committees! I weighed in that such a response would come across as “whining” if it came from a member of the executive branch unless they were from the same political party. I am not sure that is the best answer to Tom’s question, and I hope others will pick up the Tom’s challenge to see if Congress is willing to give any deference to a co-equal branch of government, or whether it will continue to use them for partisan, political purposes, as several people implied from the questions they asked.

The debate will continue and, with persistence, common sense oversight will prevail – one hopes.

Editor’s Note: David Olive was also interviewed about this topic on Federal News Radio’s Morning Drive.

Tags: Congress, Politics & PR
Posted in Congress, Politics & PR | Comments