Fellow Security Debrief blogger David Olive wrote recently about the conflicting messages and mandates that flow from the 86 conflicting and contending homeland security committees in Congress. The latest example of this Hamlet-like system of self-contradiction comes from the House Appropriations Committee, which complains that US Immigration and Enforcement spends too much time on … well, immigration enforcement.
The DHS announcement today awarding REAL ID grants seems to be a positive step in meeting the recommendation of the 9-11 Commission to make identification documents more secure. With the adoption of a “verification hub” approach, where states work with other states to verify identities, DHS is letting the folks who issue driver licenses control their own processes – previously a source of irritation for many Governors.
The ongoing bipolar inconsistency of the U.S. Congress — that institution responsible for drafting our laws on immigration, among other things — was once again on display this past week. Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey kicked it off with a harangue in which he accused federal immigration agents of everything from racism to general rudeness. Why? For enforcing the laws that Congress passed.
Much has been written and discussed in the past few weeks regarding the medical care of detainees held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. I don’t know how to avoid coming off as an insensitive, cold and heartless human being in coming to the defense of ICE and the management of its detainee health care program but I’ll give it a try.
Folks in Washington think that they not only have all the answers, they think they don’t have to leave town to get them. They’re wrong – Washington does not have all the answers. There is no issue that that truism is truer for than understanding the challenge of securing the nation’s broken borders. And, there is no place to understand border problems better than Nogales, Arizona.
I’m surprised not to have seen reporting in the mainstream or at least security-oriented media about a significant leadership change at US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The long-time No. 2 man at ICE, John Clark, recently retired and was succeeded by John Torres, a very respected agent who has held a number of leadership positions at ICE. The change is more important than individuals only; it represents a significant evolution for ICE as a cohesive and maturing law enforcement agency.
There is a tendency for us as Americans to think that improving the status of homeland security means deploying more Border Patrol Agents and better trained TSA screeners. However, there are instances when the DHS uses its regulatory authorities to advance security in a way that is flat wrong. Requiring airlines to play a pivotal role in US VISIT EXIT is one such example. DHS recently issued the US VISIT EXIT proposed rulemaking which makes little sense and flies in the face of the successful pilot program the Department has undertaken.
On Wednesday (May 28, 2008), ABC Television announced that it will be broadcasting a series that will “focus on the efforts of border protection agencies to halt illegal smuggling and immigration.” Entitled “Border Security USA,” the series will cover operations around the US with Customs & Border Patrol (CBP) Officers, US Coast Guard, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and other parts of the Department of Homeland Security that work to safeguard the nation. Working with DHS, the show’s cameras will be given unprecedented access to take viewers along for the ride to see what these people do, how they do it and what difference they make.
As the GAO report shows, C-TPAT is not perfect. As with so many areas of homeland security, there are still a number of challenges that must be addressed and improved. Most critical among them is the lack of systematic follow-up by Customs and Border Protection officials to ensure that full implementation of their security requirements are met before granting benefits. Anyone who reads this report, however, will be struck by the degree of improvement C-TPAT has undergone since it was formally adopted, as well as the sophistication of DHS’s overarching risk-based approach to security. It is the very opposite of the model called for by some critics, who want to replace this model with the so-called 100 Percent model.
As Chairman of the Safe Commerce Coalition, I’ve spoken to a number of audiences lately about the issue of cargo and supply chain security. I find myself often having to remind folks that when we stood up the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, we had a two-fold mission when it came to border security. First was to secure the borders. The second mission, which is sometimes forgotten, is to maintain the free and efficient flow of commerce and people.
Sponsored by:
