Skip to comments.U.S. Won't Secure a Single Additional Mile of Border in 2010
Posted on 09/09/2009 1:50:32 AM PDT by Kaslin
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is planning to move several hundred Border Patrol agents away from the U.S.-Mexico border and will not secure a single additional mile of the U.S. border in fiscal 2010, according to the department's annual performance report.
The document -- "Department of Homeland Security Annual Performance Report: Fiscal Years 2008-2010" -- was originally published by the Bush administration on Jan. 15 and was updated by the Obama administration on May 7.
Excluding the border between Alaska and Canada, the combined length of the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada is about 6,000 miles (with almost 2,000 miles along the Mexican frontier and 4,000 along the Canadian).
The DHS annual performance report lists as the department's top goal: "Protect our nation from dangerous people." Under this goal, it lists as one program: "Border security and control between ports of entry." The goal of this program is: "Prevent potential terrorists, means of terrorism or other unlawful activities from entering the U.S. along our land borders by gaining operational control in areas deemed as high priority for terrorist threat potential or other national security objectives."
One measure of this is goal is titled: "Border miles under effective control (including certain coastal areas)."
Until this year, the department showed steady progress in this metric.
In fiscal 2005, for example, it had a goal of putting 150 miles of border "under effective control," and it achieved 288 miles. In fiscal 2008, it had a goal of putting 674 miles of border "under effective control," and it achieved 757 miles.
But this year, the progress stalled.
In fiscal 2009, according to page 24 of the report, the department's goal is to have 815 miles of border "under effective control." In fiscal 2010, it says, the goal is also to have 815 miles of border "under effective control."
In other words, whatever else it does over the next 12 months, the department does not plan to bring a single additional mile of border "under effective control."
The line on page 24 of the DHS report indicating that the department's goal for border miles "under effective control" will be the same for next year as it was for this year is marked with a discreet asterisk.
This asterisk leads to a footnote that appears to lay blame for the lack of progress on delays in deploying SBInet -- the so-called "virtual fence" that was supposed to help the Border Patrol catch clandestine border crossers with the help of sensors and other technologies -- and on the fact that during the coming year, hundreds of Border Patrol agents are going to be moved from the Mexican border to the Canadian border while only a "small increase" will be made in the new agents assigned to the southern border.
"The program plans to move several hundred Agents from the Southwest Border to the Northern Border to meet the FY 2010 staffing requirements, with only a small increase in new agents for the Southwest Border in the same year," says the footnote. "In addition, limited funding is being dedicated toward purchasing legacy technologies on the Southwest Border until the upgraded technology associated with SBInet is fully deployed. Given these factors, the program expects the miles of effective control to remain constant in FY 2010."
"Effective control" is defined in the department's strategic plan for 2008-2013 as follows:
"Border miles under control as defined in the National Strategic Plan is when the appropriate mix of personnel, equipment, technology and tactical infrastructure has been deployed to reasonably ensure that when an attempted illegal entry is detected, the Border Patrol has the ability to identify, classify and respond to bring the attempted illegal entry to a satisfactory law enforcement resolution."
Press officers at the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection failed to respond to inquiries I made about the DHS annual performance report over the course of several days.
On Friday, the nation will commemorate the eighth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Both political parties are tools of the Uber-Super-Rich, and the Uber-Super-Rich are COMMUNISTS, ATHEISTS, and GLOBALISTS. The Bushes, McLame, Mitt, maybe the Huckster. And the Uber-Super Rich want the U.S. literally swamped by a TIDE of illegal aliens who will dismantle it.
The only politicians I am certain are not in the pay of the Uber-Super-Rich. Well, okay, Ron Paul and a couple of others.
Question...Since this is Congresses fault, is Congress part of:
1. Letting illegals replace Americans as citizens which they can control, without their DNA on the process
2. Establishing perpetual political loyalty
3. Criminal Negligence and dereliction of duty
4. Absolute Corruption
5. Unconstitutional actions
6. Coup upon the American people
7. All the above; equals Treason!
You are exactly right
Obama was looking for “shovel-ready” jobs. Somehow, the wall to defend our southern border just didn’t look like a good candidate.
Its part of the deliberate plot by the marxists to change the ethnic makeup of America via the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
(Hart-Celler Act, INS, Act of 1965, Pub.L. 89-236) abolished the national-origin quotas that had been in place in the United States since the Immigration Act of 1924. It was proposed by Emanuel Celler, co-sponsored by Philip Hart and heavily supported by United States Senator Ted Kennedy.
An annual limitation of 170,000 visas was established for immigrants from Eastern Hemisphere countries with no more than 20,000 per country. By 1968, the annual limitation from the Western Hemisphere was set at 120,000 immigrants, with visas available on a first-come, first-served basis. However, the number of family reunification visas was unlimited, and it is only now that there are any country-origin quotas for spouses of US citizens, and numerical quotas for other relatives of US citizens.
In the Democratic-controlled Congress, the House of Representatives voted 326 to 69 (82.5%) in favor of the act while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18. Opposition mainly came from Southern legislators. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the legislation into law. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 became law on July 1, 1968. Along with the act of 1952, it serves as one of the parts of the United States Code until this day.
During debate on the Senate floor, Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs. The acts supporters not only claimed the law would not change Americas ethnic makeup, but that such a change was not desirable.
By equalizing immigration policies, the Act resulted in a flood of new immigration from non-European nations that changed the ethnic make-up of the United States. Immigration doubled between 1965 and 1970 and doubled again between 1970 and 1990.
Did the University of Texas at Brownsville open campus up yet after they had to evacuate due to Mexican drug war bullets hitting the buildings? Also, a few hundred miles up the border, how’s those charges coming on the busted illegals bringing drugs across through the University of Texas El Paso?
The New World Order running our government has been keeping our borders open for a long time. They did it by means of Edward Kennedy and through the administration of several Presidents thereafter with varying degrees of cooperation, and now in Barack Hussein Obama they have a more willing tool.
Grave digging is a “shovel-ready” job.
Why? Are we going to make sure our Illegals don't go into Canada?
Drugs seem to be winning (really drug MONEY does the winning) in Mexico, Afghanistan and maybe the United States.
I wonder how much the hallucinogenic properties of drugs had to do with voters succumbing the mesmerism of the controller Obama and increasing the number of votes for him?
“But this year, the progress stalled.”
This year everything good associated with the federal government stalled.
Certainly their agenda won't stop there during the destruction of America.
You have discovered the secret of health "reform". It is far cheaper to dispense psychoactive medications willy nilly than to use them properly in situations where they are warranted (with coincident psychotherapy). Psychotherapy is preferable and more effective in many cases. But drugs are going to be the cheap answer to almost every medical problem. The side benefit for the government is a group of addicts who will vote to keep their fix.
In “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley, the people are kept sedated by voluntarily using “Soma”, a drug which my doctor assured me already exists.
I think it was “Brave New World”. I sometimes get it mixed up with “1984” by George Orwell.
1. In 1986, Ted Kennedys blanket amnesty for 2.7 million illegal aliens promised a lot more enforcement but did not set any requirements for actual reductions in illegal immigration.
2. In 1994, Ted Kennedys Section 245(i) Amnesty gave legal residence and jobs to 578,000 illegal aliens. It was a temporary rolling amnesty primarily for extended family members of immigrants who instead of waiting in line, come on to the country illegally.
3. In 1997, Ted Kennedys extension of the Section 245(i) rolling amnesty was followed by an increasing flow of illegal immigration.
4. In 1997, Ted Kennedy also won an amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America. Illegal immigration sped up some more.
5. In 1998, Ted Kennedy won an amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.
6. In 2000, Ted Kennedy got the so-called Late Amnesty, legalizing another 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed that they missed out on Kennedys 1986 amnesty.
7. In 2000, Ted Kennedy also won the LIFE Act Amnesty for an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens. It was another reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty...an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens. Illegal immigration accelerated.
MORE AT http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2328980/posts?page=5#5
AFTERMATH Kennedy's blanket amnesty for 2.7 million illegal aliens promised a lot more enforcement but did not set any requirements for actual reductions in illegal immigration. It was only a year later that the City of Los Angeles was trashed. The Mid-Wilshire district, which was a commercial high rise area known for finance, became a slum.
I hate to tell you this, but the best indications are that Palin is for open borders. The only candidate in 2008 who was for closing the borders was Mike Huckabee. Even though it was an election-time conversion, at least he recognized it’s a political winner. Feel free to be cynical about whether his new-found faith would falter the day he takes office, though.
Do we have enough Border Patrol Agents? Not really, but we have about 10,000 more agents than we had back in 2005.
We should hire more agents, that is for certain, but understanding the staffing issues and placement is key to effectively commenting on what is going on. . .especially since the article says DHS is moving agents north but the writer failed to find out the reason they are moving them there, as the hiring was done and those Agents were hired with specific northern stations they are assigned to and and their stationing along the southern border is a temporary assignment, not a matter of policy that decided to move permanently stationed southern border agents north.
They don’t even have the ports of entry under control, much less the OPEN BORDER.
How effective is CBP in keeping U.S. borders safe?
As for needing more patrol on the Canadian border instead of Mexico’s border....
Last year, officials apprehended 723,840 people trying to enter the country illegally. Nearly 662,000 were from Mexico; 610 were from Canada. ( only 25% are apprehended!)
I will reserve judgment about what Sarah’s positions are on some issues, since, after all, she was running with that old geezer. Could it be that she’s simply on the record as agreeing with her running-mate, what’s-his-name?
Isn’t it about time she say what her positions are? Allow me to be frank: every multi-billion dollar corporation on the planet is gangbusters for cheaper and cheaper and cheaper labor. The Democrats on the hill want a demographic advantage. The Republicans want to appease them. And both parties want hundreds of millions of dollars of cold, hard cash. If she doesn’t oppose illegal immigration now, I can’t see her doing so when she faces the reality of the Washington fundraising circuit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.