U.S. Won't Secure a Single Additional Mile of Border in 2010

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)."

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.

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.

Actually, the Border patrol reached their stated goal of approximately 18,000 agents. Many of those hired were to be assigned to the northern border. First, before they would go to the northern border, those agents would do about 1.5—2 years on the southern border so they could get experience (a lot more traffic along the southern border than the northern border). Still, a vast majority of the agents remain on the southern border, and they are doing a heck of a job now that they reached their hiring goal.

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.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2334135/posts
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!)
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/07/06/20090706immig0706.html

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.