Covering nearly 4,000 miles of land and water from Washington to Maine, the U.S.-Canadian border is the longest undefended border in the world.

Various Department of Homeland Security (DHS) component agencies share responsibility for northern border security, primarily U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in collaboration with other federal, state, local, tribal, and Canadian entities. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Act of 2007 required the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report to Congress that addresses the vulnerabilities along the northern border, and provides recommendations and required resources to address them.

The act also required the General Accountability Office to review and comment on this report. In response to this mandate, GAO examined the extent to which the DHS report to Congress is responsive to the legislative requirements and actions that may be necessary to address northern border vulnerabilities in addition to the actions addressed in the report.

To conduct this work, GAO reviewed DHS plans, reports, and other documents, and interviewed DHS officials.

The DHS February 2008 report to Congress is not fully responsive to legislative requirements in providing information for improving northern border security. In particular, DHS provided a listing of northern border vulnerabilities and initiatives to address them, but did not include recommendations and additional resources that are needed to protect the northern border.

DHS officials provided several reasons for the lack of specificity and gaps in reported information, including the fact that the component agencies' priorities for action and resources are reflected in the existing budget process, and that they had nothing further to recommend or request through this report.

However, budget documents do not reflect the resources needed over time to achieve control of the northern border. The lack of this information makes it difficult for Congress to consider future actions and resources needed. DHS is developing northern border strategic plans and a risk-management process to help guide and prioritize action and resources, and fully implementing recommendations from past security evaluations would also provide benefit in addressing northern border security vulnerabilities.

DHS is currently developing strategic plans that are intended to provide overall direction in addressing vulnerabilities in northern border security. DHS is also developing a risk-management process to assist in prioritizing efforts and resources that will provide greatest benefit to national security.

Officials have said that the success of various pilot projects, such as DHS's testing of new technology, will likely change the level and mix of resources needed to protect the northern border. In the meantime, DHS could take action to reduce vulnerabilities by implementing recommendations made in past evaluations. DHS has implemented 11 GAO recommendations designed to improve border security, but 39 recommendations are yet to be fully addressed. Eighteen of these open recommendations were made within the last year.

However, 21 recommendations for improving use of air and marine assets, improving screening processes at the ports of entry, and deploying nuclear detection equipment--which DHS and other agencies generally agreed to take action to implement--have remained open for at least 1 year and, in some cases, over 3 years.

DHS is currently developing strategic plans that are intended to provide overall direction in addressing vulnerabilities in northern border security. DHS is also developing a risk-management process to assist in prioritizing efforts and resources that will provide greatest benefit to national security. DHS officials have said that the success of various pilot projects, such as DHS's testing of new technology, will likely change the level and mix of resources needed to protect the northern border.

In the meantime, DHS could take action to reduce vulnerabilities by implementing recommendations made in past evaluations. DHS has implemented 11 GAO recommendations designed to improve border security, but 39 recommendations are yet to be fully addressed. Eighteen of these open recommendations were made within the last year.

However, 21 recommendations for improving use of air and marine assets, improving screening processes at the ports of entry, and deploying nuclear detection equipment--which DHS and other agencies generally agreed to take action to implement -- have remained open for at least 1 year and, in some cases, over 3 years. GAO reported to the US Congress that it believes these outstanding recommendations continue to have merit and should be implemented.

Gangs of heavily armed gunmen stormed several Indian hotels, a popular tourist attraction and a crowded train station in at least seven attacks in India's financial capital. The suspects killed at least 78 people and wounded another 200, according to US embassy officiala.

The gunmen were specifically targeting Britons and Americans and may be holding hostages, according to Fox News' Heather Nauert.

Three US national strategies, developed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, directed US law enforcement agencies to focus on the prevention of such terrorist attacks. The strategies called for agencies to intensify their efforts to help foreign nations identify, disrupt, and prosecute terrorists.

Following the 9/11 attacks, the President issued a series of strategies that provided broad direction for overseas law enforcement efforts to assist foreign nations to identify, disrupt, and prosecute terrorists.

However, these strategies did not articulate which LEAs should implement the guidance to enhance efforts to help foreign nations combat terrorism or how they should do so. While one of the strategies tasked State Department staff with developing and coordinating US efforts to combat terrorism abroad, the feds found State did not develop or coordinate the development of a plan to use the combined capabilities of US LEAs to help foreign nations identify, disrupt, or prosecute terrorists.

In December 2004, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which charged the National Counterterrorism Center with developing a plan to use all elements of national power, including LEAs, to combat terrorism.

NCTC officials told analysts that they had drafted a general plan, which was approved by the President in June of 2006. According to NCTC, State Department, Justice Department, and Department of Homeland Security officials, implementing guidance for the plan is under development, and they would not discuss the contents of the plan or the guidance.

Some LEAs have increased efforts to help foreign nations identify, disrupt, and prosecute terrorists. For example, DHS has implemented its Container Security Initiative to screen US-bound cargo at foreign ports, and the Department of State has expanded its Antiterrorism Assistance (ATA) program.

However, analysts found that because most LEAs, with the exception of the FBI, have not been given clear guidance, they lacked clearly defined roles and responsibilities on helping foreign nations identify, disrupt, and prosecute terrorists.

In one country terrorism analysts visited, the lack of clear roles and responsibilities between two US LEAs may have compromised several joint operations intended to identify and disrupt potential terrorist activities, according to the US and foreign nation LEAs.

In addition, the Government Accountability Office found LEAs generally lacked guidance on using resources to assist foreign nations in addressing terrorist vulnerabilities and generally lacked performance monitoring systems and formal structures for sharing information and collaborating. They also found that, because comprehensive needs assessments were not conducted, LEAs may not be tailoring their full range of training and assistance to address key terrorism vulnerabilities in foreign countries.

Sources: American Federation of Police, National Association of Chiefs of Police, US Government Accountability Office, US Department of State, US Department of Defense, Federal Bureau of Investigation   

When she declared a state of emergency in Arizona in 2006, Governor Janet Napolitano spent millions on her deployment of National Guard troops on the Mexican border.

Illegal Immigration critics complained that Arizona's governor was playing politics when she announced a state of emergency in response to illegal aliens and then she vetoed a new bill that would aid law enforcement in curtailing rampant illegal immigration.

Governor Napolitano vetoed what would have made the presence of illegal immigrants in Arizona a felony offense. She claims she was responding to the wishes of local police chiefs and sheriffs who want immigration arrests to remain the responsibility of the federal government. Apparently she never spoke with Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, who became a national hero for his policies fighting illegal immigration.

The bill Napolitano opposed would have expanded the state's trespassing law to let local authorities arrest illegal immigrants anywhere in Arizona, one of the country's busiest illegal entry points. The legislation passed through the state legislature but was summarily blocked by the Democrat governor.

In a letter to lawmakers, Napolitano said she opposes automatically turning all immigrants who sneaked into the state into criminals and that the bill provided no funding for the new duties. But critics say she was being disingenuous with her statements. One police commander claims she failed to mention that entering the US illegally is already a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. In addition, reentry into the US once an alien is deported is already a felony in the US.

Besides illegal aliens, the bill would have put more teeth into Arizona law to deal with human smugglers and de facto slave-traders.

"It is unfortunate that the Legislature has once again ignored the officials who are most directly affected by illegal immigration and instead has passed yet another bill that will have no effect on the problem but that will impose an unfunded burden on law enforcement," Napolitano wrote in a press release.

However, when she declared a state of emergency in Arizona, following the lead of another Democrat governor — Bill Richardson of New Mexico — Governor Napolitano spent millions on her deployment of National Guard troops on the Mexican border. Political analysts believe she declared the emergency in order to criticize the Bush Administration as did Governor Richardson.

In fact, Gov. Richardson declared a state of emergency and then deployed a whopping 54 New Mexico National Guard soldiers to aid the beleaguered local law enforcement officers. One police chief said he's seen more guardsmen deployed for a snowstorm than for Richardson's "state of emergency."

Supporters of tough border security said the new bill would have provided Arizona with an opportunity to start gaining control of its vast border problems by providing a second layer of enforcement to catch the tens of thousands of immigrants who slip past federal agents each year.

Republican Senator Barbara Leff of Paradise Valley, who proposed the bill, said the governor has painted herself as tough on illegal immigration by declaring a state of emergency at Arizona's border, but has taken little action to back up her rhetoric, according to the Washington Examiner.

"I don't think the governor wants to do anything about this problem," Leff said. She said the bill would have been a means to detain illegal immigrants until federal agents can pick them up.

The Democratic governor, accused by her Republican critics of being soft on immigration, has vetoed other immigration bills from the GOP-majority Legislature within the past year, including a proposal to give police the power to enforce federal immigration laws. She's also provided services for illegal aliens and is a proponent of drivers licenses for illegals.

While immigrants provide the economy with cheap labor, Arizona spends tens of millions of dollars each year in health care and education costs for illegal workers and their families. An estimated 500,000 of the state's population of about 6 million are illegal immigrants.

While defenders of illegal immigrants tell the American people that these unlawful workers pay taxes, some immigration experts say illegals are usually paid off the books by their employers so there are no federal or state tax deductions. And because of tax laws passed to help low-paid workers, they aren't taxed even is they declare their wages to the Internal Revenue Service.

Up to 28 percent of the work force in the country is paid in cash, meaning as many as one in four don't have federal and state payroll taxes withheld, which creates the kind of economic unpredictability that potential employers tend to avoid, according to economic experts.

Governor Janet Napolitano's veto of the new bill was an about face considering her past speeches in which she told voters she would have two state police squads focus on alien smuggling cases. Both plans offer millions of dollars to communities to thwart illegal entries, and money for combating gang-related border crime.
   
State police in Arizona already work near the border. An average of 27 state police officers are near the border at any given time, assisting federal authorities in looking for fugitives trying to leave the country and people attempting to bring ill-gotten cash and stolen vehicles into Mexico.
   
Advocates for state and local action said the idea will not fix Arizona's vast immigration problems, but would discourage some people from sneaking across the border.
   
"If the federal government isn't going to do the job and Arizona is footing billions of dollars a year for illegal aliens, it makes sense for the state to get involved," said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors limits on immigration.
   
Meanwhile, opponents of tough border security are already harping on racial profiling, saying it would increase if officers unfamiliar with immigration law were to try and enforce it. They also say it could make investigating crime harder in immigrant communities, because fewer aliens would cooperate with police for fear of being sent home.

Whenever cornered during a debate over law enforcement, liberal-left activists will always bring up the "racial profiling" issue whether it's germane to the discussion or not. It puts the proponents of law enforcement on the defensive since the debate then becomes one in which the debater must prove he or she is against racial profiling.

Meanwhile, the invasion of the United States continues and the Democrats (and some Republicans) will actually accelerate it.

On December 21, 1994, federal Judge Royce Lamberth, who presided over the litigation to open the health care task force, asked Holder, who at the time was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, to investigate Ira Magaziner for possible perjury and criminal contempt of court. He also suggested that Attorney General Janet Reno should appoint an independent counsel to investigate.

Reno announced on March 3, 1995 that she would not appoint an independent prosecutor. On August 3, 1995 Eric Holder announced that he, too, would not prosecute Magaziner.

Magaziner, who headed up the task force, asserted to plaintiffs in a March 3, 1993 statement that no outsiders, or non-government employees, were taking part in the task force. When task force documents were later produced, it was obvious that dozens of outsiders had taken part. It was not a small point. The presence of outsiders would trigger the Federal Advisory Committee Act, requiring that task force meetings be opened to the public. Magaziner's claim stood for several months. Magaziner and other participants in the task force took no action to expose it or to correct the record.

An example of an outsider was Lois Quam, a vice-president of United Health Care Corporation, a for-profit managed care provider. United Health Care stood to financially benefit from the decisions of the task force, not to mention the reams of inside information to which she would become privy.

Quam's participation also helped fuel a controversy directly involving Hillary. The Clintons were investors in a closely held limited partnership called ValuePartners 1, which held a block of United Health Care stock. The partnership shorted a number of health-related stocks including United Health Care. At the time of his death, Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster was in the process of putting the Clinton's health care stocks into a blind trust, a task not completed until July 26, 1994.

At the time, NLPC accused the Clinton administration of a cover-up. Both Reno and Holder were appointed by Clinton, and Reno owed her job to Hillary. Additionally, the Washington Post reported in January of 1995 that Holder was under consideration by Clinton for appointment to a federal judgeship.

Flaherty concluded, "When Reno said she would not appoint a special prosecutor, it was even more appropriate for the case to be handled by the U.S. Attorney with jurisdiction. That was Holder and he should have acted. Holder's failure to pursue Magaziner made a mockery of the law."

Source: National Legal and Policy Center 

 http://www.nlpc.org/