Back to Basics

A section of the National Defense Authorization Act requires the Government Accountability Office examine the costs and benefits of an increased Department of Defense role in helping law enforcement officers secure the southwest land border. The mandate directed the GAO to submit a report to the U.S. Congress, which was released on April 18.

The GAO report examined, among other things, the potential deployment of additional military units, increased use of ground-based mobile surveillance systems, use of mobile patrols by military personnel, and an increased deployment of unmanned aerial systems and manned aircraft in national airspace.

The Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection bureau admitted to GAO analysts that the southwest border continues to be vulnerable to cross-border illegal activity, including the smuggling of humans and illegal narcotics, which directly contradicts statements made by President Barack Obama, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, and the leadership of the U.S. Border Patrol.

Several federal agencies share involvement in border security efforts, including DHS, DOD, Department of Justice, and the State Department. Over the years, the National Guard has played a minor role in helping to secure the southwest land border by providing the Border Patrol with information on the identification of individuals attempting to cross the southwest land border into the United States.

However, Guardsmen were prohibited from taking any actual law enforcement role and critics labeled the National Guard’s deployment as being a “a massive photo op” or “dog-and-pony show” for the news media.

The GAO analysts examined the costs and benefits of a DOD role to help secure the southwest land border, including the deployment of the National Guard, other DOD personnel, or additional units; the challenges of a DOD role at the southwest land border; and considerations of an increased DOD role to help secure the southwest land border.

In September 2011, GAO reported that the DOD estimated a total cost of about $1.35 billion for two separate border operations — Operation Jump Start and Operation Phalanx — conducted by National Guard forces from June 2006 to July 2008 and from June 2010 through September 30, 2011, respectively.

“DOD estimated that it has cost about $10 million each year since 1989 to use active duty Title 10 forces nationwide, through its Joint Task Force-North, in support of drug law enforcement agencies with some additional operational costs borne by the military services,” according to GAO officials.

“Agency officials stated multiple benefits from DOD’s increased border role, such as assistance to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Border Patrol until newly hired Border Patrol agents are trained and deployed to the border; providing DOD personnel with training opportunities in a geographic environment similar to current combat theaters; contributing to apprehensions and seizures and deterring other illegal activity along the border; building relationships with law enforcement agencies; and strengthening military-to-military relationships with forces from Mexico,” analysts stated in their report to the House of Representatives.

The GAO analysts noted several challenges for the National Guard and for active-duty military forces in providing support to law enforcement missions. For example, under Title 32 of the United States Code, National Guard personnel are permitted to participate in law enforcement activities; however, the Secretary of Defense has precluded National Guard forces from making arrests while performing border missions because of concerns raised about militarizing the U.S.

The U.S.-Mexican border is arguably one of the most dangerous spots in the world. Photo credit: DHS/CBP

In almost total secrecy, the Obama Justice Department has charged a U.S. Border Patrol agent, Luis Fonseca, for depriving the rights of a yet to be identified illegal alien at the Border Patrol station located on Imperial Beach, California, last July. Fonseca, however, was not indicted until a week ago.

Agent Fonseca, 32, allegedly kneed and choked an unidentified alien during his tour near the Mexican border last summer. During his arraignment on Monday April 16, he entered a not guilty plea.

A grand jury had handed down the indictment on April 12, but details were withheld and the DOJ neglected to promulgate why the legal action was taken against the Border Patrol agent, according to an ”Inside-the-Beltway” public-interest group that investigates and exposes government corruption and misconduct.

“Border Patrol Agent Fonseca kneed and choked an unidentified alien, depriving him of the right under the Constitution and the laws of the United States to be free from use of unreasonable force by a law enforcement officer,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office said in a statement. “The indictment also alleges as a result of the use of unreasonable force the individual sustained bodily injury.”

According to Department of Justice’s records, a federal grand jury indicted Fonseca on a single charge of deprivation of rights under color of law. The charge, a civil rights violation, carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

The case is problematic for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the government’s secrecy surrounding details. In the one-page indictment the illegal immigrant is identified only as “UA#1.” The document also claims that, as a result of the use of “unreasonable force” the undocumented alien sustained some kind of “bodily injury” yet no further details are provided, according to Judicial Watch’s Corruption Chronicles.

“The grand jury indictment is dated April 12, 2012 which means the feds dragged their feet, probably because they knew it was a weak case,” stated the Judicial Watch’s entry .

Fonseca was arrested on Friday during a shift at the Border Patrol’s Imperial Beach station and is currently on paid leave. He pleaded not guilty in federal court this week, according to DOJ records.

According to the federal prosecutor handling the case, “People detained at the border should be treated with human dignity and respect by federal agents. It is important for the public to know that the Department of Justice takes alleged civil rights violations seriously. We have processes in place to investigate and will take action where appropriate to protect those rights.”

Many law enforcement professionals are highly suspicious of this latest case of a Border Patrol agent being “dragged into court by the Obama Justice Department.

“It’s clear that Obama’s sympathies are with the illegal aliens entering the U.S. He’s all but told U.S. immigration and border officials to stop enforcing the law. This is just another message from the Obama Administration to Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to not be too zealous in doing their jobs,” claims former New York City Detective Jeff Knudson.

On top of the DOJ’s actions against Fonseca, – himself a Latino — the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General is also investigating the matter.

“Perhaps when that report is finished, more information will be revealed to the public.

The U.S. Border Patrol is regularly maligned by left-wing politicians, foreign leaders from Mexico, Guatemala, etc., and groups such as the ACLU and Amnesty International. Credit: DHS/Pat Dollard

While a majority of American citizens, according to polls, believe the Obama Administration is doing too little to secure the U.S.-Mexican border, a human rights group complains that Border Patrol officers discriminate against Latinos and have caused the deaths of illegal aliens in a new “study.”

Yesterday, Amnesty International USA released their report, “Hostile Terrain: Human Rights Violations in Immigration Enforcement in the U.S. Southwest,” in which the group alleges that U.S. law enforcement officials are guilty of discrimination in their enforcement practices.

“Communities living along the U.S.-Mexico border, particularly Latinos, individuals perceived to be of Latino origin and indigenous communities, are disproportionately affected by a range of immigration-control measures, resulting in a pattern of human rights violations,” the study claims.

However, many within the law enforcement community believe Amnesty International’s study is flawed since the only people living on the Mexican side of the border are Latino and the vast majority of lawbreakers sneaking across the border are from indigenous communities.

“If Norway shared the southwest border with the US, and they were experiencing poverty, hostility and danger in their nation, U.S. citizens, politicians and law enforcement officials would be discussing the problem of Norwegian illegal aliens entering the United States,” said NYPD police officer Iris Adriana.

“The left-wing, open-borders crowd continue to put out bogus press releases and statements that are basically anti-police and anti-American,” Officer Adriana said in a telephone conversation with the Law Enforcement Examiner.

The U.S. government has actually relaxed security along the nearly 2,000-mile border with Mexico in recent years. The federal government has even prohibited state and local police forces from enforcing immigration laws such as in the case of Arizona.

Attorney General Eric Holder and the U.S. Justice Department recently accused the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office in Arizona of engaging in systematic racial profiling against Latinos in its efforts to crack down on illegal immigration, a charge thus far unproven.

The Amnesty study said federal immigration programs that operated in conjunction with state and local police put “Latino communities, indigenous communities and communities of color along the border at risk of discriminatory profiling.”

A Homeland Security Department spokesman said the report’s finding were based “almost entirely on either outdated information or anonymous anecdotes that can be neither investigated nor resolved.”

Special Agent Matt Chandler said the Border Patrol, as well as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ”takes allegations of racial profiling and civil rights and civil liberties violations seriously and has processes in place to immediately investigate and take appropriate action as needed.”

“The department has worked hard to create a culture where all people are respected and treated fairly and within the bounds of the law,” he added.

In addition, as Officer Adriana pointed out, a large percentage of Border Patrol and ICE agents are themselves Latino including the BP Chief, David Aguilar.

The Amnesty International report claims:

* Recent immigration policy in certain border areas has pushed undocumented immigrants into using dangerous routes through the US desert; hundreds of people die each year as a result.

* Immigration enforcement in the USA is a federal responsibility.

Napolitano remains on the defensive against the GOP in Congress and her own staff serving at the U.S. borders. Credit: DHS/CBP

The chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said on Friday that he’s still waiting for Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to respond to a disturbing accusation that she and her underlings at DHS released deceptive and inaccurate information about illegal aliens sneaking across borders into the United States.

Biden and Calderon discussed cross-border money laundering during their meeting on Monday. Credit: Council on Foreign Relations

During his meeting with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden in Mexico City on Monday, President Felipe Calderon told Biden that the only way to win Mexico’s ”war with the drug cartels” is for the U.S and Mexico to join together to combat organized crime gangs as well as arms trafficking along the border. He also included in his list of priorities combating rampant cross-border money laundering, according to a press statement.

“There are a number of tools that can be utilized when it comes to laundering cash domestically and internationally,” claims former forensic accountant John Politi, an expert in financial and cyber crime.

Politi told the Law Enforcement Examiner  that one such tool is Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prohibit US financial institutions from maintaining certain accounts for foreign banks if they involve foreign jurisdictions or institutions found to be of primary money laundering concern.

“To make this finding, Treasury officials examine several factors and generally issue proposed rules announcing its intent to apply Section 311 restrictions. At the request of the US Congress, Government Accountability Office analysts reviewed financial and investigative US government documents and met with government officials and representatives of affected banks,” Politi said in a phone conversation.

Treasury’s informal process to implement Section 311 was consistent with requirements in U.S. law. From 2002 to 2005, Treasury identified 11 cases — 3 jurisdictions and 8 institutions — as being of primary money laundering concern and issued proposed rules for 10 of these cases, according to Politi, a former agent with the IRS.

As required, Treasury consulted with the Departments of Justice and State prior to issuing the proposed rules. However, Justice and State officials said that it was difficult for them to effectively assess the evidence on some Section 311 cases because Treasury provided them limited time.

In April 2008, Treasury withdrew two of three notices — all open for between 3 and 5 years –after the Government Accountability Office discussed the cases with Treasury officials. Contributing to this lag was the absence of required timeframes for completing the action and of written guidance specifying a Treasury office to finalize the actions. Treasury views Section 311 as effective because it isolates target institutions from the U.S. financial system and encourages some foreign governments to strengthen their anti-money laundering authorities, according to GAO analysts.

However, some foreign government officials said that Section 311′s implementation precluded their own enforcement or regulatory actions against targeted institutions as U.S. action was unilateral or provided too little information for them to act.

Justice Department officials said that if Section 311′s application is viewed as unsubstantiated, some countries may be less likely to cooperate with the U.S. government on other law enforcement matters or sanctions. Treasury officials said they recognized the concerns, but did not believe they diminished Section 311′s effectiveness.

The “illegals” in question are hair dryers, but hey, it’s a start:

President Obama’s border enforcement officials prevented over 13,000 dangerous hair dryers from entering the country, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) trumpeted today.

“U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seized thousands of hair dryers recently that were determined to constitute a “substantial product hazard” under U.S. law, for failing to have adequate immersion protection,” DHS announced. “The potentially dangerous hair dryers were identified through a nationwide targeting operation by the CBP Import Safety Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center (CTAC).”

CBP seized the hair dryers at the ports of Los Angeles (9,768 hair dryers) and Miami (3,614) because they “lacked shock protection for consumers” in the event of the hair dryers’ immersion in water.

Why doesn’t the Justice Department/DHS let Mexican drug cartels run off with these?

The dryers were discovered after somebody phoned in a tip to the DHS’s “If you see a faulty hair care product, say something” line (1-800-DRYER-ZAP).