What does “securing the border” really mean?

The Arizona Daily Star ran an article Border officials lack clear definition of secure border and that highlights the problem.

There is a significnt concensus politically that efforts to reform the country’s immigration laws are not going anywhere until the border is secure. But no one can define what that means which essentially puts immigration law reform in limbo forever.

However, there is also one thing a whole lot of people appear to agree with is that the claims constantly being made by Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and other border law enforcement folks that the border is more secure than ever have no credibility.

Yes, the border is more secure in border cities like Nogales. A lot of resources have been concentrated in border urban areas…fencing…roads, electronics, and lots of Border Patrol agents.

But you don’t have to go far from the secured areas in border cities to see the other side of the equation. For example, a few miles west of Nogales the border fence ends, there are no roads along the line, and few Border Patrol agents in the area. That 30 mile stretch of the border is still wide open to drug smuggling and illegal entry by undocumented aliens.

Border law enforcement officials recently claimed that have “operational control” of 873 miles of our 2,000 border with Mexico, and claim they will achieve “operational control” in a few years.

What does “operational control” mean?

Here are defintions DHS  and Border Patrol uses :

Controlled: Continuous detection and interdiction resources at the immediate border with high probability of apprehension upon entry.

Managed: Multi-tiered detection and interdiction resources are in place to fully implement the border control strategy with high probability of apprehension after entry.

Monitored: Substantial detection resources in place, but accessibility and resources continue to affect ability to respond.

Low-level monitored: Some knowledge is available to develop a rudimentary border control strategy, but the area remains vulnerable because of inaccessibility or limited resource availability.

Remote/low activity: Information is lacking to develop a meaningful border control strategy because of inaccessibility or lack of resources.

Here is where things are right now:

The following is from a Government Accounting Office briefing to Congress on April 15, 2011:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11374t.pdf

BORDER SECURITY

Preliminary Observations on Border Control Measures for the Southwest Border
Statement of Richard M. Stana, Director

Homeland Security and Justice Issues

What GAO Found

Border Patrol reported achieving varying levels of operational control for 873 of the nearly 2,000 southwest border miles at the end of fiscal year 2010, increasing an average of 126 miles each year from fiscal years 2005 through 2010. Border Patrol sector officials assessed the miles under operational control using factors such as the numbers of illegal entries and apprehensions and relative risk. CBP attributed the increase to additional infrastructure, technology, and personnel. Yuma sector officials reported achieving operational control for all of its 126 border miles; however, the other eight southwest border sectors reported achieving operational control of 11 to 86 percent of their border miles. Border Patrol attributed the uneven progress across sectors to multiple factors, including prioritizing resource deployment to sectors deemed to have greater risk from illegal activity.

Border Patrol reported that its levels of operational control for most border miles reflected its ability to respond to illegal activity after entry into the United States and not at the immediate border. Operational control encompassed two of the five levels used to classify the security level of each border mile. The two levels of control differed in the extent that Border Patrol resources were available to either deter or detect and apprehend illegal entries at the immediate border (controlled) versus a multi-tiered deployment of Border Patrol resources to deter, detect, and apprehend illegal entries after entry into the United States; sometimes 100 miles or more away (managed). GAO’s preliminary analysis of the 873 border miles under operational control in 2010 showed that about 129 miles (15 percent) were classified as “controlled” and the remaining 85 percent were classified as “managed.” Border Patrol stated that operational control does not require its agents to be able to detect and apprehend all illegal entries.

Yuma sector reported operational control for all its miles although Border Patrol did not have the ability to detect and apprehend illegal entries that use ultra-light aircraft and tunnels.

DHS is replacing its border security measures, which could temporarily reduce oversight, and reports it may reduce resources requested for securing the southwest border. Border Patrol had established border miles under effective control as a measure of border security. DHS plans to improve the quality of boarder security measures by developing new measures with a more quantitative methodology. CBP is developing a new methodology and measures for border security, which CBP expects to be in place by fiscal year 2012. In the meantime, the absence of border security outcome measures in DHS’s Fiscal Year 2010-2012 Annual Performance Report could reduce oversight. CBP does not have an estimate of the time and efforts needed to secure the border; however, DHS, CBP, and Border Patrol headquarters officials said that this new approach to border security is expected to be more flexible and cost-effective. As a result, Border Patrol headquarters officials expect that they will request fewer resources to secure the border. GAO will continue to assess this issue and report the final results later this year.

Chairwoman Miller, Ranking Member Cuellar, and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss issues regarding the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) process for measuring security for the nearly 2,000-mile U.S. border with Mexico. DHS reports that the southwest border continues to be vulnerable to cross-border illegal activity, including the smuggling of humans and illegal narcotics. The Office of Border Patrol (Border Patrol), within DHS’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is the federal agency with primary responsibility for securing the border between the U.S. ports of entry.1 CBP has divided geographic responsibility for southwest border miles among nine Border Patrol sectors, as shown in figure 1. CBP reported spending about $3 billion to support Border Patrol’s efforts on the southwest border in fiscal year 2010, and Border Patrol reported apprehending over 445,000 illegal entries and seizing over 2.4 million pounds of marijuana.2

———–

1 Ports of entry are officially designated facilities that provide for the controlled entry into or departure from the United States.
2 The $3 billion reflects Fiscal Year 2010 Border Patrol expenditures on southwest border security and CBP expenditures for high-priority investments in technology and tactical infrastructure along the southwest border.

———————-

Figure 1: Border Patrol Sectors along the Southwest Border

 

DHS is planning to change how it reports its status and progress in achieving border security between ports of entry to Congress and the public in its Fiscal Year 2010-2012 Annual Performance Report. In past years, DHS reported the number of border miles under effective control—also referred to as operational control—defined by DHS as the number of border miles where Border Patrol had the ability to detect, respond, and interdict cross-border illegal activity. DHS plans to improve the quality of border security measures by developing new measures that reflect a more quantitative methodology. DHS is also planning to change how it requests resources for border control in support of its effort to develop a new methodology and measures for border security.

3 Border Patrol officials provided us with fiscal year 2010 data, but said they could not provide us with the sector ORBBP documents that include these data as they had not yet been finalized. The ORBBP is Border Patrol’s standardized national planning process that links sector- and station-level planning, operations, and budgets. This process documents how sectors identify and justify their requests to achieve effective control of the border in their area of responsibility, and enables Border Patrol to determine how the deployment of resources, such as technology, infrastructure, and personnel, can be used to secure the border.

My statement is based on preliminary observations from our ongoing work for the House Committee on Homeland Security. We plan to issue a final report on this work—which involves reviewing Border Patrol’s process for measuring border control—later this year. As requested, my testimony will cover the following issues:

(1) the extent to which DHS reported progress in achieving operational control—Border Patrol was able to detect, respond, and interdict cross-border illegal activity—of the southwest border,

(2) the extent to which operational control reflects Border Patrol’s ability to respond to illegal activity at the border or after entry into the United States, and

(3) how DHS reports that the transition to new border security measures will change oversight and resource requirements for securing the southwest border.

To conduct our work, we interviewed officials at DHS headquarters in January and February 2011 and conducted preliminary analysis of DHS documentation relevant to border security assessments and resource requirements across the southwest border for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. We conducted preliminary analysis of data supporting the border security measures reported by DHS in its annual performance reports for fiscal years 2005 through 2009. For fiscal years 2009 and 2010 data, we interviewed Border Patrol headquarters officials regarding the processes used to develop each sector’s Operational Requirements Based Budget Process (ORBBP) documents that include these data.3 We also interviewed DHS, CBP, and Border Patrol officials responsible for overseeing quality control procedures for these data. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of preliminary observations.

3 Border Patrol officials provided us with fiscal year 2010 data, but said they could not provide us with the sector ORBBP documents that include these data as they had not yet been finalized. The ORBBP is Border Patrol’s standardized national planning process that links sector- and station-level planning, operations, and budgets. This process documents how sectors identify and justify their requests to achieve effective control of the border in their area of responsibility, and enables Border Patrol to determine how the deployment of resources, such as technology, infrastructure, and personnel, can be used to secure the border.

Past work that informed our current work included a review of guidance headquarters provided to sectors for development of the ORBB documents, and interview with Border Patrol officials in the field were responsible for preparing select ORBBP documents and headquarters officials responsible for reviewing these documents.4Additional work included site visits in January 2010 to Border Patrol’s Tucson sector in Arizona, where we discussed ORBBP data entry procedures and oversight of performance indicators at the station and sector levels.5 While we cannot generalize the results of these site visits to all locations along the southwest border, the site visits provided insights the issues faced by Border Patrol in assessing and reporting the status across federal, tribal and private lands in urban and rural environments.

……

Border Patrol reported achieving varying levels of operational control of 873 (44 percent) of the nearly 2,000 southwest border miles at the end of fiscal year 2010. The number of reported miles under operational control increased an average of 126 miles per year from fiscal years 2005 through 2010 (see fig. 2). Border Patrol sector officials assessed the miles under operational control using factors such as operational statistics, third-party indicators, intelligence and operational reports, resource deployments, and discussions with senior Border Patrol agents.6 Border Patrol officials attributed the increase in operational control to deployment of additional infrastructure, technology, and personnel along the border.7 For example, from fiscal years 2005 through 2010, the number of border miles that had fences increased from about 120 to 649 and the number of Border Patrol agents increased from nearly 10,000 to more than 17,500 along the southwest border.

Border Patrol reported that the sectors had made progress toward gaining control of some of the 1,120 southwest border miles that were not yet under operational control. Border Patrol reported an increased ability to detect, respond, or interdict illegal activity for more than 10 percent of these southwest border miles from fiscal year 2009 to September 30, 2010.

Border Patrol reported that operational control for most border miles reflected its ability to respond to illegal activity after entry into the United States and not at the immediate border. Border Patrol classified border miles under operational control as those in which it has the ability to detect, respond, and interdict illegal activity at the border or after entry into the United States. Operational control encompassed two of the five levels used by Border Patrol agents to classify the security level of each border mile (see table 1). The two levels of operational control differed in the extent that Border Patrol resources were available to either deter or detect and apprehend illegal entries at the immediate border (controlled) versus a multi-tiered deployment of Border Patrol resources to deter, detect, and apprehend illegal entries after entry into the United States;

sometimes 100 miles or more away (managed). These differences stem from Border Patrol’s “defense in depth” approach to border security operations that provides for layers of agents who operate not only at the border, but also in other areas of the sector.

Table 1: Border Patrol Levels of Border Security
Levels of border security Definition
Controlled Continuous detection and interdiction resources at the immediate border with high probability of apprehension upon entry.
Managed Multi-tiered detection and interdiction resources are in place to fully implement the border control strategy with high probability of apprehension after entry.
Monitored Substantial detection resources in place, but accessibility and resources continue to affect ability to respond.
Low-level monitored Some knowledge is available to develop a rudimentary border control strategy, but the area remains vulnerable because of inaccessibility or limited resource availability.
Remote/low activity Information is lacking to develop a meaningful border control strategy because of inaccessibility or lack of resources.

Border Patrol’s definition of operational control considers the extent to which its agents can detect and apprehend illegal entries, but does not require agents to have the ability to detect and apprehend all illegal entries, according to officials in Border Patrol’s Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis Division. Yuma sector, for example, reported operational control for all of its border miles although Border Patrol did not have the ability to detect and apprehend illegal entries who use ultra-light aircraft and tunnels.8 In fiscal year 2009 Yuma sector reported that of the known illegal entries, about half were apprehended somewhere in the sector, about 40 percent were turned back across the border sometime after entry, and about 10 percent were “got aways.”

Nearly two-thirds of the 1,120 southwest border miles that had not yet achieved operational control were reported at the “monitored” level, meaning that across these miles, the probability of detecting illegal cross-border activity was high; however, the ability to respond was defined by accessibility to the area or availability of resources (see fig. 5). The remaining miles were reported at “low-level monitored,” meaning that resources or infrastructure inhibited detection or interdiction of cross-border illegal activity. Border Patrol reported that these two levels of control were not acceptable for border security.

DHS is replacing its border security measures, which could temporarily reduce information provided to Congress and the public on program results. Border Patrol had established border miles under effective control as an outcome measure of border security operations between the ports of entry under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).11 DHS plans to improve the quality of border security measures by developing new measures that reflect a more quantitative methodology to estimate outcomes. CBP is developing a new methodology and measures for border security, which CBP expects to be in place by fiscal year 2012.

….
As of February 2011 CBP did not have an estimate of the time and efforts that are needed to secure the southwest border as it transitions to a new methodology for measuring border security. In prior years, Border Patrol sectors annually adjusted the estimated resource requirements that they deemed necessary to achieve operational control. Under the new methodology, Border Patrol headquarters officials said that sectors are to be expected to use the existing personnel and infrastructure as a baseline for the agency’s defense in depth approach and focus requests for additional resources on what is necessary to respond to the sectors priority threats for the coming year. DHS, CBP, and Border Patrol headquarters officials said that this approach to securing the border is expected to result in a more flexible and cost-effective approach to border security and resource allocation based on changing risk across locations. As a result, Border Patrol headquarters officials expect that they will request fewer resources to secure the border.

We will continue to assess DHS’s efforts for measuring border security and plan to report our final a results later this year. DHS generally agreed with the information in this statement and provided language clarifying the agency’s rationale for replacing border security outcome measures and technical comments which we incorporated as appropriate.

 

After reading this it is obvious that the definition is whatever DHS says it is.

—————————————————-

Rancher tells Congress the way it really is down at the border

Restore our Border plan from the Arizona Cattle Growers Association

Immigration Enforcement and Reform Proposal from the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers

Probationary Presence…another Immigration Law Reform Proposal
______________________________________
MORE articles and commentaries about the border

This entry was posted on Monday, April 18th, 2011 at 10:18 am and is filed under border issues, border patrol, politics. Tags for this post: border security, department of homeland security, DHS, GAO, government accounting office, secure the border, what is the definition of a secure border. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.