Homeland Security

With sequestration now in effect, experts are debating the future of the Department of Defense (DoD). The agency has already committed to $487 billion in budget cuts over the next decade, but it also recognizes the need to modernize as it slims down. As the new secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel must address a critical issue for America’s defense: how to keep the department at the forefront of the information age. A smart first step would be bringing Silicon Valley to the Pentagon.



For me and my colleagues in the Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform coalition, we want to see a fair, pragmatic, and just immigration reform that respects the rule of law; secures our borders, our businesses, and our visa process; ensures fairness to taxpayers; protects the unity of the immediate family; and especially respects the God­given dignity of every person. Furthermore, we strongly feel that our nation has a moral imperative to assure that any immigration reform establishes a path toward earned legalization and eventual citizenship for those that are currently undocumented, and can qualify for this program. However, at the end of the day, we also want to see a reform of our legal immigration system that will actually work to solve the problems inherent in the broken immigration system that have led us to the dysfunctional situation that America is mired in today.

On Wednesday, four key senators from the so-called “Gang of 8” will visit the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona to view conditions there as they work to finalize comprehensive immigration reform legislation. If they are looking at the situation objectively, what they will recognize is that there has been a massive intensification of border enforcement and personnel over the past decade – from FY2004 to FY2012, the budget for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) increased by 94 percent to $11.7 billion. Too often, border security has simply grown wastefully and abusively without regard to genuine public safety need.
 
One program that is emblematic of this is Operation Streamline, a southwest border prosecution initiative that indiscriminately prosecutes tens of thousands of border-crossers in federal criminal court – instead of using administrative deportation hearings.
 
Senators Flake, Bennet, McCain, and Schumer should visit one of the federal courthouses along the U.S. Mexico border, where every day, up to 70 women and men are shuffled into courtrooms shackled hand to foot. Most have come to the United States to look for better opportunities for their families or to re-unite with their family members already here. Some have come to escape the violence in Mexico or Central American countries.
 
There is no jury in the courtroom. In fact, there are so many defendants that they sit in the jury box and in the benches typically set aside for the public. Most of them plead guilty at once, en masse, to illegal entry into the U.S. Individual equities like a defendant’s U.S. citizen children are not considered. They are just sent packing with federal prison time. We’re sure that if they witnessed these proceedings, the senators would agree that it’s impossible to reconcile the process in these courts with American ideals of justice, fairness, and due process for all. No wonder the Holy See has criticized the federal government for this large-scale criminalization of migrants.
 
In theory, the main goal of this program is to introduce more punitive consequences for entering the country without inspection, thus discouraging individuals from attempting to re-enter the United States. But there has been no comprehensive analysis concluding that Streamline actually deters people from coming. In fact, comparing the experience in San Diego, where Streamline is not used, with Tucson, where it has been in effect since 2008, border arrest statistics suggest the contrary.

There is a set of rules that we value and rely on in the U.S. justice system: we expect that a person will receive “Miranda” warnings when arrested and be provided an attorney if he or she cannot afford one. We expect that a person held in pre-trial custody may ask for bail and that he or she has the right to a fair and speedy hearing before an impartial judge. We expect that a judge will throw out government evidence that was obtained in violation of the constitution and that a person convicted of a crime may appeal that decision. While the U.S. justice system is far from perfect and too often fails on its promises, we expect it to operate under a set of rules that affords defendants their day in court.

As a bipartisan group of U.S. senators prepares to introduce a comprehensive immigration bill, the discussion should widen to address injustices caused by our complex and punitive deportation laws. While it is vital to support long-overdue efforts for reform, it is also crucial to recognize that previous legislation has created a system in our immigration courts that is harsh, inflexible, and inadequate in providing due process protections. 

When I was an immigration judge in San Francisco, I presided over scores of cases involving immigrants held in prisons, who were deported after months or even years of unnecessary detention because of our flawed immigration laws. Some of them would have been legitimate refugees, and others would have had other legal means to remain in the country. The vast majority were migrant workers, whose only mistake had been living in a house with other aspiring citizens or sharing a meal at a restaurant when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents conducted a sweep of the neighborhood. They posed no danger to the community, and often had no criminal convictions that would mandate their detention. In fact, in the vast majority of the cases that came before me, I saw workers, mothers and fathers who were committed to our country and contributing to our culture.

It takes a certain chutzpah for Congress to pass a law that grants discretion to the executive branch and then complain when the executive branch actually uses that discretion. But that's exactly what happened recently when the Department of Homeland Security freed 2,000 people from immigration detention.
 
When news of the detainee releases broke in late February, Republican lawmakers waxed indignant, calling the move “abhorrent” and claiming, in a flurry of outraged letters to the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, that the freed detainees included violent criminals and child molesters.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people suffer from some of the highest rates of discrimination in the workplace, in health care, and in our communities. Undocumented immigrants too face significant employment and economic insecurities that make it difficult to put food on the table, pay the bills, and otherwise make ends meet for themselves and their families.

It stands to reason then that those at the intersection of these two already marginalized populations — those that are both LGBT and undocumented — are among society’s most vulnerable. It also stands to reason then that this population would especially benefit from immigration reform that included a pathway to earned citizenship for the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States today.

It may not be as sexy as legalization or STEM, but don’t be tempted to dismiss family-based immigration as a quaint, but merely historical tribute to the self-reliance and perseverance that has shaped us as a nation of immigrants. 

Immigrant families are the unsung workhorses of our economy, the engine that fuels newcomers’ successes and community integration. Ever since our union was founded, new Americans have relied on the support of this web of relationships. Families share a deep commitment to one another and our nation. To ignore the unique strength of these ties risks sabotaging our nation’s economic strength, and threatens our very identity as Americans.

Top U.S. spies announced this week that cyber attacks are even more concerning than dangers posed by terrorism. The Obama administration has clearly outlined its concerns about cyber attacks with its cyber security initiative and recently signed an executive order for the improvement of critical infrastructure.

There is a popular misconception that the U.S. government is the main target of cyber attacks. While the Department of Homeland Security is forced to deal with a barrage of attacks on a daily basis, every organization is a target. Approximately 90 percent of IT infrastructure in the U.S. resides in the private sector and the reality is that most organizations skimp on computer security. Many also forget how interconnected organizations are with each other. For example, law firms are vast data warehouses of intellectual property through their involvement in civil litigation but might not be at the forefront of network security.