ICE and INTERPOL Cooperation Nabs Child Predator

One of the most important lessons for law enforcement in the 21st century is that cooperation in investigations is absolutely essential. As criminals and terrorists become more mobile, more sophisticated and more technologically savvy, it’s critical that law enforcement agencies across the board work together to get the job done.

That spirit of cooperation was on display in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) most recent success yesterday when we arrested a suspect in an international child predator investigation in New Jersey. The arrest stemmed from an alert circulated earlier this week by INTERPOL, the international law enforcement organization that works closely with ICE agents in fighting transnational criminal activity.

It was a tough case: The suspect’s name, nationality and location were a mystery. But his face was known from a series of photographs depicting the sexual abuse of three boys between the ages of six and 10 years old. The pictures, believed to have been taken in Southeast Asia, were originally discovered by police in Norway two years ago. Since then, the photographs have been circulated widely to law enforcement agencies around the world.

INTERPOL, working with ICE investigators, distributed a new alert on the suspect on May 6. Traffic to the INTERPOL Web site exploded, with more than a quarter million hits, as the public and law enforcement officials joined in to help offer information that might identify the suspect. Thanks to these Internet tips, by the morning of May 8, ICE agents arrested 59-year-old Wayne Nelson Corliss of Union City, N.J., who at this time is believed to be the man in the photographs.

This alleged predator is now in custody and will face charges for the exploitation of vulnerable children. It could not have happened without the coordination and cooperation of law enforcement investigators working around the world to keep children safe.

Julie L. Myers

Assistant Secretary

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

An Op-ed the New York Times Editorial Page Refused to Run

When it comes to illegal immigration, the American people are tired of thirty years of lip service. They want our laws enforced. As Secretary of Homeland Security, I have directed my department to pursue that mandate, using all the tools permitted by law.

This involves a three-fold approach.

First, we stem the flow at the border by increasing the likelihood that illegal entrants – and smugglers of all types – will be detected, apprehended, and removed.

Second, we drive businesses to comply with laws against employing illegal workers.

Third, when we encounter those who are here illegally, we remove them.

Granted, we need a long-term solution involving a temporary worker program, legal immigration reform, and a fair policy to deal with illegal immigrants long-rooted here.

But the American people have demanded that we first demonstrate an effective commitment to enforce current laws. And even those who are sympathetic to the painful circumstances of illegal immigration question any change that might trigger new waves of entrants seeking to benefit from still-future waves of “reform.”

Our policies respond to this demand and to Congress. They may be tough, yet they are fair, and they are succeeding.

That success has now bred a firestorm of opposition. Opponents are driven by factors ranging from an ideological commitment to open borders to reliance on illegal workforces. Apparently, their strategy is to challenge every enforcement action with exaggerated or misleading cries of outrage. These challenges add up to a position that would forbid any effective enforcement.

The New York Times editorial page is a case in point.

Regarding interior enforcement, a March 27, 2008 editorial (“A Foolish Immigration Purge”) attacked our proposal that businesses receiving letters about workers whose names don’t match Social Security numbers clear up the discrepancy within three months. Under this proposal, if a mismatch is caused by an innocent clerical mistake, the mistake is simply corrected. But if it’s caused by an illegal worker carrying a forged identity, the employer must act. Ignoring this distinction, the Times falsely implied that businesses would have to fire workers even for innocent errors.

A December 18, 2006 editorial (“Swift Raids”) protested earlier efforts at workplace enforcement. It was followed by an October 4, 2007 editorial (“Stop the Raids”) which depicted our enforcement efforts on Long Island and elsewhere as trampling on localities. But an April 16, 2008 editorial (“New Jersey’s Immigration Crackdown”) castigated Garden State localities for their enforcement efforts.

Concerning border security, an April 3, 2008 editorial (“Michael Chertoff’s Insult”) condemned our exercise of legal authority to waive certain environmental regulations that would have stopped us from fulfilling the explicit mandate of Congress to put fencing, roads, and lighting in place this year in order to stem drug and human smuggling.

The editorial failed to mention that we had previously conducted multiple environmental reviews or that the Interior Department has complained that some border areas are so endangered by smugglers that visitors and employees are turned away.

Taken together, these examples suggest that in some quarters, no enforcement technique is acceptable. Of course, if none is acceptable, enforcing immigration law becomes impossible.

Perhaps that’s what some critics really want. In a March 4, 2008 editorial (“Border Insecurity”), this newspaper takes aim at the very propriety of defending our sovereignty and our laws:

“From San Diego on the Pacific to Brownsville on the Rio Grande, a steel curtain is descending across the continent. Behind it lies a nation….that has decided to wall itself off….”

In this rewrite of lines from Winston Churchill’s Iron Curtain address, the editorialists outrageously compare America’s attempts to secure its own borders against smugglers with Josef Stalin’s subjugation of Eastern Europe.

In the end, the debate is not about enforcement tactics. It’s about enforcing the rule of law. Do our critics want a country where employers create economic incentives for people to come here illegally? Do they desire an America with open borders and uncontrolled illegal migration? Should federal officials tacitly allow this to happen by rejecting every meaningful effort to enforce the law?

In the end, two truths stand out. We need to continue to discuss reforms to our immigration laws. But we must continue to uphold our current laws by enforcing them.

Michael Chertoff

Exit Strategy

Among its many recommendations to improve the security of our nation, the 9/11 Commission also recommended the Department “complete, as quickly as possible, a biometric entry-exit screening system” to record the entry and exit of visitors at our ports of entry, identify potentially dangerous people, and process lawful travelers more efficiently. In the Commission’s words, our ports of entry are “a chance to establish that people are who they say they are and are seeking access for their stated purpose, to intercept identifiable suspects, and to take effective action.”

Congress also mandated an entry-exit system, though it may surprise you to learn they did so more than a decade ago – in 1996. Initial efforts to get this system up and running encountered strong resistance from border communities, which effectively killed the plan. As a result, years later our immigration authorities lacked a valuable tool that might have prevented some of the 9/11 hijackers from entering our country.

The good news is the entry portion of this system, known as US-VISIT, is now deployed at all U.S. ports of entry. Every day, US-VISIT checks thousands of visitors’ fingerprints against integrated criminal, terrorist, and immigration watch lists and databases in real time, and it has kept thousands of criminals from entering our country.

Combined with our use of advance passenger data as well as recent reforms to the Visa Waiver Program that will require travelers under the program to submit information electronically prior to arrival in the United States, we have created a formidable barrier against the entry of terrorists, criminals, and immigration violators while expediting safe and efficient travel for everyone else.

Today we are taking another major step forward to develop the capabilities of our border management system. We are announcing a proposed rule that mandates the collection of digital fingerprints from most non-U.S. citizens departing the United States by air or sea – a key underpinning of the recent legislation authorizing an expanded Visa Waiver Program.

Why is having an exit system important? It will allow us to positively confirm through biometrics that an individual has, indeed, left our country. By knowing who departed on time and who overstayed the terms of their admission, we can better manage our borders and build more integrity into our immigration system.

Of course, we need to overcome some technical challenges before we can fully deploy an exit system, including building the necessary infrastructure to capture and transmit the fingerprint data as people leave our country while minimizing the impact to travelers.

That is why our rule proposes to build upon the role commercial air carriers and vessel owners and operators already play. Today, carriers collect and transmit biographic information electronically and submit paper I-94 forms to our Department for passengers departing the United States. The introduction of biometrics into that process will require commercial air carriers and vessel owners and operators to collect additional information and make sure it is protected under rigorous privacy standards.

For this reason, we are seeking comments over the next 60 days from industry partners as well as the general public as we plan to integrate new exit procedures into the international departure process. We are looking for creative ideas and real world solutions. The proposed rule is available on our website and it will be published in the Federal Register later this week and open for comments.

Eventually, our goal will be to require international visitors departing from any airport or seaport with international departures to provide biometric data before leaving the country. We will address land border exit procedures in a future rulemaking. We welcome your input as we address this critical 9/11 Commission recommendation and add yet another important layer of security to our nation.

Michael Chertoff

DHS Employee Survey Results – Employees Matter

We conducted our own all employee survey in the fall of 2007. Just like the Office of Personnel Management’s 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey, DHS wanted to measure employee job satisfaction and agency performance.

The results of the survey reflect improvement over the 2006 survey in two of the four Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework indices:

• Leadership & Knowledge Management, from 46% to 48% positive responses
• Results-Oriented Performance Culture, from 42% to 44% positive responses
• Talent Management, remains at 49% positive responses
• Job Satisfaction, remains at 58% positive responses

The survey results provide insight into our employee’s experiences and perceptions, and I am encouraged by the positive progress in areas addressed by a number of recent initiatives and programs such as the Performance Management and Leadership Development and Training. This is especially heartening given the length of time it can take to effect change in such a large and diverse organization such as DHS. It’s important to recognize that it takes time to turn around a battleship. Ours is still a young department – the newest in the federal government – and as we mature and continue to resolve some natural growing pains, I expect employee morale and satisfaction will improve accordingly.

Through the survey results, managers and employees alike delivered an unambiguous message that leadership has heard loud and clear. I find it gratifying to note the percentage of survey respondents who would recommend DHS as a place to work rose from 51% in 2006 to 54% in 2007.

When evaluating these figures, we must take an honest look at our current situation. For example, instead of a central headquarters location that promotes unity and makes simple things like meetings easier, we have incongruent offices spread out across the National Capital Region. Many of our employees have gone through a number of reorganizations since the Department stood up, the most recent of which was last year. While these are not excuses for low morale, as a DHS employee, I can honestly say I see the challenges first-hand.

More than 140,000 employees were surveyed and more than 65,000 responded; representing all levels of the workforce across components. In addition, 91% of survey respondents believe that the work that they do is important, and 80% indicated that they understand how the work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities; an increase from 76 percent in 2006.

The bottom line is that our 208,000 employees are the backbone of this Department and their service is invaluable in keeping our country secure. They deserve the best we have to offer; and as we continue to make our own improvements, I encourage Journal readers to avoid a quick rush to judgment. Instead, assess our performance based on what we have accomplished in five short years.

You can see more information on the 2007 DHS All Employee Survey.

Elaine C. Duke
Deputy Under Secretary for Management

In Case You Missed It

While the media dwell on celebrity peccadilloes and microscopic analysis of political comments, sometimes really important news gets overlooked. Right now, buried in the pages of a number of U.S. newspapers is a very significant story that tells us a lot about why we need some of the moderately inconvenient security measures with which we live.

If you fly commercially, you will remember that about 18 months ago new restrictions on hand-carried liquids were imposed at airports here and overseas. As we explained at the time, these actions were the result of a major disrupted plot to detonate liquid explosives on airliners flying from Britain to North America. Because we couldn’t say more without violating British legal rules, some of you may have wondered whether the plot was all that serious.

The trial of a number of the plotters is now underway in a London courtroom. The details being unfolded are riveting – and chilling. Unfortunately, the trial is not getting much play in our domestic news outlets, but the evidence should be required reading for those who travel by air.

As the prosecutor has explained, the plotters intended to smuggle liquid explosives on airplanes in plastic bottles of popular soft drinks. To conceal the liquid explosives, the terrorists injected them into the bottles with a syringe and used food coloring to approximate the appearance of a drink. Blueprints showed in court demonstrated how the explosives could be combined with detonators in mid-air.

The targets: at least half a dozen flights, including aircraft headed for Washington, D.C., New York, Chicago, and San Francisco.

Particularly disturbing, the terrorists intended to detonate these bombs only when the aircraft were all midway over the Atlantic Ocean and packed with summer travelers. The sinister idea was that after the first plane exploded, the others would be too far from land to reach safety before the next detonation.

Not much imagination is required to conceive of the horror that would have been experienced when word of the first explosion reached crews and even passengers of other transatlantic flights.

Was the plot real? The courtroom was told that the plot was “almost ready.”

I recommend following this story in the newspapers over the next few weeks (if you can find it). The evidence is powerful proof of the reason that we work 24/7 to avert terrorist plots by devoting time, money, and energy to security.

Michael Chertoff