Sacrificing Border Security for Politics

 

The US Customs and Border Protection, part of Homeland Security, has been a source of crime and corruption for years. New hires and contractors are not properly screened for employment, and now that President Donald Trump has requested an additional 5,000 border officers, tripling the size of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, our borders will be at greater risk than ever. Instead of Congress taking steps to improve screening for new hires, they are taking steps in the opposite direction. How has this happened?

In 2010, Andrew Becker reported on a Senate Homeland Security subcommittee hearing on corruption of federal law enforcement officers:

James Tomsheck, the assistant commissioner for internal affairs at Customs and Border Protection, testified that drug-trafficking organizations have infiltrated the nation’s largest federal law enforcement agency. ‘There is a concerted effort on the part of transnational criminal organizations to infiltrate through hiring initiatives and to compromise our existing agents and officers,’ he said. Tomsheck also said when he took over the internal affairs office in 2006, ‘. . . the vast majority of corrupted employees had worked with the agency for 10 years or more, but now an increasing number of younger agents and officers have become corrupted.’

Due to funding shortfalls, polygraphs (a key screening tool) were limited to 10-15% of applicants, even though they would have preferred to test all potential hires. But even those who were tested, 60% were not suitable for hire.

Kevin Perkins, the assistant director of the FBI’s criminal investigative division offered the case of customs inspector Margarita Crispin as an example of how valuable a corrupt official is to traffickers: “Agents suspect that Crispin joined CBP in 2003 with the intent of working with drug smugglers. She was sentenced in 2008 to 20 years in prison and ordered to forfeit $5 million in bribes she was paid to allow thousands of pounds of marijuana to be smuggled through her inspection lane in El Paso.”

But corruption in the Homeland Security Department isn’t limited to Border Patrol agents and customs inspectors. Agents and officers of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which both run immigration detention and is Homeland Security’s investigative arm, and employees of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that issues green cards and other immigration benefits, have also been corrupted.

Congress in 2010 made polygraphs mandatory for all prospective hires seeking law enforcement posts. The bureau then hired and trained scores of polygraph operators to meet the law’s mandate that all candidates take a polygraph by January 2013. Customs and Border Protection beat its deadline by a few months, reaching 100 percent of all applicants in October. It’s not yet clear whether the additional screening has been helpful in the hiring process.

In the meantime, according to the New York Times, other efforts have been made to curb corruption:

Homeland Security officials, acknowledging that internal corruption is a problem, have hired more internal affairs investigators, provided ethics training and started to administer polygraph tests to new applicants, along with counter-surveillance training to employees so they can recognize when they are being targeted by criminal organizations.

Customs and Border Protection, which has had dozens of its officers arrested and charged with bribery, said it had made additional changes to combat corruption. Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security, in 2014 gave authority to the agency’s internal affairs office to conduct criminal investigations for the first time. And Mark Morgan, a former F.B.I. agent who had investigated corruption on the border, was put in charge of the Border Patrol.

But the Homeland Security report released in May said Customs and Border Protection, the parent agency of the Border Patrol, currently lacks proactive programs to weed out corruption. Instead, the report said, the agency based its investigations on reporting from other employees, other government agencies or the public, by which time the corruption could have continued for decades.

Given the request by President Trump for 5,000 more agents, and the compromised reputation of the Customs and Border Protection agency, the senate has proposed another way to speed up screening, but which may also jeopardize the thoroughness of the process. Senator Jeff Flake proposed the “Boots on the Border Act of 2017.” The legislation allows waivers for former US law enforcement agents who have been previously screened with polygraph and background tests, and have worked in law enforcement for more than three years. It also provides waivers for those who have served in the armed forces who were honorably discharged and served for at least four years.

These actions on the part of President Trump and Customs and Border Protection raise many questions:

  • Should the government consider a more gradual roll-out of meeting the goal of 5,000 new border agents?
  • Should new or more stringent screening processes not only be put in place but tested for their efficacy?
  • Do you have confidence in the waiver process for law enforcement and armed forces new hires?
  • Are there ample funds for not only hiring and training new agents, but for hiring those who can determine whether screening and investigation programs are working to reduce corruption among agents?

There are many other questions that can be asked, but the bottom line is, should we be hiring new agents now, knowing the level of corruption that has existed and may still exist, and knowing the danger we will be in from a less-than-secure border?

Published in Domestic Policy
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Members have made 32 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Profile photo of Ontheleftcoast Member

    OK, that’s the executive branch.

    The “optics” suggest the judiciary is in the sewer too:

    OBAMA MET WITH JUDGE AT RESTAURANT, THEN JUDGE BLOCKED TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON IMMIGRATION – PHOTO FEATURED ON FACEBOOK PAGE OF THE RESTAURANT

    Posted by Noi Thai Cuisine – Hawaii on Wednesday, March 15, 2017

    No doubt there’s no actual wrongdoing, nothing to see, move along.

    • #1
    • March 20, 2017 at 12:25 pm
  2. Profile photo of Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    OK, that’s the executive branch.

    The “optics” suggest the judiciary is in the sewer too:

    OBAMA MET WITH JUDGE AT RESTAURANT, THEN JUDGE BLOCKED TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON IMMIGRATION – PHOTO FEATURED ON FACEBOOK PAGE OF THE RESTAURANT

    Posted by Noi Thai Cuisine – Hawaii on Wednesday, March 15, 2017

    No doubt there’s no actual wrongdoing, nothing to see, move along.

    Seriously? Seriously? Is anybody out there??? Everyone has to take a look at this! Could it have been photoshopped?

    • #2
    • March 20, 2017 at 12:31 pm
  3. Profile photo of Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    OK, that’s the executive branch.

    The “optics” suggest the judiciary is in the sewer too:

    OBAMA MET WITH JUDGE AT RESTAURANT, THEN JUDGE BLOCKED TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON IMMIGRATION – PHOTO FEATURED ON FACEBOOK PAGE OF THE RESTAURANT

    Posted by Noi Thai Cuisine – Hawaii on Wednesday, March 15, 2017

    No doubt there’s no actual wrongdoing, nothing to see, move along.

    They didn’t even do it in private!!!! The audacity! Oh geez, no pun intended–honest.)

    • #3
    • March 20, 2017 at 12:36 pm
  4. Profile photo of Percival Thatcher

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    • #4
    • March 20, 2017 at 1:55 pm
  5. Profile photo of Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    Percival (View Comment):
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Si, senor.

    • #5
    • March 20, 2017 at 2:05 pm
  6. Profile photo of ModEcon Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    OK, that’s the executive branch.

    The “optics” suggest the judiciary is in the sewer too:

    OBAMA MET WITH JUDGE AT RESTAURANT, THEN JUDGE BLOCKED TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON IMMIGRATION – PHOTO FEATURED ON FACEBOOK PAGE OF THE RESTAURANT

    (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

    Posted by Noi Thai Cuisine – Hawaii on Wednesday, March 15, 2017

    No doubt there’s no actual wrongdoing, nothing to see, move along.

    Seriously? Seriously? Is anybody out there??? Everyone has to take a look at this! Could it have been photoshopped?

    Well, the picture exists, hard to imagine a photo-shop.

    The restaurant also seems real. It has an online presence. And, here are some confirming links.

    Hmmm

    Hmmm

    I agree, this is very fishy.

    • #6
    • March 20, 2017 at 3:08 pm
  7. Profile photo of Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    Well, Obama can visit with whomever he wishes. And he’s not Prez anymore. And we could also say that the judge was going to rule that way anyway. It smells, but it’s not illegal–just ugly.

    • #7
    • March 20, 2017 at 3:20 pm
  8. Profile photo of ModEcon Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    Well, Obama can visit with whomever he wishes. And he’s not Prez anymore. And we could also say that the judge was going to rule that way anyway. It smells, but it’s not illegal–just ugly.

    True, but perhaps still impeachable 🙂

    • #8
    • March 20, 2017 at 3:22 pm
  9. Profile photo of Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    So any thoughts, anyone, on the border agent mess?

    • #9
    • March 20, 2017 at 3:24 pm
  10. Profile photo of ModEcon Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    So any thoughts, anyone, on the border agent mess?

    Perhaps I have a little insight into this that I wouldn’t have had before. I am trying to join the navy, but to do that I need a security clearance. In the process, there are numerous questionnaires. Some of them are just about drug, alcohol, crime (down to traffic violations, thank goodness I haven’t gotten a speeding ticket yet).

    For me, this is pretty simple. I have never done drugs, drank alcohol, or committed any crime. Nor have I been fired from a job, disciplined or anything like that.

    However, it sounded like a lot of other people have those problems. In fact, the number of people I new a college who did occasionally use wasn’t a small percentage.

    So, lets get some facts.

    According to the report:
    * 72.5 percent of high school students have drunk alcohol;
    * 46.3 percent of high school students have smoked cigarettes;
    * 36.8 percent have used marijuana;
    * 14.8 percent have misused controlled prescription drugs;
    * 65.1 percent have used more than one substance;

    How many of these people are already barred from passing a basic test. Add to that the problem of all(most) the smart ones wanting to do college and get good jobs (which border security and military generally isn’t considered as good).

    So, I bet the number of good applicants is really small compared to the need.

    • #10
    • March 20, 2017 at 3:34 pm
  11. Profile photo of ModEcon Member

    If I can speculate, I suspect that just as with police, it is a thankless job most of the time. Who wants to go fight on the border? It is fight as well (you can search for evidence of a lot of violence on our southern border).

    The pay is better than poor, but still not great to someone who could go get a low level programming or office job (much better work as well).

    According to payscale :

    Those in the early stages of their career can expect to make around $41K; however, individuals with five to 10 years of experience bring in $71K on average — a distinctly larger sum. Border Patrol Agents see a median salary of $81K after reaching one to two decades on the job. Border Patrol Agents who have spent more than 20 years on the job report earning a significantly higher median of $93K.

    Also from payscale :

    Retail Managers with a lot of experience do not necessarily enjoy more money. Respondents with less than five years’ experience take home $34K on average. In contrast, those who have been around for five to 10 years earn a noticeably higher average of $39K. Retail Managers who work for 10 to 20 years in their occupation tend to earn about $44K. After two decades in the workforce, the average Retail Manager generally earns more than ever; median pay for this group is estimated at $50K.

    Which isn’t that much lower especially at entry level.

    • #11
    • March 20, 2017 at 3:48 pm
  12. Profile photo of ModEcon Member

    Susan Quinn:

    • Should the government consider a more gradual roll-out of meeting the goal of 5,000 new border agents?
    • Should new or more stringent screening processes not only be put in place but tested for their efficacy?
    • Do you have confidence in the waiver process for law enforcement and armed forces new hires?
    • Are there ample funds for not only hiring and training new agents, but for hiring those who can determine whether screening and investigation programs are working to reduce corruption among agents?

    There are many other questions that can be asked, but the bottom line is, should we be hiring new agents now, knowing the level of corruption that has existed and may still exist, and knowing the danger we will be in from a less-than-secure border?

    I would answer this in several ways.

    Yes, we should hire since we don’t know if we can make it corruption free and we have a need.

    We should still change as fast as reasonable to remove corruption and go back and review those who weren’t as thoroughly vetted.

    Also, why not apply test programs to certain groups and then phase in corruption free troops. I don’t know if we will raise the pay enough to get good quality applicants, but we won’t know until we try.

    Maybe we could offer good moving bonuses for people in poor areas of the country. IE: if you can’t find a job in Michigan, move.

    • #12
    • March 20, 2017 at 3:59 pm
  13. Profile photo of Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    Thanks for filling in the data and information, ModEcon!! It’s not fun working on the isolated border, either, unless you’re an introvert. And as you say, it can be downright dangerous. I don’t know the answers; that’s why I wrote this OP. And the thought of making compromises or lowering standards to hire more poor prospects makes me cringe.

    • #13
    • March 20, 2017 at 4:02 pm
  14. Profile photo of Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    ModEcon (View Comment):
    Also, why not apply test programs to certain groups and then phase in corruption free troops. I don’t know if we will raise the pay enough to get good quality applicants, but we won’t know until we try.

    I like your positive attitude. This idea of yours makes me think that part of the phase-in could be pairing new folks with reputable people (if they can find them). I think finding ways to make the job more attractive should be a priority. Thanks!

    • #14
    • March 20, 2017 at 4:04 pm
  15. Profile photo of ModEcon Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    Thanks for filling in the data and information, ModEcon!! It’s not fun working on the isolated border, either, unless you’re an introvert. And as you say, it can be downright dangerous. I don’t know the answers; that’s why I wrote this OP. And the thought of making compromises or lowering standards to hire more poor prospects makes me cringe.

    I will double your cringe and raise you a “aaaarrrrgggg” 🙂 . But seriously, think about the military. We have a lot of military personnel.

    DoD Manpower Details
Numbers may not add due to rounding

    But not that many border security personnel.

    Since 1924, the Border Patrol has grown from a handful of mounted agents patrolling desolate areas along U.S. borders to today’s dynamic work force of over 21,000 agents at the end of FY 2012.

    If we can do it for the military, we can do it for the border. In fact, why not hire ex-military? Give them good offers with a stable location.

    Of course, this leads to the other aspect. Make it a good job. There is a lot of pride in being a military person, but I don’t hear as much about border security.

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    I think finding ways to make the job more attractive should be a priority.

    I think you are correct on this. Border security should be a good job. Lets protect our guards (from lawsuits, gangs, threats to family, etc), give them pride (make the department equally prestigious) etc.

    • #15
    • March 20, 2017 at 4:19 pm
  16. Profile photo of Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    ModEcon (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    Thanks for filling in the data and information, ModEcon!! It’s not fun working on the isolated border, either, unless you’re an introvert. And as you say, it can be downright dangerous. I don’t know the answers; that’s why I wrote this OP. And the thought of making compromises or lowering standards to hire more poor prospects makes me cringe.

    I will double your cringe and raise you a “aaaarrrrgggg” 🙂 . But seriously, think about the military. We have a lot of military personnel.

    DoD Manpower Details
Numbers may not add due to rounding

    But not that many border security personnel.

    Since 1924, the Border Patrol has grown from a handful of mounted agents patrolling desolate areas along U.S. borders to today’s dynamic work force of over 21,000 agents at the end of FY 2012.

    If we can do it for the military, we can do it for the border. In fact, why not hire ex-military? Give them good offers with a stable location.

    Of course, this leads to the other aspect. Make it a good job. There is a lot of pride in being a military person, but I don’t hear as much about border security.

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    I think finding ways to make the job more attractive should be a priority.

    I think you are correct on this. Border security should be a good job. Lets protect our guards (from lawsuits, gangs, threats to family, etc), give them pride (make the department equally prestigious) etc.

    The navy better scoop you up super fast, ModEcon!! Wow, this is great thinking. Of course, I’d still like ex-military to go through some kind of screening process; I think that dropping into a corrupt environment could be very tempting for even those most principled people. BTW, what are your plans with the navy?

    • #16
    • March 20, 2017 at 4:39 pm
  17. Profile photo of ModEcon Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    This idea of yours makes me think that part of the phase-in could be pairing new folks with reputable people (if they can find them).

    This is better than I said it. Find a good group of people to build on, then start replacing the ones that we aren’t as sure about.

    Border security is one of the most important functions of the government. Why not make it spectacular? If the CIA gets such a large budget that they can build enough software to break into any system, why can’t we have the same level of competence(sigh, maybe that is a bad example 🙁 ) in border security.

    I fully believe that we are capable of providing oversight over our border forces. If we have corruption now, lets spend big on this program now so as to avoid future expense/problems.

    CBP budget : CBP (customs and border patrol) gets just 13.5 billion$ (out of 60b dhs budget). Isn’t a few more billion a small price to pay in order to curb corruption. In case it isn’t obvious, I am a big fan of the wall. Not just to protect Americans, but especially our agents and officers. Also, I think the 13b included customs so it is a lot more complicated about who gets what money to do what task. EX: ICE is different as well as: USSS, USCG, USCIS, and TSA. All are part of 60b$ DHS budget.

    • #17
    • March 20, 2017 at 4:47 pm
  18. Profile photo of ModEcon Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    BTW, what are your plans with the navy?

    I scored pretty high in their tests (partly since I have some education -cough becauseIamsoamazingandawsomeandsmart cough-) so they are recruiting me for the nuclear program. We will see what happens, but I may enlist pretty soon.

    So long Ricochet….. just kidding 🙂 , it sounds like there is internet on aircraft carriers .

    • #18
    • March 20, 2017 at 4:58 pm
  19. Profile photo of Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    ModEcon (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    BTW, what are your plans with the navy?

    I scored pretty high in their tests (partly since I have some education -cough becauseIamsoamazingandawsomeandsmart cough-) so they are recruiting me for the nuclear program. We will see what happens, but I may enlist pretty soon.

    So long Ricochet….. just kidding 🙂 , it sounds like there is internet on aircraft carriers .

    With a great sense of humor, too! My husband was a navy nuke–power plants, not subs. A long time ago. 😉

    • #19
    • March 20, 2017 at 5:24 pm
  20. Profile photo of Guruforhire Member

    Polygraphs have no efficacy. I wouldnt put to much stock in them. And the process is extrodinarily unpleasant.

    I refuse to ever go through it again.

    • #20
    • March 20, 2017 at 6:41 pm
  21. Profile photo of I Walton Member

    Of course it’s going to be corrupt. My corollary to Gresham’s law is that bad bureaucrats and politicians will drive out good ones because key positions are worth far more to the corrupt than the non corrupt. Still purity would not change the outcome. Drugs cannot be stopped on the supply side. It is simply impossible. Similarly illegal immigration cannot be stopped at the border, it can be slowed, made more costly but it can be significantly reduced only by systems that enable us to identify people within the US, who shop, get jobs, stay in hotels etc. Drugs, on the other hand probably can never be stopped, but shifting our focus toward demand reduction offers some hope for progress while supply side interdiction merely raises returns to traffickers. Interdiction is a non tariff barrier which always raises profits on our side of the border. If you’re an enforcer it raises your job and advancement prospects because it causes the problem to grow and if you’re corrupt the returns are even higher.

    • #21
    • March 21, 2017 at 4:44 am
  22. Profile photo of Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    I Walton (View Comment):
    Of course it’s going to be corrupt. My corollary to Gresham’s law is that bad bureaucrats and politicians will drive out good ones because key positions are worth far more to the corrupt than the non corrupt. Still purity would not change the outcome. Drugs cannot be stopped on the supply side. It is simply impossible. Similarly illegal immigration cannot be stopped at the border, it can be slowed, made more costly but it can be significantly reduced only by systems that enable us to identify people within the US, who shop, get jobs, stay in hotels etc. Drugs, on the other hand probably can never be stopped, but shifting our focus toward demand reduction offers some hope for progress while supply side interdiction merely raises returns to traffickers. Interdiction is a non tariff barrier which always raises profits on our side of the border. If you’re an enforcer it raises your job and advancement prospects because it causes the problem to grow and if you’re corrupt the returns are even higher.

    No disrespect, I, but it sounds like you’re saying that there’s nothing else that can be done. Do you see the possibility that terrorists will eventually figure out (if they haven’t already) that they can easily bribe their way over the southern border? I can’t argue with your points; they’re well-stated. What are your suggestions regarding “demand reduction”?

    • #22
    • March 21, 2017 at 5:15 am
  23. Profile photo of Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    Guruforhire (View Comment):
    Polygraphs have no efficacy. I wouldnt put to much stock in them. And the process is extrodinarily unpleasant.

    I refuse to ever go through it again.

    I’ve never had to do it; I’ll take your word for it, Guru. Any other suggestions for screening?

    • #23
    • March 21, 2017 at 5:16 am
  24. Profile photo of Guruforhire Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Guruforhire (View Comment):
    Polygraphs have no efficacy. I wouldnt put to much stock in them. And the process is extrodinarily unpleasant.

    I refuse to ever go through it again.

    I’ve never had to do it; I’ll take your word for it, Guru. Any other suggestions for screening?

    I am not sure there is anything that can be relied on anymore.

    • #24
    • March 21, 2017 at 5:27 am
  25. Profile photo of I Walton Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment):
    What are your suggestions regarding “demand reduction”?

    Terrorists can and will take advantage of our corrupt and corrupting war on drugs. We must understand that it is absolutely impossible to stop illegal narcotics on the supply side. Narcotics’s trade is not driven by helpless addiction but by the flabby nihilism of our youth and exorbitant returns. There will always be dumb kids, self destructive individuals and vile humans who will take advantage of them. Normal profits are 10000% and if a big bust actually reduces supply, street profits soar. Drugs can take any shape be injected into anything or anyone. If we were to legalize drugs we’d have to test for drivers licenses, scholarships, sports teams employment. Do it now. Instead of filling our jails with small time dealers we could take away drivers licenses, scholarships, sentence to community service etc. for positive test results. If we could, and clearly we can’t, I’d license the import, wholesale and retail of these toxic substances and make it illegal to promote their consumption. No advertising, no pot parties, no gifts, no pretty packaging. Just little brown bags one gets at licensed distributors. Drive the profits out of the business and eliminate the incentive to hook new users the incentives to glamorize. The only policy worse than current one would be to decriminalize the trade which would keep profits up but reduce costs and risks to all parties.

    • #25
    • March 21, 2017 at 6:41 am
  26. Profile photo of Hypatia Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    So any thoughts, anyone, on the border agent mess?

    I read that Omar Mateen, (the Orlando shooter, just in case you’ve forgotten–that seems forever ago!) worked for a company with whom DHS had contracted. This Co goes around near the border in white vans and picks up “OTM”s (other than Mexicans) and drives them to the interior of our country, and releases them.

    See Clarice Feldman in American Thinker, 6/13/16, ” Why Omar Mateen’s Obvious Danger Signals were Missed and he was allowed to Purchase Weapons” and Breitbart 6/17/16, “Orlando Terrorist worked for Firm with DHS Contract”.

    So, uh–is the problem really with individual agents? Or are they just following the boss’s orders?

    • #26
    • March 21, 2017 at 9:12 am
  27. Profile photo of Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    I Walton (View Comment):
    Instead of filling our jails with small time dealers we could take away drivers licenses, scholarships, sentence to community service etc. for positive test results. If we could, and clearly we can’t, I’d license the import, wholesale and retail of these toxic substances and make it illegal to promote their consumption.

    This certainly isn’t the direction we’re going. Legalizing pot in some states is, I believe, a terrible mistake. Thanks for chiming in, I.

    • #27
    • March 21, 2017 at 10:23 am
  28. Profile photo of Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    So, uh–is the problem really with individual agents? Or are they just following the boss’s orders?

    Very good question, Hypatia. As Percival said in this OP early on, who’s watching the watchers? I hope I’m wrong, but I think our biggest vulnerability might well be the southern border. I’m amazed ISIS hasn’t figured that out. Or maybe they have. They could probably find agents to help them. Sheesh.

    • #28
    • March 21, 2017 at 10:25 am
  29. Profile photo of Hypatia Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    So, uh–is the problem really with individual agents? Or are they just following the boss’s orders?

    Very good question, Hypatia. As Percival said in this OP early on, who’s watching the watchers? I hope I’m wrong, but I think our biggest vulnerability might well be the southern border. I’m amazed ISIS hasn’t figured that out. Or maybe they have. They could probably find agents to help them. Sheesh.

    They have. A lot of “middle eastern” people are getting in that way–and, as OTMs, being released into the interior of our country.

    • #29
    • March 21, 2017 at 10:47 am
  30. Profile photo of Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    They have. A lot of “middle eastern” people are getting in that way–and, as OTMs, being released into the interior of our country.

    Sorry. That went right over my head. It’s only a matter of time . . .

    • #30
    • March 21, 2017 at 10:53 am
  1. 1
  2. 2