Fewer border agents in south?
Other federal spokesman says no reduction on border

By Jonathon Shacat
Wick News Service
Published/Last Modified on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:56 PM MDT


Federal officials do not intend to cut the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents deployed on the Southwestern border, despite comments to the contrary last week.


In an article published in the Herald/Review on Friday, Lloyd Easterling, acting media director for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, stated that some agents will be moved from the U.S.-

Mexico border to the U.S.-Canada border in fiscal year 2010, which starts Thursday.

Wick News Service contacted Easterling to confirm what he had told conservative media outlet CNSNet.com — that the number of agents along the Mexican border will be decreased by 384, for a total of 17,015.

However, on Monday, Matt Chandler, acting deputy press secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, told the Herald/Review that Easterling’s information was not correct.

According to Chandler, there are 17,415 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border, up from 16,090 in January. Officials do not plan to lower that number, he said.

“The numbers reflected in the annual performance report did not reflect initiatives announced by DHS to enhance border security in March,” Chandler said.

Glenn Spencer, president of American Border Patrol, a nongovernmental organization, said he believes the first reports were correct and that a negative public reaction prompted the Department of Homeland Security to change its story.

“In other words, the DHS was making decisions as to manpower requirements based on public opinion, not sound management practices,” he said.

He added that he thinks the confusion over how many agents are needed stems from lack of a clear definition of their mission.

“It might be smart to move some agents to the northern border, but how do we know?” he said. “The Government Accountability Office has pointed to the inability of DHS to assess the impact of the new fence as a major deficiency.”

Spencer believes if the Department of Homeland Security had built on the U.S.-Mexico border the 700-mile double-fence originally mandated by Congress in October 2006, it could have reduced the number of agents on the Southwestern border by at least 3,000. He said he is unable to prove this, although he could do so with the proper budget.

He said the recent episode of conflicting information from the federal government points to the need for Congress to establish an independent watchdog agency to evaluate the effectiveness of the Border Patrol and report the results to Congress and the public.

“It is time to stop managing the border by putting a finger to the wind,” he said.

Chandler pointed out the department has tripled the number of intelligence analysts working on the Southwestern border, and it has doubled the number of agents working to identify and apprehend violent criminal aliens.

“We have ramped up southbound inspections to search for illegal weapons and cash, seizing more than $33 million thus far in 2009 — up from $6.2 million at this point in 2008,” he added. “We have added mobile X-ray machines, updated license plate readers at 52 outbound lanes and, for the first time, have begun inspecting all southbound rail shipments into Mexico.”

 

Comments

    Judd wrote on Oct 7, 2009 1:37 AM:

    " Stephen, you must be joking! You wouldn't be living in Douglas without Mexico. "

    Stephen wrote on Oct 1, 2009 1:58 PM:

    " Here's a thought, why not let Mexico inspect southbound traffic? Why is the US responsible for border inspections both ways? Let them do their part of inspections to protect their country. Mexico is a parasite on the rear of the US. It's way past time to cut them off completely. "

Write a Comment

Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. They review submitted comments periodically during the day for offensive or off-topic content before posting. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. The Douglas Dispatch is not liable for messages from third parties.

DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
* Personal Information (phone numbers, addresses, etc.)

Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in douglasdispatch.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Douglas Dispatch. The Douglas Dispatch does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Douglas Dispatch spokespersons.

Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
   









Contact Us

Email the Editor
530 11th Street (85607)
P.O. Drawer H
Douglas, AZ 85608
tel: 520.364.3424
fax: 520.364.6750