Islamic jihadists are on the march and 14 people were massacred in San Bernardino, yet DHS seems clueless about what is going on with potential threats to our security. Watch DHS testify before the National Security Subcommittee yesterday.
Posted by Congressman Ron DeSantis on Friday, December 11, 2015
Thursday, December 31, 2015
The incompetence of this woman is absolutely frightening!!!!
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Attack Highlights MINIMUM ENFORCEMENT of Visa Overstays
Although
not specifically mentioned in the following article, it is important to note
that the Federal Government's refusal to enforce the law on all types of visa overstays has
resulted in millions of persons, many from high risk countries, living among us
illegally.
Ben
Ferro (Editor)
benferro@insideins.com
The WSJ
Highlights More Immigration Visa Abuse Connected to San Bernardino Attacks
by Caroline May, breibart.com
The abuse
of a popular visa program intended to allow foreigners to come to the U.S. for educational exchange purposes
is a “sidelight” to the San Bernardino terrorist attacks that shows
additional dysfunction in the nation’s immigration system, The Wall Street
Journal reports.
As the
paper recounts, Enrique Marquez Jr. — the man accused of purchasing the guns
used in the San Bernardino attacks — has also been charged
with entering into phony marriage in 2014 with a Russian woman named Mariya
Chernykh.
Chernykh
initially came to the U.S. on a J-1 visa, but remained in the
U.S. illegally for six years after her three month visa
expired. To date, she has not been charged in connection with the Dec. 2
attacks that killed 14 people.
There is
no cap on the number of J-1 visas issued annually for finite stays and those
who overstay their visas become part of the illegal immigrant population in the
U.S. , the Wall Street Journal reports. Some 40 to 50
percent of the illegal population are those who were granted legal access to
the U.S. but overstayed their visas.
“The J-1
category is a huge, catchall category for all sorts of purposes, and it’s
relatively easy for people to use,” Margaret Stock, an immigration expert, told
the WSJ. “Some J-1s come here, they love America and they hear the misinformation
that nothing is going to happen if they overstay.“
As the WSJ
notes, while it is illegal to overstay one’s visa, the Department of Homeland
Security rarely “tracks down” those who overstay their visa.
“Visa
overstays are a long-standing challenge for immigration enforcement,” Marc
Rosenblum, deputy director for U.S. immigration policy at the
Migration Policy Institute, told the paper. “Overstay enforcement has never
been a top priority, and completing a system to reliably identify and track
overstayers remains years away.”
According
to the WSJ, in fiscal year 2014 the U.S. issued 331,068 J-1 visas to
applicants from 200 countries and rejected another 42,792 applications. The
Journal notes that it is “unclear” how many J-1s are part of the visa overstay
population.
As with
other foreigners in the country illegally, the DHS doesn’t attempt to locate
visa overstays unless a person has committed a crime or is in police custody,
the spokeswoman said. Thus, it is unlikely that Ms. Chernykh would have raised
any red flags.
Marquez’s
marriage to Chernykh on November, 2014 made her eligible to apply for legal
permanent residency, despite having overstayed her initial three-month visa.
A day
after the attack, she was due at a DHS office in Southern California for a green-card interview,
according to law-enforcement officials. Officials wouldn’t comment on whether
she might face any charges or deportation because of the continuing
investigation.
Monday, December 21, 2015
The Immigration Debate: Today’s Issues
Surge at southern border sparks debate across U.S.
By Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Tribune Newspapers
Q:
How many Syrians have arrived at the southern border seeking asylum?
A: It depends on whom you ask. Several Syrian
families have arrived at the southern border in recent
months, seeking asylum, but the administration has delayed releasing complete
figures. According to a Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman, only five
Syrians were stopped by Border Patrol nationwide in the fiscal year that ended
Sept. 30, with 14 the previous year and two the year before that. But U.S. Rep.
Henry Cuellar, whose South Texas district includes Laredo , said there actually were more than 80 Syrians
apprehended at the border last year.
Q:
Has there been an influx of Cuban migrants?
A: There was a 44 percent increase in the
number of Cubans arriving at U.S. ports of entry in the year that ended Sept. 30,
43,159 compared with 24,278 the year before, according to U.S. Customs and
Border Protection. While Cuban migration to the U.S. has increased annually since 2009, officials
conceded that the recent jump significantly exceeds the average increase in the
last six years.
Q:
What’s driving the upswing in Cuban immigrants?
A: Cuban migrants who recently entered Texas through Laredo told Tribune Newspapers that they fled after
the U.S. and Cuba announced last December the beginning of a process
to normalize relations. The change, migrants feared, would mean the end of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966, which allows
Cubans who make it to the U.S. to stay and work legally. Their fears appear
unjustified in the short term. Secretary of State John Kerry said last summer
that he had no intention of changing the policy.
Q:
Last year, President Barack Obama said Central American children and families
flooding the border had created a “humanitarian crisis.” What is happening now?
A: There has been a new surge this fall in
Central American families and unaccompanied children arriving at the southern
border, according to Customs and Border Protection figures. In October and
November , the number of families intercepted there
nearly tripled to 12,505 compared with the same period last year, while the
number of unaccompanied children more than doubled to 10,588.
Q:
Where are the unaccompanied minors coming from?
A: Most travel from Guatemala and El Salvador .
Q:
What is the status of Obama’s proposal to give temporary legal status to up to
5 million immigrants now in the U.S. ?
A: The programs, Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent
Residents, would not apply to recent arrivals, such as the Central
American families, Cubans or Syrians stopped at the border recently. The
programs were designed to allow children brought to the country by their
parents, or parents of U.S. citizens or resident children, to stay in the U.S.
Texas, joined by 25 states, sued to block the programs, arguing that they
create an undue burden including associated costs, such as the cost of issuing
immigrants driver’s licenses. Texas attorneys asked for a 30-day extension until
Jan. 20 to respond because of a heavy workload. On Dec. 8, the court denied Texas ’ request and granted an eight-day delay
instead.
Ben Ferro (Editor)
benferro@insideins.com
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
On the Question of Refugee Vetting
You're
being lied to and perhaps a bit naive if you believe that security vetting of
Middle Eastern refugees is meaningful. Here's why:
First: The claim by the government that the security vetting process of
refugees often takes two years and, therefore, should be seen as thorough and
complete is pure fiction. The fact is that while the process often is lengthy,
its duration has little or nothing to do with security or background checks.
The greatest delays are generated by "cultural training" and other
administrative functions conducted by community organizations. (These
organizations are under the umbrella of the State Department and are handsomely
compensated for these services)
Second: True security vetting is dependent in large part on the exchange of
information between governmental law enforcement organizations and from
informants in home countries. Where traditional governments are in disarray or
no longer even exist and where sources in country are extremely limited as is
the case in most of the refugee providing countries, vetting is at best a crap
shoot. What is left in the vetting process are "camp sources" and the
interviews with the applicants.
In sum,
without criminal records and in country source information, vetting is a
misnomer for "best available."
Ben Ferro
(editor)
benferro@insideins.com
(Ben Ferro served for six years as
the Justice Department's Immigration Director at Embassy Rome with
responsibility for all refugee processing of persons from the then Soviet
Union, the Middle Eastern countries, as well as those refugees fleeing war torn
areas in Africa . During Mr. Ferro's tenure, tens of thousands of persons were
processed each year through INS Rome operations.)
Saturday, December 5, 2015
Enough is Enough!
This
is hypocrisy of the highest order. Here's the NY Times suggesting that
Immigration requirements should be tightened for intending female spouses of US
Citizens. This is the same organization that whined loudly that we shouldn't
treat women and children with the same restrictions when considering tightening
the Refugee and Visa Waiver Programs for persons coming our of Syria . Would the Times
want the U.S. to tighten up Visa
requirements of intending female spouses coming instead from their historically
political support communities? I think not.
Ben
Ferro (Editor, www.insideins.com)
For Woman
in Shooting, Easy Passage Through U.S. Visa Process
By Julia Preston, The New York
Times
The woman
involved in the shootings in San Bernardino , Calif. , on Wednesday passed through two
rounds of criminal and national security background checks as she obtained a
“fiancé visa” and later a resident green card to live in the United States , federal officials said.
Those
checks turned up no negative information about the woman, Tashfeen Malik, a
federal official said Friday. But after the F.B.I. said Friday that it was
investigating the shootings as an act of terrorism — Ms. Malik pledged
allegiance to the Islamic State in a Facebook post the day of the attack —
officials were scouring her immigration record to see if there were any
revealing details they might have missed.
“There was
nothing she presented that would have been flagged,” a federal official said,
speaking anonymously to discuss a fast-moving investigation involving several
federal agencies. But, he said, “We’re going back right now and double-checking
and looking over everyone’s shoulder who was involved.”
The
information that Ms. Malik came to live in this country legally has heightened
concern about security reviews in the immigration system. It has also renewed a
tense debate in Washington , particularly after the Nov. 13
terrorist attacks in Paris provoked a furor in Congress and
among state governments about the vetting of refugees from Syria and Iraq .
On
Thursday, two Republican senators, Ted Cruz of Texas, who is running for
president, and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, demanded that the Obama administration
provide them with detailed information on the immigration history of Ms. Malik,
who came to the United States and married Syed Rizwan Farook, an American
citizen whom officials have identified as her partner in Wednesday’s shooting that
killed 14 people and injured 21.
Ms. Malik,
29, was granted a K-1 visa, also known as the fiancé visa, in Pakistan in July 2014, the officials said,
and she traveled to the United States that month. The review process for
a K-1 visa is “not as strict” as the vetting for refugees, Josh Earnest, the
White House spokesman said. But immigration officials said the K-1 review was
more extensive than the vetting of a foreigner who planned to only visit. Mr.
Earnest said Obama administration officials were examining Ms. Malik’s journey
to this country to see if any policies should be changed.
As a
routine part of the visa and green card applications, Ms. Malik gave
fingerprints and other identifying information, which were passed twice through
background checks using the State Department’s watch lists and the immigration,
counterterror and criminal databases at the Department of Homeland Security and
at the F.B.I.
For the
K-1 visa, Mr. Farook, 28, initiated the application to bring in his fiancée,
who provided a Pakistani passport. Adhering to standard procedure for the K-1
visa, Ms. Malik had to demonstrate to State Department consular officials in Pakistan that their relationship was
legitimate, and that she and Mr. Farook intended to marry in the United States within 90 days after she received
the visa. Mr. Farook had to prove that he and Ms. Malik had met in person at
least once in the previous two years, typically done by providing photos
showing them together, personal messages and travel reservations. After the
90-day period, a K-1 visa expires and cannot be renewed.
As part of
that review, Ms. Malik had a personal interview with a consular officer in Pakistan , federal officials said.
The couple
came to the country in July 2014 on a flight that originated in Jidda , Saudi Arabia , two federal officials said.
According to a certificate obtained by The Associated Press, the two were
married in Riverside County , Calif. , in August 2014, within the 90-day
time limit.
On Sept.
30, 2014 ,
Mr. Farook applied for a green card to make Ms. Malik a permanent resident,
based on her marriage to an American citizen. There is no limit on the number
of green cards available to spouses of citizens, so the process generally moves
quickly.
Since
green cards are granted by a different agency, the United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services, Ms. Malik had to undergo more background checks,
probably providing a new set of fingerprints, officials said.
It is
routine for an officer from the citizenship agency to interview both spouses,
but officials there could not confirm that Ms. Malik was interviewed, citing
privacy concerns. Under the standard procedure, the couple would have had to
provide documents and undergo questioning, primarily to persuade immigration
officers their marriage was not fraudulent. Typically the officer would
interview the spouses separately, often asking highly personal questions about
foods or pastimes the other spouse enjoyed or other intimate details, to make
sure the immigrant and the spouse lived together.
Ms. Malik
received a conditional green card in July 2015, officials said. After two
years, the couple would have had to apply again to get a regular green card,
showing they were still married. Both were killed in a shootout with police on
Wednesday, leaving behind a 6-month-old daughter.
Thursday, December 3, 2015
San Bernardino Violence
Terrorism??
The White House says
"Too early to tell"
Take your pick, the
White House or the facts
The facts from law enforcement:
·
Subject was in touch
with terror suspect abroad
·
Subject visited Pakistan in 2014
·
"This was not a
workplace argument" Local PD
·
Subjects' home had bomb
making tools and devices
·
Subjects' vehicle
contained hundreds of rounds of ammunition
·
Subjects' home had 12
assembled pipe bombs
Ben Ferro says:: Are you
blind?
Update:
FBI Investigates Shootings as Terrorism
Sunday, November 29, 2015
New Refugee Program Is Actually an Unauthorized Family Reunification Program For People Who Came To The United States Illegally
Central
American "Refugee" Program Admits Few Actual Refugees
By Jessica Vaughan
Most of
the youths being approved under the Obama administration's new Central American
Minors Refugee/Parole (CAM ) Program do not qualify as refugees, but are being admitted
as parolees, according to new data released in a stakeholders' teleconference
last week, confirming earlier reports.
This
program, unveiled in November 2014, has been misleadingly described as a
refugee program that will provide a safe alternative to hiring the criminal
alien smuggling organizations that have been enriched by the administration's
open door policy for illegal juvenile and family arrivals from Central America.
In the official program announcement, the State Department stated:
The refugee/parole program will not
be a pathway for undocumented parents to bring their children to the United States .
In fact,
as even the most cursory examination of the program makes clear, the CAM is essentially an unauthorized
family reunification program for Central Americans who came to the United States illegally and who are not eligible
for any legal program to bring in the family members that they left behind.
So far,
about 4,300 applications have been accepted, representing about 4,800 people.
The parent sponsors must fall into one of five categories, mostly covering
illegal aliens in the United States who have been given a temporary
quasi-legal status.
Of those
adjudicated (so far about 90), only 12 percent received conditional approval as
refugees. The vast majority, 84 percent, were conditionally approved as
parolees. The remaining 4 percent are undergoing additional review (meaning
they don't appear to be approvable at this point, but the agency will do its
best to find a way to say yes).
A
representative of one of the many "mas-migration" groups on the
conference call voiced disgruntlement that so few of the applicants were being
awarded refugee status, which in addition to qualifying the applicant for a
vast array of public welfare benefits also leads to a green card and
potentially citizenship. A USCIS presenter noted that parole is not such a bad
deal either, as it's a status from which one potentially can adjust to a green
card, and the relatives of parolees also can obtain parole.
A
participant from the Post-Deportation Human Rights Program of Boston College
asked the government officials to confirm that it is possible for juveniles who
have been deported from the United States , and who have other problems such
as criminal convictions or gang membership that would normally disqualify them,
to be approved for this program. The officials confirmed that this is possible,
and that these applicants could seek a waiver for certain disqualifying
factors, as refugees can.
One
participant asked if a parent could sponsor a child for this program if the
parent is currently in removal proceedings. A government official said he would
look into that.
No
information was offered on how many of the applications have been received in
each of the qualifying categories of sponsors. This information is tracked on
the Affidavits of Responsibility that are part of the application. The five
categories of status that qualify a parent to sponsor a child through CAM are: Lawful Permanent Resident
(even though green card holders already can sponsor their children so they have
no need for refugee status or parole); Temporary Protected Status; Parole;
Deferred Action (including U visa holder, VAWA petitioners, and DACA
recipients); and Deferred Enforced Departure/Withholding of Removal. All of
these categories except for LPR are used primarily to launder the status of
illegal aliens. Under the law, individuals with TPS, Parole, Deferred Action,
and DED are not permitted to sponsor family members for admission because they
are not a legal form of admission or permanent residence.
During the
Q&A part of the teleconference I asked if the government presenters could
provide information on 1) the number of applicants seeking waivers of
ineligibility/inadmissibility and 2) the number of applications from sponsors
in each of the five qualified categories. They asked me to submit the questions
through their website, and I have not heard back. The Senate Judiciary
Committee submitted similar questions after holding a hearing on the program
last April entitled "Eroding the Law and Diverting Taxpayer Resources: An
Examination of the Administration's Central American Minors Refugee/Parole
Program".
Reprinted
from Jessica Vaughan’s Blog, Center for Immigration Studies
Ben Ferro
(Editor, Insideins.com)
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Although No Longer a “Hot News Item”, Wave Of Illegal Aliens Continues Unabated Across Our Southern Border
Thousands
of Children Crossed US-Mexico Border in October
By Seth Robbins, Associated Press
Nearly
5,000 unaccompanied immigrant children were caught illegally crossing the U.S. border with Mexico in October, almost double the
number from October 2014, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.
Also, in
the figures released Tuesday, the number of family members crossing together
nearly tripled from October 2014 — from 2,162 to 6,029.
The
numbers spiked despite expectations of lower numbers due to the colder winter
months coming, better enforcement along the border and efforts by Mexican
authorities to stem the stream of Central American migrants to the U.S. Though
tens of thousands of women and children from Central America were caught at the border in
summer 2014, it had dropped by nearly half during the 2015 federal fiscal that
ended Sept. 30.
The 4,973
unaccompanied children caught at the border last month is the highest number
that Washington, D.C.-based think tank Washington Office on Latin America has recorded for October since
their records began in 2009, said Adam Isacson, a border expert and senior
analyst.
The high
numbers buck the typical trends of crossings peaking in spring then declining
through summer and fall, Isacson said. But there was an uptick in families and
children crossing in July, and the numbers have stayed over 4,000 each month
since.
"Rather
than a big jump, it's been a steady burn," he said. "I think we are
almost in crisis mode with this many months of sustained arrivals."
Most
children and families trying to cross the border in October were from El Salvador . Increased violence in the tiny
country, which averaged 30 murders a day in August, is likely partly to blame,
Isacson said. Previously, Guatemala had the most families and children
apprehended at the border.
While the Rio Grande Valley remains the center of migration
flows in Texas , immigrants are starting to venture farther west. The
number of unaccompanied children caught in Del Rio sector jumped from 120 to 237,
while 187 children were apprehended in the remote Big Bend area, up from just 13 a year ago.
According
to internal intelligence files from the Homeland Security Department, most
families interviewed told Customs and Border Protection officials that
smugglers decided where they would try to cross. They reported that the cost
ranged from about $5,000 to cross the border near Matamoros or Reynosa , Mexico , across the border from the Rio Grande Valley , but was about $1,500 to $2,000 to
cross near Ciudad Acuna, across the river from Del Rio .
Carlos
Bartolo Solis, director of a shelter in Arriaga , Chiapas , said migrants are eschewing the
dangerous train that begins its journey near his shelter after raids by Mexican
immigration authorities. The flow of migrants, however, has not diminished, he
said, adding that they are moving along other routes, often walking.
"They
are moving in hiding," he said in Spanish.
The
administration was caught off guard by the sudden surge of children and
families in 2014 and made several efforts to curb the flow of people crossing
the border illegally, including media campaigns in Central America to scare people out of attempting
the dangerous journey.
U.S.
Customs and Border Protection said in a statement this week that the campaigns
are still in place and highlight that "those attempting to come here
illegally are a top priority for removal."
Immigrant
families caught illegally crossing the border between July and September told U.S. immigration agents they made the
dangerous trip in part because they felt they were likely to succeed, according
to the intelligence files. Immigrants spoke of "permisos," or passes,
that they believed would allow them to remain in the United States .
Ben Ferro (Editor)
benferro@insideins.com
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Problems with Automation: The rest of the story
On Monday,
I reposted a story which appeared in the Washington
Post entitled, “A Decade Into A Project To Digitize U.S. Immigration Forms,
Just 1 Is Online” which recounts problems that US Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) has recently had trying to automate their “antiquated approach
to managing immigration with a system of digitized records”.
The Post article, outlining a scandalous
decade and disastrous waste in the electronic modernization of the INS , now USCIS under the Homeland
Security Department, was a well done account of the gross ineptitude at the
troubled Agency.
At the
risk of being seen as piling on, we cannot pass up the opportunity to record
and provide our readers with the "Rest of the Story" as a favorite
radio commentator of the past coined.
Outlined
below is a compilation of frank and candid recollections of many many persons
who "worked" on the project from within the government and from the
private sector, not for 10 years and one billion dollars but for 20 years and
much more taxpayer dollars. First it must be said that while the primary
participants in this effort were INS /CIS government employees and
contract employees of IBM , many others from other government entities and other
private contractors contributed in making this one of the biggest contracting
fiascoes in government.
It can be
said with certainty now, that only IBM and other contractor contributors
benefited from this two decade project perhaps to the tune of two Billion
dollars. Indeed the irony is that government is likely worse off than when it
all began.
As noted,
during this latest endeavor, which USCIS has dubbed as “Transformation”, the agency has spent more than a billion dollars,
over a period of 10 years, with very little to show for their efforts. In fact,
as pointed out in the Post article,
this venture has resulted in the automation of only one of the almost 100 forms
filed with USCIS.
While this
revelation might seem shocking to most people, those of us who have worked for
this agency and for it’s predecessor, the INS , aren’t the least bit surprised. That’s
because the immigration agency has had a very long history of failed attempts
to automate their paper intense immigration benefit filing and adjudication
process.
A Little
History
The first
(and, in my opinion, the last) real success that the INS had in automating it’s records was
when they deployed the Central Index System in 1985. This mainframe computer
system, which tracks all immigration paper files was, in fact, so successful,
that it is still very actively in use today, some 30 years later, despite
dozens of efforts to replace it with newer technology.
The
agency’s next major attempt at automation came several years later with the creation
of the CLAIMS 3 system. Unfortunately, this system, which is used to manage
most of the paper applications for immigration benefits serviced by the INS , did not include one of the most important, the
Application for Naturalization. In addition, although this CLAIMS system was
available in the agency’s 4 Regional Service Centers, it was not accessible by
the 80+ USCIS field offices where the bulk of the adjudication of immigration
benefits took place at the time. Although much time and money was spent
attempting to roll this automated system to field offices in the early 1990s,
it failed miserably. In fact, only one office out of the 80 received this
computer system.
Fast
forward to the mid 1990s, when the INS decided to abandon the CLAIMS 3
system and create a whole new system, using a different technology, which they
would eventually call CLAIMS 4. The plan was to roll all of the application
form types into this new system and then take CLAIMS 3 off line. Unfortunately,
after years of development, and many cost overruns, when CLAIMS 4 was finally
unveiled it only supported one application, the Application for Naturalization
(do I detect a theme here?). As I
understand it, development was halted because someone realized that the new
system was not compatible with this newly emerging phenomena called the
Internet. As a result, the CLAIMS 3 system is still in use today.
So, at the
dawn of the twenty-first century, INS was stuck with two separate major
automated systems, which used old technology, and which were very expensive to
maintain. As I recall, in 2000 a decision was made by INS Headquarters to create yet another
major system which would replace both CLAIMS systems, as well as the dozens of
ancillary automated systems which filled in the gaps. This effort, christened
Modernization, set out on a five year undertaking to gather technical
requirements to develop a new automated system, code-named, TABS. Although the
TABS experiment cost the INS millions of dollars and eventually resulted in an extremely
detailed functional requirements document consisting of hundreds of pages, no
actual automated system was ever built.
Enter
Transformation
In 2005,
after several failed attempts at modernization, the INS , now re-branded as USCIS, set out
to transform its operating model from a paper intensive process to an purely
electronic process, and the Transformation Program was born. To accomplish this
transformation, the agency decided to bring in outside help in the form of an
Information Technology contractor. After much vetting by USCIS, IBM was selected for this role. As the
Solutions Architect for this project,
IBM was supposed to come up with
solutions to help USCIS get to its new “transformed state”. Unfortunately, this
was much harder to accomplish than anyone could have imagined, and a 5 year, $500
million project has eventually stretched to almost 11 years and over 1 billion
dollars (and counting).
As stated
in the Post article, the project was
mismanaged right from the start. Instead of building requirements for the
system based on the aforementioned extensive TABS requirements document, USCIS
simply threw this document out and started the requirements gathering process
anew. Now, I have to tell you, I worked for the agency for more than 35 years
and I can say with relative certainty that the basic mechanics of adjudicating
most applications for immigration benefits hadn’t changed much, if at all, between
the way it was done in 2000, as compared to 2005.
In any
event, a large part of the problem with the creation and development of ELIS , as the new electronic immigration
was called, was the way that the agency set about trying to determine what the
new system would do. USCIS insiders have informed me that, in a misguided
attempt at including everyone in the process,
this was done via large scale telephonic conference calls involving
dozens of USCIS employees in offices all
over the country. These mass meetings, I’m told, were far from productive, and
many times devolved into hours of petty arguments over points minutia, while
missing important broad concepts.
Another
problem encountered in developing the ELIS system was the apparent power
struggle between the newly created Office of Transformation within USCIS, and
the USCIS Office of Information Technology (OIT), which was ultimately
responsible for all issues involving automation. This led to OIT being left
“out of the loop” many times on technology decisions, a fact which later came
back to haunt the agency.
And,
although IBM , I’m told, likes to dump the whole mess which is Transformation on
USCIS, they are not entirely blameless. I was once informed by a former
colleague who was heavily involved in the development of the ELIS project, that
it seemed to her that IBM ’s primary objective in this effort was not to assist USCIS
in automating its processes, but rather to sell the agency as many IBM products in the development of
ELIS as they could before they were ultimately canned as the solutions
architect.
Winners
and Losers
In the
end, IBM walked away from the project
having earned triple the amount of money they were initially promised, leaving
USCIS with a product that was so badly flawed that they eventually just threw
it away and started with a totally new approach.
Did those
who mismanaged this project so badly receive their just desserts? Well not
exactly. The senior managers in charge of the project all received nice promotions
to positions of their choosing, including the former USCIS Director, under
whose watch this debacle took place.
And what
of the few whistleblowers, who tried, in vain, to shine a light on this
mismanagement? Well, they were quickly transferred to other agencies based on
“management need”.
The Dust
Settles
Transformation
today at USCIS has taken a new direction. The new system being developed, now called
ELIS2, is projected to be completed in 2019 at an additional cost to the agency
of two billion dollars. I’m not that optimistic. Sources within the agency have
told me that there continue to be problems with system development. Maybe USCIS
should just stick with the paper-based process; after all, it’s worked OK since
1952.
Ben Ferro
benferro@insideins.com
Labels:
computers,
ELIS,
failure,
IT,
legal immigration,
Transformation,
USCIS
Monday, November 16, 2015
An Open Letter: Curtailing Syrian Nationals Unfettered Movement Into the U.S
"An
Open letter to the President"
Mr.
President:
I and
several other former Directors of the INS ask you in the light of the
present upheaval in the EU to immediately
consider
shuttering the Visa Waiver eligibility program from persons coming from
European countries who have resettled
there from
Syria .
In
addition, acceptance of persons applying for Refugee Status from Syria should be subject to such scrutiny
as necessary to
establish their bona fides identical to
the former Soviet refugee program.
Ben Ferro (Editor)
benferro@insideins.com
Friday, November 13, 2015
Here's A Guy That Gets It
Sanctuary
City Policies Will ‘No Longer Be Tolerated In Texas ,’ Says Governor Abbott
By Bob
Price, Breitbart.com
Texas
Governor Greg Abbott admonished Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez over her
recent decision to consider honoring immigration detainers on a “case-by-case”
basis. The governor said sanctuary city policies like this will “no longer be
tolerated in Texas .”
Governor
Abbott wrote the tersely worded letter to Sheriff Valdez after her decision to
scale back on honoring immigration detainers sent to her jail by the federal
government’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Her announcement was
reported by Breitbart Texas on October 12.
“’Sanctuary
City’ policies like those promoted by your recent decision to implement your
own case-by-case immigrant detention plan will no longer be tolerated in
Texas,” Abbott began in his letter attached below. “Your decision to not fully
honor U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) requests to detain
criminal immigrants poses a serious danger to Texans. These detainers provide
ICE with the critical notice and time it needs to take incarcerated immigrants
into federal custody.”
“Your
refusal to fully participate in a federal law enforcement program intended to
keep dangerous criminals off the streets leaves the State no choice but to take
whatever actions are necessary to protect our fellow Texans,” Abbott continued.
“Now more than ever, it is essential that state, federal, and local law
enforcement work collaboratively to protect our fellow Texans and to ensure
that our laws are upheld, not disregarded.”
The
governor laid out actions he and the state of Texas could take in response to the
renegade actions of this sheriff. Those include the following:
§
Passing
laws that prohibit any policy or action that promotes sanctuary to people in
this state illegally.
§
Enacting
laws that make it illegal for a Sheriff’s Department to not honor a federal
immigration detainer request.
§
Evaluating
the extent to which local taxpayers should foot the bill for local decisions
that increase costs for Texas ’ health and education systems.
§
Amending
the Tort Claims Act to ensure counties are fully financially responsible for
the actions of any illegal immigrants who are released because the county’s Sheriff
failed to honor an ICE detainer request.
“No matter
what we do, someone is going to get upset,” Valdez told Dallas Morning News
reporters. “We can’t base our decisions on who is going to get upset with us.
We have to base our decisions on what is best for the whole.” She did not elaborate on how releasing
criminal illegal aliens into the community before ICE is able to determine if
there is grounds for detention or deportation makes her community safer.
Lopez said
that instead of looking at felonies vs. misdemeanors, she would instead base
her decisions on a case-by-case basis.
“Now more
than ever,” Abbott concluded in his letter, “it is essential that state,
federal, and local law enforcement work collaboratively to protect our fellow
Texans and to ensure that our laws are upheld, not disregarded.”
Ben Ferro (Editor)
benferro@insideins.com
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Nothing would surprise me anymore!
Sources:
Vocal Supporter Of Sanctuary Cities On Short List To Be Next Head Of Border
Patrol
By William La Jeunesse, FoxNews.com
A former San Francisco police chief and vocal supporter
of a sanctuary cities policy is on a short list of candidates to become the new
chief of the Border Patrol, according to sources.
As police
chief, Heather Fong shielded illegal immigrants, including aliens who committed
crimes, from deportation. In contrast, it is the job of the U.S. Border Patrol
to catch and deport all illegal immigrants, including those with a criminal
history.
"If
they bring (a police chief) in for political purposes based on the sanctuary
cities model, that politicizes the job and I think it completely undermines credibility
and morale in the organization," House Committee on Homeland Security
Chairman Mike McCaul, R-Texas, told Fox News.
"If
you have someone who is advocating for sanctuary cities, that's the opposite
side. They welcome these illegal immigrants to stay in the country. And so I
think it's at cross-purpose with the mission itself."
Fong,
according to Border Patrol, DHS and Capitol Hill sources, is one of several
candidates to replace current chief Mike Fischer, who announced his resignation
last month.
Fong is
currently an assistant secretary for state and local law enforcement at the
Department of Homeland Security. If tapped, she would be the first outsider to
lead the Border Patrol in its 90-year history.
That
decision is up to Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske,
who released a statement Monday saying, “"At this time, CBP has not begun
the search for the Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol. It is completely false that
any individual could be a potential candidate at this time. We are currently
preparing the paperwork to begin the process."
Rank and file agents were surprised she would
be considered.
"The
appointment of Heather Fong would prove that the Border Patrol is no longer the
enforcement agency that Congress and the American public intended it to
be," according to a statement released by Brandon Judd, head of the
agents' union.
"Heather
Fong oversaw a sanctuary city, which is directly contrary to our mission. Her
appointment would be for political purposes and the trust of the men and woman
of the Border Patrol in DHS and CBP leadership would be lost."
During her
five years as the chief of SFPD, Fong refused to cooperate with ICE, telling
reporters in November 2008, "We do not cooperate with ICE when they go out
for enforcement of immigration violations of the law."
A few
months earlier, she appeared in a public service campaign telling illegal
immigrants they're welcome in the city. In promoting San Francisco 's sanctuary city policy on TV,
radio, posters and brochures in five languages, Fong said illegal immigrants
had nothing to fear under her watch. "San Francisco is committed to providing safe
access to public services to our communities," she said.
In a news
conference unveiling the campaign, she told reporters, "We do not work on
enforcing immigration laws."
The chief
of the Border Patrol position does not require congressional approval. But
given the "border security first" mentality among many on Capitol
Hill, McCaul said he believes bringing in an outsider could be a hard sell.
Ben Ferro (Editor)
benferro@Insideins.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)