Two recent articles appear to provide wildly and widely varying figures for the number of illegal alien apprehensions.  In a May 16, 2006, article, Washington Post reporters Sylvia Moreno and Ann Scott Tyson reported that 1.2 million apprehensions were made in 2005.  An accompanying chart displayed these figures by the nine Border Patrol sectors.  The source of these numbers, per the article, was the U.S. Border Patrol.

In a May 20, 2006, Associated Press story by Lara Jakes Jordan, “Skinner’s report said 36 percent of the 774,112 illegal aliens apprehended in the United States in the past three years were released because there were not enough beds or funds available to hold them…”  Ms. Jordan was reporting on a 52-page report issued by Richard L. Skinner, Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

I’m e-mailing Mr. Skinner, DHS’s Public Affairs Office, and the three reporters asking that they provide the public – through “The Forum” at Understanding Government — an explanation for this apparent discrepancy, and to furnish accurate volumes.  Clearly, if over one million illegal aliens are being apprehended yearly at our nine southern border sectors, or nearly 3,300 daily, that’s a big, big problem, rife with massive operational and funding issues about which the U.S. public needs to become well informed.

Thanks in advance to these reporters and public servants for providing Understanding Government – and the public in turn — accurate and meaningful numbers surrounding the important and emotional issue of immigration.

Charles Peters — May 2006

Hiding in plain site

We’ve been warning our readers for years that it’s often too easy to penetrate the cover used by the CIA’s supposedly covert employees.  Now, The Chicago Tribune has provided us with new evidence.  It found that simply by conducting an internet search, it could discover the location of two dozens of the agency’s covert workplaces, and the identities of 2,653 of its employees, a number of whom are covert, working, according to the Tribune, “in jobs that could make them terrorist targets.”  The CIA’s spokesperson, Jennifer Dyck, explained to the Tribune, “Cover is a complex issue that is more complex in the Internet age.”  That’s a new excuse for a failure that unfortunately is not new at all.

McCarthyism: myth and reality

I recently reviewed Shooting Star, Tom Wicker’s excellent new book about Joe McCarthy, for the New York Observer.  In the review, I made a point that I would like to share with Monthly readers.

There is no question that McCarthy and the larger movement that came to be called McCarthyism did immense harm.  Innocent people lost their jobs, talented actors found themselves blacklisted for more than a decade, with few people bothering to ask what difference does it make whether an actor is a communist or not?

There was a time when communism seemed attractive.  I am sure some young people in Hollywood and in Greenwich Village became communists because it was hip enough in the 30’s and early 40’s that they thought it might help them get laid.  Certainly similar thoughts passed through my mind as I bought my first copy of the Daily Worker at a Sheridan Square newsstand in 1945.  And many other liberals were sympathetic to Communism for more elevated reasons: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need” was a siren song for idealists.

The result was that liberals have always had a soft spot for McCarthy’s victims and have not only understood the harm he did but have also written books and made movies about it.

What they have not understood as well is the harm done by the myth of McCarthyism – the myth that all the charges made by McCarthy and his allies were false.

There were real spies – not only Alger Hiss at State but Harry Dexter White at Treasury, Lauchlin Currie at the White House, and David Greenglass at Los Alamos, who had been recruited by another Soviet agent, Julius Rosenberg.

We know these spies were real because of what are called the Venona intercepts.  These are secret Soviet intelligence messages that were decoded by our government in the 1940s but not made public until 1995.  Tom Wicker is a good enough reporter to acknowledge the intercepts, but the fact that he does so only in footnotes tends to minimize their importance.  Wicker also cites a Soviet report that 40 of their top American agents had been neutralized by 1950 to argue that whatever real danger of Soviet spying that might have existed earlier “was all but over” by the time McCarthy made his first sensational charge in Wheeling, W. Va.

There were, however, other important Soviet agents who were still on the loose.  Of the 344 Americans whose code names were identified by Venona, less than half could be identified by their real names.  Of the 200 who could not be nailed, we know that at least two were important atomic spies, one had been a top officer in the CIA’s predecessor, the OSS, one had been a captain in the Navy, and one had been inside enough to have met privately with Roosevelt and Churchill.  Did these people continue to spy?

We may never know the answer, but we do know that Russia continued to spy.  It did seem, however, to switch from ideologically committed agents to those who spied for money:  the U.S. Navy’s Walker family, the FBI’s Robert Hanssen and the CIA’s Eddy Howard, and Aldrich Ames come to mind.

One reason Soviet spies and other hostile foreign agents continued to enjoy success was ineptitude at the FBI and the CIA.  A major reason for this ineptitude was the failure of critics to focus on the competence of these agencies.  Liberals only criticized them when they threatened civil liberties; conservatives only when they failed to serve right-wing agendas.  The result is that both organizations continued to stumble too often, all the way to 9/11 and Iraq.  Maybe conservatives will never wake up to the problem, but that is no reason why liberals can’t work for a smarter, more effective FBI and CIA as zealously as they seek to protect our civil liberties from abuse by them.

Was anyone as amazed as I was to learn that nearly 1.2 million people were apprehended by the Border Patrol in 2005?

In an article by Sylvia Moreno and Ann Scott Tyson ("Bringing in Guard Raises Concerns Of Militarization," May 16, 2006, The Washington Post), they cite these stats for the nine border sectors between California and Texas provided by our Border Patrol.

Here’s the math:  1.2 million annually equals 3,200 daily.  No wonder President Bush said Monday night that we don’t have enough holding cells.

What are we to do?  Can we do anything?  Does the answer rest with Mexico?  Does it have to work harder to make its economy more supporting for its own population?

How do we deal with this?  What can our government do?  We’d like to hear from you.

Fred Apelquist, contributing editor

Despite building faulty floodwalls in New Orleans and a succession of boondoggles, the Corps of Engineers remains well-fundeded and popular with Congress. Maybe Americans will get angry after the next disaster.  To read more in The Washingon Post (by subscription) click here

Bureaucratic infighting and an inability to force drug makers to conduct necessary safety tests have undercut efforts at the Food and Drug Administration to uncover drug dangers. To read this article in The New York Times (subscription only) click here…