Protection design offers insight to border security

We’ve been addressing immigration policy in the national press for the past few years, trying to find a balance between protectionism and our “melting-pot” heritage. For me, understanding the complexities of our current system is somewhat mindboggling, but it does offer some intriguing thoughts.

Today, Yuma, Arizona is the site of a “success story” when it comes to immigration management. At least that will be the mantra during President Bush's visit to the southwest border town. However, the question, as correctly raised by Yuma Sun’s editor Terry Ross in his weekend editorial, is "Has the overall illegal immigration issue improved?"

Yuma may serve as a case study to some who believe that security and sheer manpower (increased national guard presence) can solve our border issue, but that would be naive. Yuma more aptly can be likened to the metaphor of a cartoon dam that keeps springing leaks until you run out of appendages to plug all the holes.

As a simple security consultant, I won’t claim to know all the answers or solutions to the border issue, but I will say that comparisons to corporate security analysis are most certainly there. I have found myself addressing border security and immigration as if it were a modern facility in search of a security survey. Of course, to do this, prior to deciding on the force methods (manpower and technology) and the policy enforcement protocols (laws and punishments), you need to have an understanding of what is a risk and by whom.

Why a facility is at risk is of primary import for deciding how to protect it. There are different motivations for each type of facility. The goals for protecting a data center versus a meat packing plant versus a childcare center vary. All three should have forms of security, but each for different reasons. The data center may expect threats from identity thieves or corporate espionage while the packing plant wants to protect itself from liability of wandering persons, and a child care center worries about unauthorized exits as much as entries. Each requires different tools and technologies to address these issues.

So, why does the United States need protecting and who are the likely perpetrators? This question is very involved, but needs to be addressed as part of the overall immigration reform package set before congress. Our primary concern as a nation is terrorists entering our country. However, efforts to track and identify their entry are masked by the thousands who cross simply in search of a better life. Terrorists are simply a needle in a haystack.

To filter the migration, we must address immigration incentive. “Incentive is the most important issue of illegal immigration, and that is where we need to begin.” Guest-worker programs, tax reform (i.e. fair tax plans), and a clear roadmap to citizenship would go a long way to alleviating the migration of illegal immigrants and would allow our force protection (manpower and technology) to focus on other threats such as terrorist entry. We have the technology to enforce mechanisms; we don’t have to cover it in red tape. Rather, we need to be transparent and consistent in our message.