Here we go again...
Politicking and fear tactics prevail in stopping progressive legislation. I am honestly very tired and upset about the misinformation campaigns from my "self-proclaimed" conservative brethren regarding the now dead immigration bill. "Give us your tired, your hungry, your poor, unless they speak Spanish…"
Both as a political participant and as a security professional, I am extremely dismayed by the actions and strong support garnered by the fanatical right-wing talking heads. What they don't get, and never got, was that a comprehensive border security bill must go hand-in-hand with a true immigration reform package. It will never be more cut and dry than that.
The not-so-understated racism and fear-mongering set out by the right was downright offensive. The actions by the 53 senators voting against this bill was a move away from pragmatism and their constitutional duty to create legislation that actually addresses the nation's issues. With no alternative measures being brought forward (Mr. Tancredo), we have ruined our first chance of addressing a problem that has a real chance of hurting our economy and national security. We have waited 21 years for our legislators to move on this issue, and at a time when both the congress and senate are sitting at all-time low approval ratings, our politicians pander to the talk-show hosts and far wings of the right and left without working towards the center on a bill that the majority of this nation is actually for.
I am well versed with this legislation, and after studying each twist and turn for the past two years, I can confidently say this was a path forward -- comprehensive border security, a national ID program with biometric identifiers, and most importantly a way to deal with the "real" problem of 12-20 million illegal immigrants. Bipartisan efforts, collaboration with the executive branch, DHS, and the Commerce Department are things you can't simply dismiss with a one-word backlash like "amnesty."
Please don't come at me with the "unfair for those who didn't break the law" argument. Be realistic here -- if there is not a concrete way to incentivize the current base of illeagls in this country, we will not be able to properly identify and deal with the problem head on. No one is offering citizenship "willy-nilly." Rather, the restrictions imposed on those for vying for full citizenship were very much a life-trial and hardship. Z-Visas are not green cards. Rather, they are simply a way to acknowledge the strong economic impact these workers currently have on our macro-economy. A Z-Visa holder would have to go through red tape and massive document trails (all feeding a centralized database) as well as fines of over $5,000 (a true test for individuals making minimum wage and below). Finally, these people would not benefit from their past discretions; instead they would be taxed, contribute to our national economy, and all the while be forced to the back of the "citizenship" line.
Twenty-one years ago, we did not have the technology to implement a comprehensive tracking program for immigration to the US. No biometric technologies could be employed, no rapid communication systems for transferring large amounts of data, and no real implementation schemas to hold, host, and mine that data. That is not the case now. We have the technology... we just don't have the vision to use it.
To the 53 senators, Tom Tancredo, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Reagan, and all of the others espousing fear and radical loss of national sense, I ask: What do we do now? Can you provide us with a plan that will garner support and realistically address a problem such as this? And most-importantly, when did our great nation become so fragile that bilingual education can threaten our very existence?
Friday, June 29, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Politics of Homeland Security
One of the primary purposes of corporate blogs like this one is to generate discussion and provoke response. To date, in our short blog life we have not posed too many questions to our readers, but I do have some this morning.
A couple of reports were released earlier this year from DHS preparing to analyze spending and budgets created for the year. One report was updating the UASI list of vulnerable cities. For those unaware of the acronym, UASI stands for the “Urban Areas Security Initiative.” This program was designed to identify areas of need (based on infrastructure, population, port security, and a host of other factors) for federal grant monies issued by the “bank” of homeland security.
The report update replaces four cities in efforts to recognize the need for higher funding allotment to border security. On the surface, the cities being removed in favor of the new ones (Toledo, Baton Rouge, Louisville and Omaha replaced by El Paso, Tucson, Providence and Norfolk) are seemingly reflective of an effort to secure border and port cities. However, it does make me wonder: How much politicking is going on in Washington?
Here is an interesting metric for determining your vote for local politicians. “How much money can you win from the DHS lottery?”
Now I am being slightly humorous here, and yes, I do appreciate the need and encourage the programs for funding grants that can assist in offsetting costs for logistics, local police, and law enforcement. In today’s security environment it is sound theory to assume national security does include domestic policing, security, and intelligence gathering. The federal government, as is the policy promoted by the UASI analysis process, offers opportunities to apply for grants based on a selection process with a host of conditions and rules that are beginning to mirror IRS tax code. And as much as we all admire the IRS tax code, this entire process is smelling like pork to me.
Now I am not going to rip DHS for removing Baton Rouge, LA from the list even though it is also ranked as one of lowest in scoring for emergency communications (right down there with American Samoa), but I will point out yet again that DHS is a political organization and there are more justifications for grants than simply immediate need. Remember, also, this is a process to allow for cities to compete for funding not a guarantee that they will receive it.
QUESTIONS:
How is this process affecting your business, or is it? Does anyone prepare metrics for an influx of grant funds to your servicing area, and are you contacting facilities that could collect in order to generate new security-related business?
A couple of reports were released earlier this year from DHS preparing to analyze spending and budgets created for the year. One report was updating the UASI list of vulnerable cities. For those unaware of the acronym, UASI stands for the “Urban Areas Security Initiative.” This program was designed to identify areas of need (based on infrastructure, population, port security, and a host of other factors) for federal grant monies issued by the “bank” of homeland security.
The report update replaces four cities in efforts to recognize the need for higher funding allotment to border security. On the surface, the cities being removed in favor of the new ones (Toledo, Baton Rouge, Louisville and Omaha replaced by El Paso, Tucson, Providence and Norfolk) are seemingly reflective of an effort to secure border and port cities. However, it does make me wonder: How much politicking is going on in Washington?
Here is an interesting metric for determining your vote for local politicians. “How much money can you win from the DHS lottery?”
Now I am being slightly humorous here, and yes, I do appreciate the need and encourage the programs for funding grants that can assist in offsetting costs for logistics, local police, and law enforcement. In today’s security environment it is sound theory to assume national security does include domestic policing, security, and intelligence gathering. The federal government, as is the policy promoted by the UASI analysis process, offers opportunities to apply for grants based on a selection process with a host of conditions and rules that are beginning to mirror IRS tax code. And as much as we all admire the IRS tax code, this entire process is smelling like pork to me.
Now I am not going to rip DHS for removing Baton Rouge, LA from the list even though it is also ranked as one of lowest in scoring for emergency communications (right down there with American Samoa), but I will point out yet again that DHS is a political organization and there are more justifications for grants than simply immediate need. Remember, also, this is a process to allow for cities to compete for funding not a guarantee that they will receive it.
QUESTIONS:
How is this process affecting your business, or is it? Does anyone prepare metrics for an influx of grant funds to your servicing area, and are you contacting facilities that could collect in order to generate new security-related business?
Honey, I'm Home
Calling your home from your cell phone to alert your presence may no longer be just a courtesy. A new form of access control technology is being tested in Europe utilizing GSM technology. The system recognizes the caller ID from your cell phone to identify and provide access to your home/facility. More can be found in a related blog: (http://www.securitypark.co.uk/security_article259680.html).
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.
Background:
The Supreme Court unveiled a series of 5-4 rulings Monday which included the decision in favor of the Wisconsin Right to Life group. In short, the ruling found that provisions in the 2002 bipartisan campaign finance reform law were unconstitutional. The opinion specifically states that interest groups, unions, and corporations may use issued advocacy advertisements in the final weeks of the campaign (a practice that had been banned under the current law).
A challenge is laid before us:
The intent of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) was to enable free speech by limiting the amount of dilution from excessive campaign advertisements via big business, unions, and advocacy groups. A key argument to the legislation was formed by years of common law practice recognizing the corrupting influence of corporate treasury expenditures on federal elections. This practice goes back to the Tillman Act of 1907 and Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925.
However, as Justice Scalia points out in his concurring opinion to Chief Justice Roberts, BCRA makes it a crime to criticize policy if the speaker is acting on behalf of a union or advocacy group during a window prior to an election. How can we criminalize criticism of policy under the constitution and the free speech amendment at any time during the election process?
Therefore, it is up to the supporters of a thoughtful Campaign Finance Reform Law to look at the rulings at face value and go back to the drawing board. We do need to have restrictions on overspending so that it does not dilute free speech from individuals, but at the same time recognize the rights of advocacy groups and unions to participate in the political debate through the entire campaign process. It is a tough issue and one that requires hard debate, but one that needs to be championed and not lost.
Ruling: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-969.pdf
The Supreme Court unveiled a series of 5-4 rulings Monday which included the decision in favor of the Wisconsin Right to Life group. In short, the ruling found that provisions in the 2002 bipartisan campaign finance reform law were unconstitutional. The opinion specifically states that interest groups, unions, and corporations may use issued advocacy advertisements in the final weeks of the campaign (a practice that had been banned under the current law).
A challenge is laid before us:
The intent of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) was to enable free speech by limiting the amount of dilution from excessive campaign advertisements via big business, unions, and advocacy groups. A key argument to the legislation was formed by years of common law practice recognizing the corrupting influence of corporate treasury expenditures on federal elections. This practice goes back to the Tillman Act of 1907 and Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925.
However, as Justice Scalia points out in his concurring opinion to Chief Justice Roberts, BCRA makes it a crime to criticize policy if the speaker is acting on behalf of a union or advocacy group during a window prior to an election. How can we criminalize criticism of policy under the constitution and the free speech amendment at any time during the election process?
Therefore, it is up to the supporters of a thoughtful Campaign Finance Reform Law to look at the rulings at face value and go back to the drawing board. We do need to have restrictions on overspending so that it does not dilute free speech from individuals, but at the same time recognize the rights of advocacy groups and unions to participate in the political debate through the entire campaign process. It is a tough issue and one that requires hard debate, but one that needs to be championed and not lost.
Ruling: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-969.pdf
Friday, June 22, 2007
AMPS Sunset delay is rejected
The FCC agreed not to extend the “sunset” date for critical AMPS (Advanced Mobile Phone System) equipment that provides alarm communications relays in a substantial amount of security installations. The current deadline date remains set for February 18, 2008.
According to Wikipedia, “AMPS is a first-generation cellular technology that uses separate frequencies, or "channels", for each conversation. It therefore requires considerable bandwidth for a large number of users. In general terms, AMPS is very similar to the older "0G" IMTS service, but uses considerably more computing power in order to select frequencies, hand off conversations to POTS lines, and handle billing and call setup.”
In the security industry, AMPS was typically used as auxiliary or redundant communications means to relay alarm data to central stations. A more in-depth article regarding this news can be found at SecurityInfoWatch.com
According to Wikipedia, “AMPS is a first-generation cellular technology that uses separate frequencies, or "channels", for each conversation. It therefore requires considerable bandwidth for a large number of users. In general terms, AMPS is very similar to the older "0G" IMTS service, but uses considerably more computing power in order to select frequencies, hand off conversations to POTS lines, and handle billing and call setup.”
In the security industry, AMPS was typically used as auxiliary or redundant communications means to relay alarm data to central stations. A more in-depth article regarding this news can be found at SecurityInfoWatch.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
