In a House hearing on Wednesday about a proposed plan for collection of non-citizens’ biometric data upon exit from the United States, assistant professor Nathan Sales of George Mason University School of Law made an interesting observation: “Frankly, exit controls are less vital than entry controls. It’s more important to know if we’re keeping [terrorists] out, than to know if they left.”
Sales argued that both an entry and an exit system improve security by tracking foreign visitors in the United States, but his initial point raises some interesting questions about the allocation of program funds.
The Homeland Security Department already has spent millions of dollars on the US VISIT program to develop and test a system for checking visitors' identities when they enter and exit the country. (The airlines estimate it will cost $12.3 billion over 10 years to finish and maintain the exit portion of the system.) So far, no proposed procedures satisfy DHS, Congress, the airline industry or other private sector stakeholders. The proposals are either too expensive or they just don’t work.
What no one on the Hill will consider seriously, however, is whether an exit system is even worthwhile. Certainly, an exit system would provide DHS and the intelligence community a second chance, so to speak, to track down potentially dangerous people. But funds are scarce, and the federal government is not equipped to mitigate all existing security risks. There’s the need to prioritize.
Once terrorists get into the country, how likely are they to leave? And if they do, should that be the concern, or should the focus instead be on efforts to figure out how these individuals managed to enter in the first place? Could dollars allocated to an exit system perhaps be better spent improving security in other areas even, such as cargo transport and foreign intelligence? One has to wonder whether any of these questions has been seriously considered.
Often government pursues initiatives because they seem a logical next step, or because they happen to be mandated by a particular piece of legislation. Sometimes these initiatives are well thought out and prove worth the time and money, but other times a closer look reveals that the return on investment is not worthwhile, no matter how much technology is thrown in the mix. Consider the Census debacle, for example.
Should the exit portion of the US-VISIT program be scrapped? The answer is up for debate, but the question is at least worth asking.
COMMENTS
Sounds really good to have an exit system. As far as cost, I think it's worth spending money for this project. It's better than wasting billions in Iraq.
Alex 09/19/08 03:09 pm ET
If we had a perfect system (or even near-perfect) for screening terrorists out, monitoring only entry might be a consideration for those intending to do us harm. As a couple of the earlier commentors have noted, however, US-VISIT is designed to monitor all those who have time-limited permission to visit the country--to ensure that they are respecting the conditions of their entry.
For the CIS, exit control will help ensure that immigration laws are followed--which is not possible now. Further, it will enable ICE to focus enforcement efforts on known violators. For all of us, closing the loop will help to inform analysis of potential terrorist movements. If it had become clear before 9/11 that Middle Eastern pilot trainees were routinely overstaying their visas or even that a substantial number were, that information might have suggested to federal investigators a suspicious pattern of activity.
While we can't look backward and second guess what might have been, we should look forward to eliminate this gaping hole in our immigration process as effectively as possible. The cost, approach, and sophistication of technology needed to effect this should be a matter of discussion but the need to monitor exits should not even be questioned.
Patricia Burke 07/17/08 07:33 pm ET
The key point of the Exit Control, is to close the loop on the simple issue of who is here, who has left and meaningful enforcement of the basic visa rules of legal stay or finding violation of granted stay which will trigger investigation and proactive actions to stop the terrorist acts.
The fallacy in the statement made “It’s more important to know if we’re keeping [terrorists] out, than to know if they left” is that we must understand that we are dealing with faceless enemy here. There is a “Watch List” and/or the FBI criminal database, and those are searched upon the “entry” biometrics check process, but the real thread comes form the folks who come here with clean records and criminal intentions.
The simple scenario is like this, twenty or so people apply for visa, get cleared and three-month visitor visas, travel here, and then they get lost with no trace. Two years later we have a serious situation happening. The point is without having a meaningful and traceable “Exit” process in place the USVISIT program is missing a leg. I hope this shed some light into the discussion. If you have any questions, drop me an email.
Regards
Ben Bavarian, AFIS and Biometrics Consulting Inc.
Email: ben.bavarian@afisandbiometrics.com
Ben Bavarian 07/17/08 02:06 pm ET
Yes, The United States (and DHS)needs an EXIT System. Too many Illegal Aliens have already enhtered the US to commit crimes, vote down our form of government and take jobs from US Citizens.
Any chance to catch and/or slow down this racketeering in illegal aliens is worthwhile.
Earl W. Littlefield, Jr. 07/17/08 09:36 am ET
The writer and Assistant Professor Sales clearly need to familiarize themselves with the goals and objectives of the US-VISIT Program, specifically those of the integrated biometric entry/exit system. The concept of an exit system was not to determine when terrorists departed the United States. The exit system contributes significantly to securing the nation by ensuring the integrity of the U.S. border management and immigration system.
Kevin Merkel 07/17/08 09:33 am ET
Both the writer and Assistant Professor Sales need to familiarize themselves with the goals and objectives of the US-VISIT Program, specifically that of an entry/exit system. The goals of US-VISIT are:
• Enhance the security of our citizens and visitors
• Facilitate legitimate travel and trade
• Ensure the integrity of our immigration system
• Protect the privacy of our visitors
Kevin Merkel 07/17/08 09:19 am ET
The logic is a good one and the question needs to be asked. On the other hand, everyone entering into the country is assumed to be noncriminal. It is only if they don't exit on time do they become a criminal in our country at which time the law enforcement agencies need to be informed. That is a necessary step in the process of a successful entry-exit program. If not completed, one has to ask why bother collecting entry data? Still, the issue of priority is one that should be addressed, and it is good that you ask the question.
voice_in_dc 07/17/08 08:48 am ET