"He'll sit here and say do this, do that, and nothing will happen. Poor Ike - it won't be a bit like the army. He'll find it very frustrating." - President Harry Truman
On Tuesday night President George W. Bush delivered his State of the Union message to Congress. The president's speech represented declared policy, which may be very different from what actually happens. Aside from the correctness or incorrectness of a policy, one has to consider the predisposition of the administrative staff responsible for putting policy into effect - the so-called "permanent government." The bureaucracy has many tricks for blocking presidential initiatives. Such tricks were featured in the 1980s British comedy series "Yes Minister" (which evolved into the series "Yes Prime Minister"). British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said of the show, "Its closely observed portrayal of what goes on in the corridors of power has given me hours of pure joy." The main theme of "Yes Minister" is the laughable war of wits between politicians who crave popularity and bureaucrats who run everything according to their own convenience. The resulting clash is nothing like a rational policy debate. Policies are determined and implemented through a series of devious plots, leaks and misunderstandings. In one episode the country's leading bureaucrat wants to block a certain policy. He goes to his predecessor and tells him to leak something sensitive to the press. "I can't leak information," says the old bureaucrat. "Of course you can't," says his successor, "but you can leak disinformation."
In another episode the head of MI5 tells the prime minister that his predecessor was a Soviet mole. The news isn't as bad as it sounds, explains the spy chief, since there have been so many moles one more can't possibly make any difference. The problem, it seems is that the chief investigator who previously (and erroneously) cleared the former MI5 chief of suspicion is now under suspicion. The head of MI5 says to the Prime Minister: "It's bad enough that one of us could be one of them. But if two of us could be two of them" - the shocked prime minister finishes the thought - "then all of us could be all of them!" An internal investigation follows. But as every close student of government knows, the purpose of an internal investigation is to find nothing of consequence. If, by chance, something scandalous turned up the entire system would be called into question; and that wouldn't do.
One of the writers of the "Yes Minister" series was asked why "there was never a single scene ... set in the House of Commons?" Writer Jonathan Lynn answered, "Government does not take place in the House of Commons; some politics takes place there, and much theatre takes place there. Government happens in private. As in all public performances, the real work is done ... behind closed doors."
When looking at President Bush's State of the Union Address, made before both houses of Congress, the truth of Lynn's observation bears translation to the American political scene. It is naïve to think that politics can be properly understood from surface observation, on the basis of what is said in Congress or before television cameras. The missing aspect is bureaucracy and how it works - or doesn't work.
Taking the war against terror as an example, there is the issue of U.S. border control. If you took the president's speech at face value you would imagine that America has tight border security. The reality, however, is very different. The U.S. borders are not secure against terrorist penetration. The borders are, in fact, easily penetrated.
Journalist Michelle Malkin has written a book with the title Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. It is a shocking exposé of bureaucratic incompetence, corruption and indolence. While President Bush orders stepped-up security measures, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) remains corrupt and incompetent. Consider the dead hijacker visa scandal. The INS mailed "student visa approval notices to the Florida flight school of dead September 11 hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi." And what was the President's reaction to the news? "I was plenty hot," Bush later admitted. When four Pakistani's disappeared into the United States after a special visa waiver by an INS inspector the Attorney General grumbled, "What's happened to the INS is enough to drive a man to drink."
The bureaucracy is hardly accountability. Whatever the supposed administrative authority of President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft, there is no easy fix. Who should be fired? How many should be fired? Who will investigate and who will replace those who are dismissed? Any serious reform would take years, and would be resisted tooth-and-nail by bureaucrats and ethnic advocacy groups who prefer a loose, poorly controlled border.
Malkin's book levels serious charges against the INS. She says that INS officials have been involved in smuggling illegal aliens, aiding foreign drug dealers, accepting bribes from deported felons, peddling fraudulent documents, arranging fake marriages, selling citizenships, trading sex and money for visas and green cars, and more. A "climate of abuse" pervades the INS. "Only one group of INS employees can count on receiving harsh and speedy discipline for their actions," noted Malkin: "whistleblowers who expose failures and misconduct of their colleagues."
Last July I interviewed whistleblower John Carmen on the subject of border corruption. Carmen is a veteran of the Secret Service and a former Senior Customs Inspector. He believes that every imaginable kind of contraband is smuggled across the border on a daily basis. "There is serious corruption," he said. "If you report it at the regional level, then at the national level, and nothing happens then you know that it goes all the way up."
I asked Carmen if a terrorist group allied with organized crime could smuggle nuclear weapons into the United States. Explaining the kind of operation it would have to be, with all the right people paid off, Carmen said, "You're going to be guaranteed of getting through." He added, "They don't really search the trains any longer. I doubt if even one in fifty boxcars have been inspected. The boats are a joke. They do tunnels all the time. They're doing two percent inspections nationwide - they're not checking enough containers!"
The INS has 32,000 employees. To conduct the necessary checks the organization would have to triple in size. But when you add corruption into the mix, there is the possibility that any increase in size would merely extend the abuses up and down the line. As Carmen explained, "Nobody wants to hear that it's a lot worse. INS managers are involved in smuggling. Certain people need to be investigated, but it's not happening. Look at the inspectors. Some guy is old, tired, fed up, sucking fumes out there, and one day he might take a bribe. And they do take bribes."
Once someone at a key checkpoint takes a bribe, the crooks own him. In that event, the United States of America loses control of its border. It falls to criminals with cash. "You take their money," said Carmen, "[and] you belong to them."
How high does the corruption on the border go? Carmen answered, "I'm very adamant about the fact of corruption at the top." In this regard, one must consider what is at stake. U.S. border traffic is an enormous source of revenue, and the payoffs run in every direction. Perhaps more damning than corruption, however, is the bungling. "Our government is incompetent," said Carmen flatly.
John Carmen's testimony is as disturbing and sobering as Michelle Malkin's book. The problems at the INS go far beyond the usual bureaucratic problems of other government agencies. This is not a simple case of "Yes Minister" in which bureaucrats work against the policies of elected officials behind closed doors. Criminal forces are at work, combined with economic forces. And there are tremendous temptations here, as well.
Perhaps the key to the INS's corruption has to do with America's emphasis on economics and ideology above security. Business wants trade and trade likes open borders. Then there is the ideological dimension. The conservatives, on their side, believe in free trade. The far left would like to see the "browning" of America. The logic here is simple: Massive illegal immigration from non-white countries would serve the revolutionary cause of overthrowing a supposedly "reactionary white Establishment." If the white majority of the country were reduced to minority status, radical socialists would be voted into power. Akin to this we see the aspirations of Mexican nationalists who want to reclaim the Southwest for Mexico (retaking California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas). Also, do not forget the drug cartels that want to move narcotics over the border. And last but not least, one must think of America's foreign enemies who want lax U.S. border security so that certain terrorist or military plans remain viable.
Corruption at the INS is not something President Bush acknowledged in his State of the Union Address. In a political year, with a presidential election in November, an honest discussion of political problems is not always found in speeches or at party conventions. Let us hope that behind closed doors something is being done. Any failure to confront corruption in a security-related agency is potentially fatal.
