Town Hall Meeting On DHS Checkpoints (1 of 14)





The interactive transcript could not be loaded.



Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Uploaded on Sep 6, 2009

On September 2, 2009, Congresswoman Giffords organized a community meeting in Green Valley, Arizona to discuss the recent findings of a GAO study regarding interior Border Patrol checkpoints.

This is part 1 of a 14 part video series from the meeting and highlights GAO spokesperson Richard Stana who presented the report's findings.

After reviewing the 147 page report and comparing it to Mr. Stana's presentation, several things popped out at me. First, Mr. Stana made it clear that one of the primary reasons why interior Border Patrol checkpoints are allegedly needed is because agents at ports of entry only attempt to interdict 30% of illegal traffic attempting to cross through the ports. This 30% interdiction rate is by design. Otherwise Stana claims, commerce, trade and vehicle traffic would be adversely affected.

Additionally, the GAO report attempts to bury the numbers associated with illegal alien interdiction rates at interior checkpoints. By studying the bar graphs available in the report, it's apparent that internal checkpoints are grossly inefficient when compared to border operations. In the Tucson sector, 10% (300) agents are diverted to interior checkpoint operations. These agents in turn only account for approximately 0.5 of Tucson sector interdictions.

What this means is that the raw numbers show actual border operations and roving patrols are far more effective at interdicting illegal border traffic than internal checkpoints.

Finally, Mr. Stana misspoke regarding Border Patrol authority. He claimed the Border Patrol has more authority to interrogate, search and seize at interior checkpoints then the agency has at the actual border or its functional equivalent. This is false as various Supreme Court rulings have made amply clear.

In short, the GAO presentation was misleading from the start. It ignored fundamental facts regarding alien interdiction rates inside the country vs the actual border. It misrepresented Border Patrol legal authority at interior checkpoints in comparison to the actual border. And it brazenly claimed interior checkpoints are needed because ports of entry are designed to be purposefully ineffective so as to not overly burden border traffic and commerce.

No where was any reference made to individual rights, Homeland Security corruption, violations of our right to travel, violations of our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and violation of our right not to be a witness against ourselves.

I am appreciative of Mr. Stana's honesty regarding ports of entry however. No longer can the Border Patrol claim interior checkpoints are necessary to protect us against illegal aliens, drug trafficking and terrorists when ports of entry are purposefully limited in their effectiveness to 30% for the convenience of the government.

Part 2 is available at:



When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next

to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...