Apprehensions for immigration violations peaked at 1.8 million in 2000 but dropped to 516,992 in 2010 — the lowest level since 1972, according to a report released last week by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS); between 2000 and 2010, arrests booked by the U.S. Marshals Service for federal immigration offenses tripled, from 25,205 to 82,438 arrests; immigration apprehensions resulted in about 16 arrests per 100 apprehensions in 2010, up from 2 arrests per 100 in 2002

General Dynamics C4 Systems and EADS North America have joined forces to develop border protection and security systems which exploit the both companies’ strength; the team offers tower-based, integrated radar and sensor systems for an “always-on, ever-aware” picture of human activity in and around national borders

ASIS International 58^th Annual Seminar and Exhibits will be held in Philadelphia on 10-13 September; one of the highlights of the show is the ASIS Accolades Competition, which is open to exhibitors in the event; Deadline for Submissions is 23 July

Chris Archer, the online content editor at IDGA (the Institute for Defense & Government Advancement), talked with James Loudermilk, Senior Level Technologist, FBI Science and Technology Branch, about biometrics and biometrics and homeland security; Loudermilk says that biometrics applications helped the FBI determine that about 1 percent of people who seek visa to visit the United States as tourists have previously done things that make them unsuitable guests; the conversation examines the application of biometrics for homeland security, issues relating to privacy and civil liberties, and what can be learned from international biometrics projects, including India’s UID scheme

On 15 June the Obama administration announced a new deportation policy, saying that it would defer deportation action against undocumented immigrants in several categories; the administration based its decision on the doctrine of “prosecutorial discretion”; critics charged that such deferment policy is illegal; the Court, in its decision on Arizona SB 1070, suggests the administration is right, saying: “A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials”

The 15 June announcement by DHS secretary Janet Napolitano of an executive order which, in effect, implements the Dream Act, gives the 2008 presidential election the appearance of offering a discussion of immigration issues; the fact remains, though, that since  the Immigration and Reform Act (IRCA) of 1986, both parties studiously avoided a serious debate of the issue during presidential campaigns; democracy is a messy form of government, and few other topics are as messy and convoluted as U.S. immigration policy, but both political parties are wrong to avoid a broad public discussion of this vital national issue

Last Friday, 15 June 2012, DHS announced what analysts regard as the most significant immigration action in more than two decades; the executive action aims to stop – or defer — the deportation of undocumented youth; individuals cannot yet file for consideration for deferred action under the new policy until the protocols and procedures are announced, which DHS must do within sixty days

Anticipating at least a partially favorable decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration bill, Governor Jan Brewer has issued an executive order instructing police officers across the state to familiarize themselves with the provisions of the law and prepare to begin to implement it; the Court decision is expected before the end of June

Undocumented immigrants in the United States do not commit more crimes than native-born Americans, yet the perception persists that they do; researchers found that the belief that undocumented immigrants cause crime was due in part to the perceived population size of the immigrant community overall: if individuals perceive undocumented immigrants to be a larger proportion in the population, they are going to perceive undocumented immigrants as posing a higher level of criminal threat