Combating Illicit Trade and Transnational Smuggling

Response to Question One 

Function Equivalent of the Border 

The United States Customs and Border Protection agents face various challenges in an attempt to secure the borders. The functional equivalent of the border (FEB) refers to territory or geographical borders of the US that may exist on air, land, and sea. Some examples of international equivalent of borders include but are not limited to stations at intersections, ports found within a country, and international airports. The US has sixteen pre-clearance facilities that make up the FEB. A high percentage of the pre-clearance facilities are located in various Canadian cities that include Ottawa, Edmonton, Halifax, Calgary, Vancouver, Winnipeg Airports, and Victoria. The US also has various pre-clearance facilities in the Caribbean at St. George in Bermuda and Bahamas at Nassau and Freeport (Slack, 2016). In the European Union, the facilities are located in Ireland, mainly in Dublin and Shannon Airports. Additionally, the US has a pre-clearance port in Florida located in the City of Miami. Finally, in the Middle East, the pre-clearance facilities are located in the City of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. 

The Fourth Amendment Exception 

The Fourth Amendment Exception, as it relates to border searches, refers to the mandate or function of the customs is to ensure the collection of duties charged on the goods and services that enter the United States through its borders. It is worth noting that that customs do not have the authority to arrest and prefer criminal charges other than individuals who fail to meet their custom or tax obligation for goods that enter the country. Moreover, the customs have the mandate to seize goods that do not meet the required standards. They ensure that goods that enter the country meet the standards and are not unlawfully acquired or gained. Customs officials have the power to search vehicles, mail, and persons at the border, as stipulated in the Immigration and Nationality Act 287 (Slack, 2016). The cat accords the customs and immigration officers the power to detain, interrogate, and search vehicles and individuals. 

The Seizure Statistics 

The seizure statics refer to tangible quantities or numbers that are often presented to the policymakers to improve the quality and the quantity of resources that the customs and immigration officials may use to secure the integrity of the borders through commensurate budgetary allocation. The statistics help in budgetary estimation of the appropriate and relevant resources required by the immigration and the customs officials in handling illegal immigrants and contraband or dangerous goods. The use of such resources is justified since it helps deter illegal immigrants and individuals with ill motives such as terrorists and potential terrorists from entering the US, thereby saving human life (Slack, 2016). Human life is valuable and should be protected at all costs, meaning that the millions spent securing the borders by preventing the illegal entry of both people and goods are helpful because human life is priceless. Therefore, the debate on the value of money and perceived return n investment should not be a justification for underfunding the customs and border officials since human life is more valuable in comparison. The fact that the nation’s security is also at play should call for more investment whether the monetary return is justified or otherwise. 

The Open Markets and Closed borders 

The open markets and close borders relate to free trade, smuggling, and border enforcement should be open to legitimate and productive business. Such a border should also be open to people, productive people who have been legally cleared, and proven to have good intentions for the country. The entry and exit of people in such borders have various benefits that include but are not limited to the stimulation of economic growth, sharing of ideas, and importing and exporting goods based on mutual needs and demands. Nevertheless, the borders should be closed for people with ill motives and bad intentions against the United States. Such people may include terrorists and people with proven criminal intentions or records. In other words, free borders are open for legitimate trade and people with good intentions but should remain closed for criminal elements and terrorists. Therefore, smart borders should depend on layered approach to monitor both people and cargo, meaning that it requires study corporation form the security agencies and the countries involved. 

The main objective of having smart borders is to enhance corporation between the countries involved, boost the levels of responsibility on the part of the security agencies, and to promote quality trade between different countries. The effects of terrorism and unmanned borders are documented in the history of the United States, particularly the 9/11 that destroyed lives, livelihoods, and property that ran into billions of dollars (Slack, 2016). Smart borders keep the countries safe through its layered approach to ensure free and legitimate trade while keeping off the bad elements. Greater cross border corporation is essential in that it allows countries to take responsibility for the goods and services they export while allowing the recipient countries to take charge of the imports as well. 

Response to Question Two 

The second part of the paper mainly focuses on the challenges in the facilitation of legal border crossing while simultaneously securing the borders. 

Challenges Associated with Border Crossing 

Facilitating legal border crossings while at the same time ensuring that the borders are secure entails what is commonly referred to as the “Hardened Border Paradox,” which requires en enhancement of physical security by installing watch towers, patrols, and fences. The objective is to prevent the inflow of illegal immigrants and keep all the vices that permit illegal immigration. Strengthening of the border has the propensity to keep the bad elements out of the country while, at the same time, the stringent measures to keep the good and productive elements out just as much. The paradox means that the strengthened borders may be progressive and progressive at the same time. The opposite means that securing the borders may lead to death, misery, and an increase in crime, which are the elements the government is trying to keep at bay. On the other hand, having weak borders will certainly permit people with questionable or even criminal intent to access and live in the US (Basu, 2014). In an attempt to overcome both challenges, it is imperative to strike a balance. It is important to reach a compromise of realistic physical barriers to make immigration sensible, safe, and permit only legal immigration that would have no notable negative effects on legal and profitable cross border movement and trade. 

The improvement of the security at the borders is at a high notch, but the security is not perfect, and there are various steps to be enhanced. While building the wall provides a somewhat ingenious way of keeping illegal immigration and accompanying activities at bay. It does not provide a solution to the remote parts of the country that has porous and accessible borders. The wall does not provide much of a barrier since there are people who can scale it and employ unorthodox methods because all is static and unresponsive. It is particularly weak in the densely populated areas where the authorities cannot respond as quickly and as timely as it should. The Secure Fence Act 2006 was meant to cover the populated areas with walls, but that has not been effective due to the diminished time of response derailed by the high population in certain border points. The greatest concern for Americans is the spread of drug smuggling, for instance, methamphetamine and heroin, form bordering countries such as Mexico. 

The entry points into the United States currently are quite many and lack the required infrastructure to handle the various number of individuals coming into the country. For instance, the US currently has an estimated number of 52 land entry points that allow the movement of vehicles, people, and cargo into and out o the country. Nevertheless, the infrastructure is dilapidated and may not support the activities that go on at the border. The infrastructural insufficiency makes it is challenging during the movement of goods and services at the required speed. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has identified gaps that require close to $5 billion in renovation and construction to enhance security at the border (Basu, 2014). Closely related to that is the fact that the border posts are understaffed, making it hard to process the movement of goods and services on a timely basis. It takes more than two hours for a vehicle to be processed for movement at the border. The legal points of entry are suspected to the areas where the smugglers use to traffic heroin and other drugs. It means that the staff and the infrastructure are insufficient to detect drug smuggling even at the designated border posts. 

The hiring procedures by the DHS are not comprehensive enough. The DHS should streamline its hiring procedures to ensure that it gets competent individuals that man the border points. It is worth noting that the DHS hiring procedures were strengthened by its 2010 hiring act that required the process to be rigorous by including anti-corruption measures, background checks, and polygraph tests. Nevertheless, the implementation of the mentioned measures did not get the required funding. They were not implemented, and the screeners are quite stretched. Despite the modest improvements made at the posts, there is need for more funding for infrastructure and personnel. For instance, it is estimated that the US-Mexico border current requires close to 1600 border patrol agents but may fail to achieve that due to the unprecedented budget cuts. It is imperative to note that stopping the attrition was a step on the positive, but reducing the budget was ill-informed since actualizing the constitutional requirements of stopping illegal immigration requires qualified personnel. 

The shortage of immigration judges is another serious challenge that affects the border patrol and immigration laws' actualizations. Most of the illegal immigrants currently point to asylum or refugee protection. While such is constitutional, the system of refugee and asylum adjudication requires reformation to help decipher the genuine from made up cases. The evident increase in violence and intolerance has compelled various families from Central America and unaccompanied children to flee to the United States. Currently, the Department of Justice has only close to 300 judges in total dealing with immigration matters. A successful asylum claim requires access to qualified legal counsel. There is a need to improve the legal infrastructure to ensure access to justice for asylum seekers. 

There is the need to improve technology and the degree of flexibility. Due to lack of necessary equipment and the inadequacy of technology, it is almost impossible for the border controls to access remote locations. Accessing such areas requires the use of various modern forms of technology such as radar-equipped aerostats, drones, and tower-mounted cameras, among other forms of technology. Apparent lack of technology makes it difficult almost impossible to spot and then react accordingly to the threats of immigrants and, in some cases, drug traffickers. The technology may spot an individual in an area that may take a border patrol officer a lot of time to reach, and by the time they do, the individual will certainly not be in that position. While adding more border personnel is great idea, deploying the available ones flexibly is a great idea. For instance, deploying the majority of the personnel to a busier post is a great idea that will ensure efficiency and effectiveness in protecting the border posts. 

Corruption at the borders is a major threat to maintaining sound border security. There is a negative link between drug traffickers and certain unscrupulous government officials that permit the passage of contraband goods and drugs without a thorough inspection. The organized crime cartels use the money to compromise government officials who either neglect or fail to comprehend the offenders. The corruption links are credited for various atrocities. For instance, in 2010, Central American immigrants were murdered in the US-Mexico border. Furthermore, in 2014, there was the infamous disappearance of 43 students in Iguala, Guerrero that were last spotted in a police station. The US government should encourage the implementation of corruption reforms a way of ensuring tighter border security. The mentioned challenge requires the government and its agencies to move with speed to strengthen the border to ensure border security and promote peace and prosperity within US borders. 

Response to Question Three 

The Economic Impact of Terrorism 

Terrorism presents direct economic destruction that is depicted by physical destruction. Acts of terror, for instance, the infamous 9/11, led to the destruction of buildings machines, buildings, transportation systems, and the disruption of income-generating activities. The United sates had to invest close to $100 billion in rescue funds for rebuilding and compensation. The amount of money spent in the wake of 9/11 was much more than the amount spent in the Desert Storm that only required $61 billion. The destruction of the World Trade Center bombings led to compensations that resulted into the mentioned billions. The impact of terrorism in the global market and the economy due to the financial and financial destruction is usually negative. It leads to the destruction of the production process of goods and services. The invariable diversion of resources also affects the economy and the markets. 

Tourism is one of the leading foreign income earners for the United States. In the wake of 9/11, the tourist industry in the US and the globe slummed because people feared for their lives. The tourism industry depends on peace and political goodwill. The event was so horrific that it led to various international airlines' grounding, meaning that people could not travel into and out of the country. Furthermore, the incident led to widespread fear that made people not travel to the US until things returned to normalcy. As a measure of additional security, the US had to halt imports and exports to certain countries as a way of deterring further terror attacks. The stringent measures put in place after the 9/11 attacks made it difficult for people to travel. 

The act of terror led to increased uncertainty in the global markets. Even for the people that lived in different parts of the world, it is normal for them to be jittery about the possibility and the events of terror. All kinds of markets do not move function well in times of uncertainty, especially during the shock brought about by terrorism. In the wake of 9/11, the financial markets did shut down and only recovered two years later in 2003 after the invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that markets are slowly adapting to the effects of terrorism and are becoming more resilient. For instance, the stock market indices did not change or even decline after terrorists hit France in 2015 and killed close to 130 people. The deadly terrorist attacks in Nice, France in 2016 may, however, propagate the narrative that France is an unstable place to live, but did not have notable, significant effects on the financial markets. The real threat to an investor, especially in the financial market, is the bigger picture, meaning that the image that France is increasingly unstable may hinder investor confidence. On the other hand, after 9/11 and the subsequent recovery of the US's financial markets, the country has been fairly stable. The investor confidence pertaining to the US financial markets is high due to the relative stability in the country. 

Acts of terror tend to affect various sectors, such as the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), trade, and insurance. It is imperative to note that not all acts of terror are covered in most insurance clauses, meaning that most companies do not, and business affected by the acts of terror do not get compensation when terrorism strikes. Insurance companies consider terrorism a risky business, meaning that most of them do not cover such. Additionally, acts of terror have a negative bearing on international trade (Michel-Kerjan & Pedell, 2015). Such is normally because people may have thoughts of imminent threats that may include the disruption of trade routes and the distribution systems. The physical and psychological reactions to terror also disrupt international trade. In such cases, investor confidence will be eroded, especially if it happens in an unstable country. Nevertheless, the US was able to recover in less than two years due to the stringent recovery measures that enabled normalcy to return. The bombing of the twin towers cost the US economy $100 billion in revenues, which includes the effects that the event had on lost tourism income and volatility of the stock market. 

Response to Question Four 

Impacts of NAFTA and GATT to North American Border Trade 

The GATT and NAFTA have certainly improved the levels of trade and profitability for corporate entities while at the same time hindered cross border security. Noteworthy is the fact that NAFTA brought together three countries, namely the US, Canada, and Mexico, in an attempt to liberalize access to the market for the mentioned countries. The agreements eliminated most of the trade tariffs, making it easier for traders in the countries to access markets for their good as services with relative ease. The major focus was the possible liberalization of trade in different fields such as agriculture, automobile, and textile manufacturing. They also sought to establish and protect mechanisms for protecting intellectual property, to establish dispute resolution mechanism, protect the environment, and implement labor laws. 

NAFTA and GATT reshaped the North American economy's economic infrastructure by ensuring integration between the developing economies of Mexico and those of developed countries such as the United States and Canada. NAFTA has become a target for people that believe that it is major cause of insecurity within the borders. Many people believe that NAFTA is mainly beneficial to Mexico while at the same time undermining the economic prospects of the United States (Cunningham, 2018). Under President Trump's current leadership, the agreement risk closure because the administration believes that it has led to liberal borders that have led to an influx of drugs and criminals from the neighboring countries, especially Mexico. Additionally, the US administration believes that NAFTA is responsible for the loss of Americans jobs. Due to the low cost of labor in Mexico, most American companies are shifting to Mexico and establishing the bases. It means that Canada and the US automatically lose jobs to Mexico due to the relocation of the manufacturing companies. On the other hand, Mexico is the recipient of the lost jobs, meaning that it is gaining. 

In general, NAFTA and GATT are responsible for the increase in the volumes of trade across the mentioned countries. While the US has concern on the loss of manufacturing jobs, it should also view the trade agreements as opening new market for its products, meaning that it also stands to gain in the process. The volume of trade in the three countries has increased due to the liberalization of the border posts and the trade. The increased interaction has led to improved social relations and the sharing of ideas that will go a long way in improving the economies involved. The only negative impact of the agreements is the possibility of illegal immigration and trade that may affect security, particularly in the US. The current US administration feels that the relaxation of the trade and cross-border policy is responsible for the infiltration of contraband goods and drugs from Mexico in particular. Closely related to that is the increased influx of illegal immigrants through the borders that are the weakest link in the fight against drugs and terrorism. 

References 

Basu, G. (2014). Combating illicit trade and transnational smuggling: key challenges for customs and border control agencies.  World Customs Journal ,  8 (2), 15-26. 

Cunningham, S. (2018). Liquefied Natural Gas in North America: An Analysis of the United States’ Exportation Position in the Context of its North American Free Trade Agreement Partners.  Undergraduate Review ,  14 (2), 45-57. 

Michel-Kerjan, E., & Pedell, B. (2015). Terrorism risk coverage in the post-9/11 era: a comparison of new public–private partnerships in France, Germany and the US.  The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice ,  30 (1), 144-170. 

Slack, J., Martínez, D. E., Lee, A. E., & Whiteford, S. (2016). The geography of border militarization: Violence, death and health in Mexico and the United States.  Journal of Latin American Geography , 7-32.