Uncle Sam’s Efforts

Author(s):  
Lisa Lindquist Dorr

With the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, the federal government developed and enforcement strategy that charged the U.S. Coast Guard with preventing the illegal importation of liquor on the high seas surrounding the United States. The U.S. Customs Bureau guarded the nation's ports and borders, and the Prohibition Bureau working with state and local law enforcement patrolled the nation's interior. Congress, however, failed to appropriate the resources needed to enforce the law. The Coast Guard lacked enough ships to patrol U.S. waters, and faced uncertainty over the extent to which American authority extended out from shore. The Coast Guard picketed, tracked and trailed suspected rum runners, and disrupted the Rum Rows that developed off the coasts of American cities, but could not fully stop liquor smuggling.

2005 ◽  
Vol 2005 (1) ◽  
pp. 943-948
Author(s):  
Joseph Gleason

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the summer of 2004, the First Coast Guard District in Boston, Massachusetts supported both Presidential political nominating conventions for the 2004 election. The Democratic National Convention was held in Boston, Massachusetts on July 26–29, 2004, and the Republican National Convention was held in New York City from August 30th to September 2, 2004. This was the first time both conventions have taken place within the geographic area of responsibility of a single Coast Guard District. The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security declared both of these events as National Special Security Events under Presidential Decision Directive 62 (PDD-62). PDD-62 formalized and delineated the roles and responsibilities of federal agencies in the development of security plans for major events. The 2004 Democratic and Republican Conventions were the first political conventions held in the United States since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the months before the Democratic National Convention, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice stated that there was credible intelligence from multiple sources indicating that al-Qaeda planned to attempt an attack on the United States during the period leading up to the election. (Joint Statement of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and Attorney General John Ashcroft on May 28, 2004) The terrorist attacks on the Madrid rail system were a direct attempt by AI Qaeda to influence the elections in Spain, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was going to take all appropriate steps to prevent a similar attack in the United States. (Schmidt and Priest, Washington Post May 26, 2004; Page A02) The 2004 Conventions offered a significant challenge for the Coast Guard and other federal, state, and local agencies that had dual responsibility for coordinating security operations while being prepared to respond to a disaster including oil spills and hazardous substance releases—the combination of what was previously designated as crisis and consequence management under PDD-39. This paper will examine lessons learned from planning and operations in support of the conventions. Having served as the First District Project Officer for the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, this paper is written as my observations of the lessons learned and offers some insight into what went well and possible areas for improvement as I observed throughout the more than 18 months of planning for these events of national significance. The Coast Guard planning and operational support for the Democratic and Republican National Conventions demonstrated the importance of a team approach to planning, interagency coordination and partnerships, pre-event preparedness activities, and pre-deploying personnel and resources for response. It is my hope that the observations contained in this paper can benefit federal, state, and local agencies as they prepare for large significant events in the future including National Special Security Events.


2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (9) ◽  
pp. 1276-1298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margot Moinester

Over the past two decades, the U.S. federal government has sought to increase its capacity to find, apprehend, and deport noncitizens residing in the United States who have violated federal immigration laws. One way the federal government has done this is by partnering with state and local law enforcement agencies on immigration enforcement efforts. The present study analyzes the records of all 1,964,756 interior removals between fiscal years 2003 and 2015 to examine how, if at all, the types of criminal convictions leading to removal from the U.S. interior have changed during this period of heightened coordination between law enforcement agencies and whether there are differences by gender and region of origin in the types of convictions leading to removal. Findings show that as coordination between law enforcement agencies intensified, the proportion of individuals removed from the U.S. interior with either no criminal convictions or with a driving-related conviction as their most serious conviction increased. Findings also show that the proportion of individuals removed with no criminal convictions was greater for women than for men and that the share of individuals removed with a driving-related conviction as their most serious conviction was greater for Latin Americans than for individuals from all other regions. Given renewed investment in these types of law enforcement partnerships under the Trump administration, the patterns presented in this article may foreshadow trends to come.


1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-272
Author(s):  
Marian Nash (Leich)

In January 1998, the Department of State released its Publication 10518, Consular Notification and Access: Instructions for Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement and Other Officials Regarding Foreign Nationals in the United States and the Rights of Consular Officials to Assist Them. Prepared in the Office of the Legal Adviser, the booklet contains “instructions and guidance relating to the arrest and detention of foreign nationals, deaths of foreign nationals, the appointment of guardians for minors or incompetent adults who are foreign nationals, and related issues pertaining to the provision of consular services to foreign nationals in the United States.” The foreword points out that cooperation of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in ensuring treatment of foreign nationals in accordance with the instructions not only will permit the United States to comply with its consular legal obligations domestically, but also will help ensure that the United States can insist upon “rigorous compliance by foreign governments with respect to United States citizens abroad.”


2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amada Armenta

Deporting “criminal aliens” has become the highest priority in American immigration enforcement. Today, most deportations are achieved through the “crimmigration” system, a term that describes the convergence of the criminal justice and immigration enforcement systems. Emerging research argues that U.S. immigration enforcement is a “racial project” that subordinates and racializes Latino residents in the United States. This article examines the role of local law enforcement agencies in the racialization process by focusing on the techniques and logics that drive law enforcement practices across two agencies, I argue that local law enforcement agents racialize Latinos by punishing illegality through their daily, and sometimes mundane, practices. Investigatory traffic stops put Latinos at disproportionate risk of arrest and citation, and processing at the local jail subjects unauthorized immigrants to deportation. Although a variety of local actors sustain the deportation system, most do not see themselves as active participants in immigrant removal and they explain their behavior through a colorblind ideology. This colorblind ideology obscures and naturalizes how organizational practices and laws converge to systematically criminalize and punish Latinos in the United States.


1984 ◽  
Vol 21 (03) ◽  
pp. 262-269
Author(s):  
John W. Reiter

The American Bureau of Shipping and the U.S. Coast Guard have enjoyed an excellent working relationship for a long period of time. This paper gives a brief description of both organizations, describes some of the past cooperative arrangements, and details the latest agreement concerning commercial vessel plan review and inspection.


1966 ◽  
Vol 3 (03) ◽  
pp. 271-272
Author(s):  
David B. Bannerman

When it had been decided that a Load Line Conference would be held in 1966, the United States drafted a complete proposed Convention which was based on the work of the United States Load Line Committee, a group sponsored by the Coast Guard, consisting of representatives of both government and the marine industry. This draft was circulated by Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization to all governments in early 1964. Other governments then sent their comments on the U.S. proposal, and all comments were circulated together with the U.S. draft; the USSR prepared a complete draft also, and these were the two basic conference documents.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document