INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
International Parental Child Abduction and Human Trafficking Prevention Report In Correspondence To The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative And Other Related Abduction Prevention Challenges Faced By The United States And Its Neighboring Countries.
Written By
Carolyn Ann Vlk
&
Peter Thomas Senese
Overview
Since beginning our work together on child abduction prevention we have remained actively involved in advocacy and education in this area. Recently our research has led us to uncover significant border control security vulnerabilities that we believe are currently being utilized in illegally transporting children across U.S. borders in both incoming and outgoing parental abduction cases as well as being capitalized by smugglers who trade in human life.
Our findings are a cause of great concern.
The purpose of the following report is to bring these facts to the forefront of targeted and victimized parents of international parental child abduction, activists involved in the war against human trafficking, leaders of non-governmental agencies, lawyers practicing family or human rights law, all levels of law enforcement, the judiciary responsible for our nation’s children, our local, state and federal legislative policymakers, and all government agencies responsible with oversight as they are related to cross-border child abduction and human trafficking. It is our hope that our findings will cause both short and long-term preventative steps and solutions to be taken at all necessary levels so that we may work together to further protect our nation’s children. To put it mildly, we have a serious, growing, and immeasurable problem on our hands, and its far-reaching tentacles lash out at society’s greatest resource: our children.
Our initial research evolved around the question “How are children illegally abducted into and out of the United States and our adjacent neighboring countries despite preventive measures that may be in place either by court order or by preventive laws and programs?”
The answers to this question varies and includes, but is not limited to a lack of or failure to uphold child abduction prevention laws, inept courts and uneducated or naïve judges who fail to consider abduction risk or fail to carry out the intent of the laws they oversee in order to protect the welfare of a child, carefully-orchestrated abduction plans conceived well in advance by an abducting parent or trafficker, or flaws in the legal system that enable would-be abductors to capitalize on various loopholes so that they may steal a child across international borders. Many of these issues have previously been well documented. Thus, we directed our investigation toward the possibility of whether there are any existing loopholes in present law. Specifically, do opportunities presently exist that enable abductors and traffickers to steal and transport children despite our government’s legal efforts to prevent cross-border child stealing from occurring?
Dual Citizenship
Our conclusions acknowledge the existence of cross-border child abduction via individuals who possess dual-citizenship, which enables them to possess foreign passports. Often, the children of these individuals possess dual nationality as well and may be issued a passport by another country. The Department of State's Office of Children's Issues alerts parents to the possibility that "Your child might also be a citizen of another country (dual nationality)," and offers the following information on the subject of dual nationality. "The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Individuals may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth." Conversely, a child born in the U.S. to a citizen of another country may automatically acquire citizenship of that country or in some cases the parent may apply for the child to be granted citizenship.
How Are Children Illegally Abducted Into And Out Of The United States
Security flaws that can lead to our children becoming victimized include, but are not limited to the following:
1. Failures by courts and judges to properly assess abduction risk and attach court orders that would preempt international child stealing; and,
2. Failure to create or uphold present child abduction prevention laws or other laws created to protect our children’s safety; and,
3. Identity and travel documentation fraud; and,
4. A lack of uniform requirements for travel documentation when departing or entering the U.S.; and,
5. The ability under present law to easily illegally transport children under age 16 across borders during land and sea travel; and,
6. Human error during verification of travel documents by CBP at a point-of-entry or departure; and,
7. Failures by law enforcement to act expeditiously to a potential abduction threat; and,
8. Inefficient communication and data sharing between government agencies responsible to assist in preventing or resolving an international child abduction case; and,
9. The deficiency by our federal government to create and interlink a children's travel alert, travel restriction data base consisting of real-time family court decisions at the state level with all U.S. border control agencies and transport companies similar to capabilities available through the Prevent Departure Program; and,
10. A lack of or outdated or underutilized state or federal laws and programs that fail to prevent the abduction of a child and in fact may enable an abduction to occur.
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)
Our research drew us to focus on the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI).
Under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the WHTI was designed to strengthen border security and is a joint Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of State (DOS) plan that is carried out in part by the U.S. Customs Border Protection Agency (CBP). The intent of the initiative is to further protect and strengthen our nation’s borders by requiring all travelers to and from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda to present a WHTI compliant document that establishes identity and citizenship.
During the course of our investigation it became apparent that there is limited available research or data concerning international parental child abduction or human trafficking as it relates to travel document requirements for children crossing into contiguous countries by land or sea under WHTI policy. However, what is certain is that child abductions and human trafficking to our bordering nations of Mexico and Canada represent a great number of 'reported' international abductions and missing person cases originating from the United States. Additionally, we believe that a vast majority of 'unreported' child abduction cases are associated with Mexico and Canada. Our findings are cause for grave concern. It is clear that due to the varying travel documentation requirements for land and sea travel that there exist substantial loopholes in U.S. law that allow would-be abductors or traffickers to capitalize on the porous travel documentation requirements for children.
Today, very serious security gaps exist directly related to WHTI, especially as it pertains to a child’s travel document requirements. These stunning flaws and loopholes provide substantial opportunity for illegal cross-border family or stranger child abductions and human trafficking to occur to and from the United States.
Hague Convention Compliance Report On International Child Abduction
Congress mandates that under Public Law 105-277, Section 2803 the Department of States Office of Children's Issues (OCI) publish an annual report which indicates the effectiveness of securing the return of children whom have been unlawfully removed from their home country and for whom an application under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction has been filed. The publication is titled Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
Statistics from the two most current annual reports that are dated April 2009 and April 2010 demonstrate abduction crimes against children in the United States and abroad are substantially on the rise. Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, Janice L. Jacobs reports that during fiscal year 2009, the Office of Children's Issues (OCI) experienced a significant increase in the number of reported international parental kidnapping cases. The 2010 report indicates that we can anticipate the current trends previously seen with respect to the increase in international parental child abductions to continue. In fact, the number of International Parental Child Abduction (IPCA) cases in which a Hague application has been filed has nearly doubled since fiscal year 2006 from 564 to 1,135 cases in fiscal year 2009.
The 2009 report utilized data that was collected during the period from October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008 and is referred to as fiscal year (FY) 2008. This report reflects that 1,082 new cases were filed involving 1,615 children. During the study year, the U.S. was successful in the return of only 361 children.
The 2010 report covers the time period from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009 that is referred to as FY 2009. During FY 2009 1,135 new applications were received for assistance in an attempt to facilitate the return of 1,621 children who were wrongfully removed from the United States. Sadly, during FY 2009 the U.S. was successful in the return of only 436 children. The report does not indicate during which FY year a returned child was abducted.
REPORT YEAR FISCAL YEAR CASES TOTAL CHILDREN TOTAL CHLIDREN RETURNED
2010 2009 1,135 1,621 436
2009 2008 1,082 1,615 361
2008 2007 575 821 341
Now consider if the international child abduction growth rate continues at an average of 20% per year for the next ten years. This means that the projected number of 'reported' U.S. children-citizens that will be internationally abducted in the year 2020 would be 9,647. To put this into perspective, this loss would be the equivalent of 241 school buses carrying 40 children each suddenly disappearing.
Additionally, if we add the total number of 'reported' international child abductions that have occurred from 2007 and add the forecasted number of abductions anticipated to occur using a 20% growth rate, then a total of 53,285 children will have been ‘reported’ as internationally abducted from 2007 through 2020. To put this into perspective, this would be the equivalent of an entire major league baseball stadium filled with children simply vanishing.
As remarkably disturbing as these actual and projected numbers are, these forecasted statistics do not project the large and growing number of ‘unreported’ cases of international parental child abduction cases. Furthermore, they do not represent any international abductions related to stranger abductions and human trafficking, which we anticipate to be substantial.
Recovery Of Internationally Abducted Children
It is important to include that as time passes, it becomes substantially more difficult to recover an abducted child. This is especially true in light of the fact that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction contains under Article 12 a policy that could allow a judge to order for the criminally abducted child to remain in the country they were stolen to if after one year the child is considered to have settled into their new environment and it is believed that removing the child would be detrimental. As you may well imagine, there are numerous difficulties in locating and negotiating the return of a child who has been internationally abducted. The likelihood of this type of case being resolved as expeditiously as one year is slim and essentially the chasing parent may be left to negotiate on his/her own after one year has passed. Undeniably, time is not a child or a chasing parent's friend.
Make no mistake, nearly every abducting parent who is required to defend their criminal action in the international Hague courts will use every conceivable stall tactic as well as every possible defense strategy available to them including but not limited to false allegations, slander and defamation of character. In applicable cases the child may not be returned due to provisions under Article 13 of the Hague Convention. Article 13 of the Hague Convention allows for the court overseeing a Hague case to allow for a child to remain with the abducting parent in the receiving country if the court determines that a return order would cause grave risk and harm to the child. Thus, child-abductors attempting to sanction their criminal act of international child-stealing will typically make horrendous false allegations against the left behind parent in order to not only sanction their criminal behavior but to also avoid prosecution for kidnapping under the federal International Parental Kidnapping Crimes Act, the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, the federal Fugitive Felon Act and various other federal or state criminal laws where applicable.
Fortunately society has begun to take notice of the tragedies related to international child abduction and human trafficking. A more educated judiciary continues to evolve and new abduction preventive laws have been implemented to prevent child abduction and human trafficking. We have made substantial strides in social and judiciary awareness, and in certain states created new child abduction prevention laws. However, the fact is that the system in place today that was created to protect our children and their targeted parents from the nightmare of international child abduction does not work efficiently and needs to be substantially overhauled. At present, our judiciary, law enforcement, policymakers and the legislation they oversee, and the government agencies responsible for oversight fall significantly short from meeting the necessary needs of targeted children and parents. We must do substantially better at all levels of abduction prevention and child reunification.
On August 31, 2009 a speech titled Child Abductions: Globally, Nationally and Along the U.S./Mexico Border was given by Ernie Allen, President and CEO of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children. Mr. Allen states, "The problem of missing, abducted, trafficked and sexually exploited children is large, growing, under-recognized and under-reported." On November 16, 2010 Mr. Allen delivered the keynote address at the National Amber Alert Symposium. During his speech he revealed, "Children are the leading victims of violent and personal crimes in this country, victimized at a rate twice as high as the general population." Continuing he stated, “Children are the single most victimized segment of our population. Even with all of the progress we have made, most Americans still don’t understand that basic fact. According to Justice Department research, more than 2,000 children will be reported missing in the United States today!" Additionally, Mr. Allen stated, "The numbers are staggering. The tragedies continue and too many children do not make it home."
One of the questions we must ask ourselves in connection to such statements is How are our children disappearing?
In relationship to parental child abduction cases, we acknowledge the failures of courts to act cautiously and prudently in preventing a potential abduction. There is no question that judges and the courts they oversee need to become better informed, and that more education is desperately needed to influence a judge’s decision making when it comes to protecting the welfare of a child. The existence of serious foul play and deceit by an abducting parent who steals a child across international borders without the targeted parents anticipation or knowledge is a serious concern. And we acknowledge extreme circumstances when a child is removed from the United States despite court orders because both the child and the abducting parent have dual citizenship and both possess a primary or secondary passport issued by the abducting parent’s country of origin. This circumstance renders programs such as the United States Children's Passport Issuance Alert Program (CPIAP) or Prevent Departure Program (PDP) useless.
This report focuses on the substantial loopholes available to would-be abductors and traffickers that presently enable them to commit their egregious crimes despite great efforts to prevent cross-border abduction. We believe there is a direct correlation between the high number of successful child abductions to our neighboring countries and the legal loopholes that allow minimum travel documentation requirements for children traveling by land or by sea under WHTI policy.
Documentary Requirements For Children Traveling Internationally
The WHTI requirements for air travel took effect on January 23, 2007. According to U.S. Customs Border Protection, “All U.S. citizens and non-immigrant aliens from Canada, Bermuda, and Mexico departing from or entering the United States from within the Western Hemisphere at air ports-of-entry are required to present a valid passport (or NEXUS card, if utilizing a NEXUS kiosk when departing from a designated Canadian airport).” We believe that this stringent mandate for verifiable documentary identification prior to air travel has significantly reduced the ability to unlawfully remove a child from the United States.
Additionally, the U.S. increased the security of its child citizens when on February 1, 2008 new requirements under Public Law 106-113, Section 236 took effect requiring the permission of both parents prior to the issuance of a U.S. passport for children under the age of 16. According to the Department of State Office Of Children's Issues, “U.S. law requires the signature of both parents, or the child's legal guardians, prior to issuance of a U.S. passport to children under the age of 16. Generally, to obtain a U.S. passport for a child under the age of 16, both parents (or the child’s legal guardians) must execute the child’s passport application and provide documentary evidence demonstrating that they are the parents or guardians. If this cannot be done, the person executing the passport application must provide documentary evidence that he or she has sole custody of the child, has the consent of the other parent to the issuance of the passport, or is acting in place of the parents and has the consent of both parents (or of a parent/legal guardian with sole custody over the child to the issuance of the passport)."
Due to the implementation of these new requirements, the ability to unlawfully transport children that do not possess dual citizenship across borders has become increasingly difficult. The two-parent signature necessary for a minor child's U.S. passport issuance has strengthened our border security and reduced the ability to present incomplete or fraudulent documentation in order to travel with a child across international borders. Thankfully, our child citizens are better protected than they were just a few years ago.
The two-parent signature requirement necessary for a U.S. Passport to be issued for a child has greatly reduced the opportunity that a passport will be issued without another parent’s knowledge or consent. Unfortunately, documentation fraud is still very difficult to detect and remains a severe threat to our nation's children, especially if initiated by parental forgery. Tragically, for many targeted-parent victims of international parental child abduction this type of fraud is common. Unquestionably, it is critical that precautionary steps continue to be taken before issuing passports to children due to substantial evidence of documentation fraud.
Additionally, and to our great concern, it appears to be relatively easy to obtain fraudulent or falsified identification or residency documentation.
Tere Silva, resident agent in charge of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in San Juan, Puerto Rico, said in a statement issued on November 17th, 2010, "Among the various schemes and artifices being used by some unscrupulous persons are offers to provide immigration services, including ways to avoid the established channels for adjusting one's immigration status, offers to provide false and forged identity documents, even threats and false impersonation of immigration officials."
On November 19th, 2010 Daniel Lane, assistant special agent in charge of ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in Sacramento, California stated, "Targeting those responsible for making and selling fraudulent documents is an enforcement priority for ICE HSI. Anyone who knowingly and indiscriminately sells phony identity cards is putting the security of our communities and even our country at risk. Documents like this could potentially be used by dangerous criminals and others seeking to obscure their identities and mask their motives." Agent Lane's comments came after ICE arrested four individuals for running a highly sophisticated forged document factory that included creating fraudulent California drivers licenses, permanent resident cards (Green Cards), U.S. birth certificates and other documents capable of removing a child from the U.S. under the WHTI.
In response to the rise of illegal entry and exodus to the United States, the implementation of WHTI policy has effectively narrowed the types of documents that are acceptable in proving identity and citizenship. Although this change is a critical step towards meeting the challenge of securing our borders there still remain significant security challenges due to certain allowable exemptions. Unfortunately, when it comes to cross border travel by children being transported by land or sea, numerous security defects exist. Unquestionably, individuals or organizations with intent to breach the law have exploited these policy flaws. Our nation’s children as well as children from other countries are suffering either as defenseless victims of international parental child abduction or as helpless slaves taken into the world of human trafficking, where the worst types of crimes against humanity are the norm.
As a nation concerned with our children’s safety and welfare, it is unacceptable that large gaps in security protocol exist in our nation’s international travel document requirements for children traveling in the Western Hemisphere. In the 2009, annual Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Janice L. Jacobs, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs writes, "Unfortunately, current trends reflect a steady increase in the number of international parental child abduction cases and highlight the urgency of redoubling efforts to promote compliance with Convention obligations and encourage additional nations to join the Convention." She also writes, "Very few options exist for parents and children who are victims of parental child abduction." In the 2010 annual report Ms. Jacobs continues to voice concerns over the increasing numbers of our child-citizens who have been wrongfully removed or wrongfully detained.
Assistant Secretary of State of Consular Affairs Jacobs concern about the growing rate of international parental child abduction (IPCA) is alarming, yet our adjacent borders remain relatively open for those with the knowledge on how to circumvent border security protocol. Make no mistake, nearly every IPCA case is well thought out and planned.
Human Trafficking
The buying and selling of humans is the second largest criminal activity in the world. In the U.S., this problem is much more severe than commonly discussed. Of particular concern is that it is estimated that over 70% of all humans trafficked into the U.S. originate from Latin America: countries such as Mexico, Honduras, and El Salvador are well-known supply sources for human cargo.
A significant number of these enslaved are young teenagers between 13 and 15 years old who originate from poverty-stricken communities, and who are lured into the dark world of slavery due to false promises of legitimate jobs and a better life in America. What awaits them is an inhuman slave world filled with torture, violence, and threats of death to family members they left behind if they ever attempt to flee their imprisoned ‘cantinas’ – prison-like brothels where they are never allowed to leave. Tragically, sure death awaits those imprisoned into this inferno: they are either murdered, die of drug overdose, or die of disease and infection.
One of the grave concerns we must ask is How are these individual doomed to enter the awaiting world of human slavery trafficked into the United States from Latin America and crossing our border?
It is apparent that the majority of human cargo entering our borders due so illegally. Though limited data is available, sound reasoning leads us to anticipate that this number is substantial.
Due to limited border documentation requirements under WHTI policy, particularly for minors traveling, there is substantial concern that human traffickers are currently using this loophole in order to move their young human cargo into the United States from Mexico and Caribbean island-nations.
The world of human trafficking and slavery is very real. According to author of Free The Slaves, Kevin Bale, there are nearly 27 million people across the world caught in modern-day slavery. The United States Department of State Trafficking In Persons Report (TIP Report) estimates this number to be between 4 million and 27 million individuals. Additionally, the Department of State estimates that there are over 800,000 individuals each year being transported across international borders. And according to their 2005 report titled Facts About Child Sex Tourism, there were over 1 million children exploited by the global commercial sex trade every year. All of these numbers continue to increase. Human trafficking is a dark world without any peer and most organizations involved in human trafficking and slavery are highly sophisticated.
Yet our borders remain relatively unencumbered for children traveling abroad in the Western Hemisphere.
U.S. Passport Requirements For International Travel
For U.S. Citizens, a Federal Statute mandates that any citizen of the U.S. must possess a valid U.S. passport to depart from or enter the U.S. Following is the text of Federal Statute 8 U.S.C. 1185 (b).
(b) Citizens Except as otherwise provided by the President and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may authorize and prescribe, it shall be unlawful for any citizen of the United States to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States unless he bears a valid United States passport.
When WHTI requirements for land and sea became effective on June 1, 2009 exceptions to the Federal Statute passport requirement were allowed. The new regulation states that U.S. citizens and citizens of Canada, Bermuda and Mexico may present a passport or other WHTI-compliant documents when entering or departing the United States at sea or land ports-of-entry from within the Western Hemisphere.
Due to exceptions to the passport requirement, our research has concluded there exists distinct areas of vulnerability at the border for our children.
Fraudulent Documentation
The presentation of fraudulent documents at border points has long existed and is well illustrated in the publication of Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) Land and Sea Final Rule" that was released March 27, 2008 by the Department of Homeland Security. It was reported that CBP officers had intercepted over 129,000 fraudulent documents since January 2005 from individuals trying to cross the border over an approximate 3 ½ year period. This is a substantial number; however, we must ask ourselves how many fraudulent documents were never uncovered and successfully used?
To better demonstrate the severity of this problem we take note of a scenario that occurred several years ago in Texas and was reported by the Department of Immigration and Naturalization Services. A women acting as a lay-midwife was charged and convicted with fraudulently filing and obtaining over 3,400 United States birth certificate claims over a ten year period: almost one American birth certificate a day was fraudulently obtained and sold on the black market over a decade by one woman alone. This individual was one of eleven individuals convicted of filing and obtaining false birth certificates that were sold on the black market in Texas during a federal investigation. Of immense concern to us is that WHTI allows a child to cross international borders by land or sea and in lieu of a passport an original or copy of a birth certificate may be presented.
As noted in language of the Federal Statute above, limitations and exceptions do exist. According to CBP passport exceptions exist when traveling with U.S. or Canadian citizen infants and children. Of grave concern are the deficiencies that could be utilized in the cross border unlawful removal by land or sea of at risk children. If traveling by air everyone, even infants require a passport. However, WHTI allows that U.S. and Canadian citizen children “will not require passports for travel by land or sea when the June 1, 2009 rule goes into effect requiring all land and sea travelers to have a passport. Children under the age of 15 will have a blanket exemption from this requirement – although they will be required to present a copy of a birth certificate and, if not traveling with both parents, a consent letter from the other parent(s).”
We are especially concerned about the ability to falsify travel documentation for children. The capability to easily present travel documentation without another parent's consent or to falsify travel documents for children in cases where a passport is not required appears relatively easy. The fact that simply a birth certificate or worse, a “copy” of a birth certificate and a letter of permission with no documentation to verify its validity, is sufficient to cross international borders is a serious security concern. And although it is also recommended that a parent or guardian possess a letter of consent from the absent parent(s) this may or may not be required or requested. We must also consider that there is no way to verify the validity of a parental consent letter.
These concerns should sound an alarm bell directed at courts presiding over child custody cases where there is concern for potential international parental child abduction. Peter Thomas Senese, the co-writer of this report wrote in Chasing The Cyclone, “I know first-hand of several international parental child abduction cases where a false international travel consent letter was either fraudulently produced or never produced by the other parent in order for that abducting parent to depart from Canada into the United States or from the United States into Canada. The court’s orders were not followed, as is the case with all abducting parents. More troubling is the fact that in each of these cases, none of the necessary consent letters were ever checked by either countries border patrol or immigration agencies. This is absurd, particularly when knowing many of these consent to travel letters were not notarized and not original documents. It must be a requirement on both sides of the border for all land and sea travelers regardless of age to use a passport, which is the policy in place for air travel.”
When we consider the growing rate of international abduction here in the U.S. and abroad, there is a very real concern that our borders are used not only as a final destination for an abducting parent or trafficker, but as the launching point for an abductor to travel to their intended final destination. Although most countries recognize that documentation fraud is a severe concern it is clear that the minimization of travel document requirements needed for a minor to travel across our borders enables would-be abductors to criminally abduct a child. For example, if a would-be abductor traveling by land from the U.S. to Canada has in their possession any child’s original or ‘a copy’ of a birth certificate and a falsified consent to travel letter, they have the capability to internationally abduct any child from the U.S.
Realistically, all a potential abductor may need is a copy of a birth certificate. Although it is recommended that children traveling alone or with one parent posses a consent letter from any absent parents this is not a requirement. In reference to the birth certificate requirement, many parents obtain several copies of a child’s birth certificate: it is not as if you are allowed only one copy such as a U.S. Passport. Unquestionably, if all cross-border travel for children of all ages does not include the much more secure and controllable use of a passport, then abducting parents and human traffickers will still be capable of abducting children.
The required travel document for an infant under age one who is traveling by land or sea between the U.S. and Canada is alarming. The CBP states that “If you have not yet received a birth certificate for a U.S. or Canadian citizen infant, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will accept either the birth record issued by the hospital or a letter on hospital letterhead providing details of the birth, including the name of the child, time and place of birth, and parents names. Birth certificates should be used for children over 1 year old.” Once again, the ease of fraudulently creating this type of “document” exists and a child could easily be smuggled across international borders.
Contiguous Countries – Mexico and Canada
Contiguous and adjacent countries seem to allow for the possibility of additional serious security breaches that need to be immediately resolved. While WHTI appears to remedy much of the ability to present fraudulent documentation at the border, it does allow for certain exceptions to the rule.
CBP reports this security vulnerability for children when it states, “U.S. and Canadian citizen children under age 16 arriving by land or sea from a contiguous territory may present an original or copy of his or her birth certificate, a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, a Naturalization Certificate, or a Canadian Citizenship Card.” Contiguous territories are defined as countries sharing a common boundary with the United States. Canada and Mexico are both contiguous to the U.S.
In regards to outgoing cross-border abductions to Mexico (a contiguous country), the U.S. Department of State (DOS) reports “Mexico is the destination country of the greatest number of children abducted from the United States by a parent.” Additionally, “65% of all outgoing international parental abductions from the United States to Hague Convention countries are to Mexico, and that 41% of all incoming international parental abductions to the United States are from Mexico.” It is also important to note that according to the DOS, “Since March 1, 2010, all U.S. citizens – including children – have been required to present a valid passport or passport card for travel beyond the “border zone” into the interior of Mexico. The “border zone” is generally defined as an area within 20 to 30 kilometers of the border with the U.S., depending on the location.” Concerns arise when you consider that entry into Mexico is allowed without a passport if a representation is made that you intend to remain within the designated “border zone”.
Although Mexico acceded to The Hague Convention on June 20, 1991 and entered into force with the U.S. on October 1, 1991, Mexico has consistently been labeled non-compliant with the Convention. The 2010 Hague Compliance Report states that for fiscal year 2009 there were 474 children involved in new outgoing (from the U.S. to Mexico) Hague applications. The 2009 Hague Compliance Report states there were 533 children abducted to Mexico, representing a 67% increase of reported abduction cases from 2007 (320 cases). The ‘reported’ cases do not include the immeasurable anticipated ‘unreported’ cases of parental child abduction occurring between the United States and Mexico previously discussed in Crisis In America: International Parental Child Abduction Today (2010). Mexico’s non-compliance with the Hague Convention is unquestionably appalling; however, the suffering and danger that must be endured by the thousands of abducted U.S. child-citizens stolen from their American homes to Mexico, nor the pain of their chasing parents left behind in the wake of the criminal act of child-stealing will never be fully understood by others unless it is experienced first-hand.
More insight should perhaps be shared on Mexico’s decade-long atrocities against children and their consistent and ongoing failures to follow international laws pertaining to the world’s children and their safety. The U.S. Department of State’s annual compliance report has documented Mexico’s history of non-compliance over the past decade. A Texas courts made a landmark decision when it went so far to find Mexico's legal system ineffective and lacking legal mechanisms for the immediate and effective enforcement of child custody orders. The court stated that Mexico posed a risk to children's physical health and safety due to human rights violations committed against children, including child labor and a lack of child abduction laws. This ruling was not rendered without insight and reason: in fact the U.S. Department of State, who has consistently posted travel warnings to U.S. citizens traveling to Mexico, recently issued a warning to authorize the departure of children dependents of U.S. government personnel in U.S. consulates and offer financial assistance to relocating families.
Nearly every year since The Hague Compliance Report was ordered to be prepared for Congress the DOS has sited that one of the gravest challenges in having a U.S. child-citizen stolen to Mexico is Mexico’s inability to locate abducted children. This problem remains severe today despite Mexico’s Central Authority claims that there has been slight improvement. Maura Harty, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs for the U.S. Department of State previously commented, “Among the underlying causes of Mexico's poor performance overall under the Hague Convention appear to be a woefully understaffed and underfunded Central Authority in the Foreign Ministry; a judiciary unfamiliar with, and not infrequently hostile to, the Convention; and law enforcement and court authorities unable to locate children even in cases in which we and the left-behind parents can provide exact addresses. In general, Mexico has only partially implemented the Hague Abduction Convention into its legal, administrative and law enforcement systems."
Our concern regarding Mexico is magnified due to this nation's poor record to stop human slavery.
In a written statement made in the U.S. Department of State's Trafficking in Persons Report in June 2009, "Mexico is a large source, transit, and destination country for persons trafficked for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation and forced labor. Groups considered most vulnerable to human trafficking in Mexico include women and children, indigenous persons, and undocumented migrants. A significant number of Mexican women, girls, and boys are trafficked within the country for commercial sexual exploitation, lured by false job offers from poor rural regions to urban, border, and tourist areas. According to the government, more than 20,000 Mexican children are victims of sex trafficking every year, especially in tourist and border areas."
Additionally, Anne Keehn, the 2010 Zimmerman Fellow recipient of the world renown human rights and anti-slavery advocacy group 'Free the Slaves' recently stated, “Unfortunately, [Mexico's President] Calderón’s attack on drug cartels has left few resources to combat human trafficking. Mexico has tried to address the issue through legal changes to combat trafficking as recently as 2007, when ‘federal legislation to prohibit all forms of drug trafficking’ was passed. Nonetheless, according to the U.S. Department of State’s Trafficking of Persons Report 2010, ‘some local officials tolerate and are sometimes complicit in trafficking, impeding the implementation of anti-trafficking statutes.’”
Due to the overall consensus of the significant dangers related to child abduction, exit controls for U.S. citizens departing the U.S. through all modes of travel need to be immediately implemented. If passports were required for all travelers to travel abroad, it is reasonable to believe there would be a significant reduction in the number of international parental child abductions and children missing due to human trafficking.
Under the present travel requirements, children in specific circumstances may be transported across borders without a passport. We believe this security deficiency has allowed hundreds if not thousands of defenseless children to be transported out of the country.
Due to the circumstances stated above and further disturbing information provided in this report, it is imperative that we attempt to hinder the possibility of illegal passage of children into Mexico due to the non-compliance exhibited in areas of law enforcement and judicial performance and the myriad of difficulties encountered in regards to a return application.
International Child Abduction Statistics
We must also consider the incoming cases of children that are consistently illegally transported into the U.S. The 2010 Hague Compliance Report indicates that 75 new Hague return applications were filed that represent 120 children that crossed from Mexico into the U.S. in violation of law. One can surmise that the security vulnerability that exists for outgoing cases could also be utilized in the illegal transport of children in incoming cases.
Cross-border abductions between the U.S. and Canada (a contiguous country) are also reported in the 2010 Hague Compliance Report. It indicates that there were 74 new outgoing cases involving 104 children and 29 new incoming cases representing 39 children. These are only cases in which a Hague application was filed and it should be noted that the number of Hague applications in no way accurately represents the actual number of children abducted in either incoming or outgoing cases. In statistical data compiled by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police there were over 60,000 children reported missing annually from Canada each study year between 1998 and 2007.
Within the U.S. the most recent National Incidence Study of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Thrownaway Children (NISMART-2), reports that of the 203,900 children that are estimated to be parentally abducted annually in the U.S. that only 28% (56,500) of these abductions were reported to law enforcement. Additionally, the NISMART 2 statistical data is certainly outdated as it was compiled with information from cases studied that were concentrated in 1999. These facts lead us to surmise that we have an incalculable number of children abducted annually.
Adjacent Island-Nations
Currently, according to CBP "closed loop" travel to adjacent islands allows for the same documentary exceptions under WHTI, as do contiguous countries. Specifically, "Travelers on "closed loop" voyages are NOT subject to the same documentary requirements for entry to the United States as other travelers."
The CBP website indicates at least thirty-seven countries currently meet this definition. Adjacent islands are defined by statutes and regulation, specifically the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(b)(5) and 8 Code of Federal Regulations §286.1. CBP reports that adjacent islands to the U.S. are: “Anguilla, Antigua, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Barbuda, Bermuda, Bonfire, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cuba, Curacao, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Haiti, Jamaica, Marie-Galantine, Martinique, Miquelon, Montserrat, Saba, Saint Barthelemy, Saint Christopher, Saint Eustatius, Saint Kitts-Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Maarten, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, and other British, French and Netherlands territory or possessions bordering on the Caribbean Sea.”
As previously discussed, the 2010 Hague Compliance Report reflected during FY 2009 there were 1,621 children for whom a Hague application was filed. Alarmingly, 833 of these children were victims whose cross border abduction was into or out of a country that is considered either contiguous or adjacent to the U.S. The report indicates that 652 children were taken OUT of the U.S. and into contiguous or adjacent countries. An additional 181 children were brought INTO the U.S. from contiguous or adjacent countries who are Hague treaty partners. The annual Hague Compliance Report does not indicate how many children are abducted into the U.S. from countries that are not Hague Treaty partners. We believe that the available data indicates a substantial security breach exists due to a lack of uniformity in documentary requirements while crossing international borders within the Western Hemisphere.
The opportunity for trafficking of children in the Caribbean is substantial. As Anthony M. Davis, the former U.S. Coast Guard Officer and the best-selling author of ‘Terrorism and Maritime Transportation System’ shared, “There's significant potential for illegal cross-border travel off the shores of Puerto Rico and other U.S. island territories. Generally, there is a consistent flow of people on small, low vessels called ‘Yolas’. During my Coast Guard time I saw many of the boats involved with illegal travel were from the Dominican Republic to Puerto Rico’s west coast. However, there also exists a substantial number of boats traveling from Puerto Rico to other island-nations. While Coast Guard and other assets look for these hard-to-spot vessels, they typically search for those heading toward Puerto Rico, not leaving it. In many cases of incoming vessels, it was common to have undocumented women and children of all ages traveling on these boats.
“Due to the close proximity of many of the island-nations to U.S. territory including Puerto Rico, St. Thomas, and St. John, there’s a substantial opportunity for parents and traffickers to criminally remove a child from the United States across international borders to carry out an illegal act. The reasons: difficulties related to logistics in inspection and documentation requirements. Unquestionably, illegal inter-island travel originating from a U.S. territory to another Caribbean island nation is a serious matter, one easily capitalized on by individuals involved in crimes against children. In order to prevent individuals who seek to capitalize on our exit controls in U.S. island territories, it is important for the courts to recognize the relative ease of illegal travel connected to the Caribbean.”
Sea Travel Closed-Loop Voyages
We are also very concerned that the documentary requirements for a “closed loop” cruise ship or other water vessel’s voyage or itinerary to contiguous countries or adjacent islands allows travelers to be exempt from the documentary requirements necessary for other types of travel. The CBP defines “closed loop” as occurring when “a vessel departs from a U.S. port or place and returns to the same U.S. port upon completion of the voyage. U.S. citizens who board a cruise ship at a port within the United States, travel only within the Western Hemisphere, and return to the same U.S. port on the same ship may present a government issued photo identification, along with proof of citizenship (an original or copy of his or her birth certificate, a Consular report of Birth Abroad, or a Certificate of Naturalization). A U.S. citizen under the age of 16 will be able to present either an original or a copy of his or her birth certificate, a Consular Report of Birth Abroad issued by DOS, or a Certificate of Naturalization issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.”
Travel requirements for children traveling at sea are quite alarming. The porous documentation controls in place due to the WHTI facilitate child abduction opportunity at sea in unthinkable ways. For example, there are certain cruise ships that have ports of call in other countries that cater specifically to children. These cruise ships hold over 5,000 passengers and typically have weekly departures. With thousands of children boarding one of these cruise ships, we acknowledge it is clear there is substantial opportunity for a parental or non-parental child abduction to occur.
In a likely scenario for cruise ship related international parental child abduction or child trafficking, an individual could presumably board a cruise ship with a targeted child with limited or fraudulent documentation for the child, travel to WHTI designated foreign ports, disembark with the child at a port of call and simply choose not to re-board the ship, effectively circumventing the necessity of a passport which is required for other types of travel.
The potential to illegally remove a child across international borders via cruise ship travel is substantially magnified because currently there are no systematic data base controls and other security measures that would prevent a child's illegal departure from the United States. Exemplifying this grave concern are direct statements made from the security departments of two of the world's largest cruise lines operators. In statements made by both companies, neither have a security database that would enable a parent nor a court of law to place a child's name on a 'no embarkment' list due to specified court order. So even if a court order is issued that either directly names the cruise ship company as part of the action or if the court order references the cruise ship company to prohibit a child's departure but does not list the cruise ship as part of the legal action, the cruise ship companies have nothing in place that would enable them to comply with the court order.
When representatives in the security departments of both cruise ship companies were asked what could be done with a court order prohibiting a child's departure, each spokesperson suggested that if the targeted parent knew what cruise ship and departure date their child was scheduled to travel on, then it would be up to the parent to contact local law enforcement.
Obviously, the ability for a single parent trying to protect their child's abduction to run from cruise ship port to cruise ship port hoping to determine if their child is traveling on one of the ships is more than daunting and unrealistic, particularly since the vast majority of international child abductions are well planned, and cleverly orchestrated.
In a time of increased international security concerns, it is inconceivable that the only type of data bases most cruise ship operators have in place is a data base that flags previous passengers from traveling on their fleet due to past conduct on board one of their ships.
Remarkably, there is no systematic check to determine if a child’s name has been placed on any law enforcement or government travel alert lists. However, if a U.S. passport was required and the U.S. passport was scanned, then a border patrol agent would have immediate access to potentially critical information regarding the safety of the child. We call upon the cruise ships to act responsibly by establishing security procedures including a 'no-embarkment' database that would assist in the prevention of international parental child abduction and human trafficking.
When we consider there are approximately 760 cruises scheduled to depart from the U.S. and travel in a ‘closed loop’ to the Caribbean during fiscal year 2011, this becomes very concerning. Our worry increases after we consider there are 47 "closed loop" cruises scheduled to depart the U.S. to Canada during the same period. And finally, our concern surges when we realize that there are 379 cruises scheduled to depart the U.S. and travel in a "closed loop" to Mexico.
As previously discussed in this report, Mexico is a hotbed for ‘reported’ and ‘unreported’ incoming and outgoing international parental child abduction cases. A substantial number of U.S. parents have filed a Hague application due to the criminal international abduction of their child or children. Unfortunately, very few abducted children return to the U.S. despite court orders demanding the child’s return. These opinions are substantially backed by the U.S. Department of State, as Mexico has repeatedly been reported to Congress as a non-compliant member of the Hague Convention. In addition, Mexico’s record as a country known for its criminal activity of human trafficking is substantial.
We express our grave concern that cruise ships may be utilized to transport children illegally to and from the U.S., Mexico, and Canada as well island nations of the Caribbean.
It is inconceivable that U.S. children are still permitted to travel to specific foreign countries in accordance with the WHTI without a passport. Today, nearly 30% of all U.S. citizens possess a passport. As that number continues to grow substantially each year it is unthinkable not to require a passport for a child to travel abroad. In 2011 cruise ships are scheduled to originate from the U.S and travel to 63 ports of call in Mexico, 48 ports in the Caribbean, and from 20 ports of call in Canada. We contend that a failure to require children to present a passport for all international travel is an act of misguided negligence.
Closed-Loop Foreign Destination Number of Cruises Number of Ports
Caribbean 760 63
Canada 43 20
Mexico 379 48
The CBP does state that a U.S. Citizen “may” be required to present a U.S. passport if disembarking at a foreign port but that this requirement is up to the individual ports-of-entry. We must also consider that smaller personal watercrafts traveling to foreign ports under a “closed-loop” journey offer distinct opportunity for child abductors and human traffickers to circumvent our nation’s laws or court orders. The lack of formidable travel documentation for cruise ship or other water vessel excursions originating from and returning to the United States is a black hole for would-be child abductors or traffickers.
The fact that cruise ships are being utilized in human trafficking is not unrecognized within the U.S. or in other countries. The following statements come directly from a human rights watchdog organization in Belize.
The Belize Organization for Responsible Tourism (ORT) issues this appeal to cruise lines bringing passengers to Belize, a superhighway for human trafficking. “We are asking for your help in stopping human trafficking in Belize. In particular, we appeal to Norwegian Cruise Line and Carnival Cruise Lines, which bring a combined 700, 000 tourists to Belize annually.
Cruise lines have a moral responsibility to help stop human trafficking in Belize. Each year thousands of human trafficking victims are transited through Belize via its porous and corrupt borders. Many are exported to other countries and never seen again by their families. Many endure lives of forced prostitution in Belize ficha bars.”
As these serious challenges come to light, we need to create a comprehensive short-term and long-term strategy that will prevent child abduction and human trafficking from occurring due to limited WHTI child travel documentation requirements for land and sea travel. There remains a significant amount of work necessary to enhance border security so that current weaknesses will no longer be available to be exploited. Our children must become a priority and the risk of abduction and human trafficking be lessened through mandating legitimate and uniform travel documentation.
The issues of child abduction and child slavery have received relatively limited public exposure. There has been limited government reaction directed toward changing public policy, government agency operations and protocol, and reform of laws that may facilitate or enable international abduction. It is important to recognize that over the past two years there have been over 1,000 ‘reported’ cases of U.S. child citizens being criminally abducted to Mexico and untold numbers of unreported cases. Imagine how our nation would act if:
1. 25 school buses containing 40 defenseless 5th grader American students disappeared in Mexico; or,
2. 4 Boeing 757 passenger jets containing 250 middle school children each was hijacked; or,
3. A cruise ship with 1,000 high school students on a spring break trip was pirated off of Mexico’s borders; or,
4. A train traveling with 1,000 students and their teachers was hijacked.
Undoubtedly, there would be public outcry and reform at every level. However, our public and government concern has not reached levels that it should. The many voices of this unthinkable crime tend to be diluted due to the singular reporting methodology. It is imperative that immediate revisions in law and government policy be initiated including reform of the WHTI land and sea travel requirements for minors.
U.S. Passport Concerns and Statistics
International parental child abduction and human trafficking are extraordinary issues where there is no such thing as ‘collateral damage’. In the past, certain legislators have expressed concern that possession of a passport as a requirement to travel by either ground or sea to our neighboring countries would have a direct impact on commercial trade. One additional concern expressed by some of our policymakers is the requirement for a passport for all travel may be an expensive proposition for the average American family, particularly since a child’s passport alone costs over $80.00. The cruise ship industry, with many of its fleet of ships bearing the flags of nations other than the United States, has petitioned against the use of passports for ‘closed loop’ travel since the conception of the WHTI. Obviously, the industry is concerned that the additional cost associated with a passenger having to obtain a passport may cause a potential traveling customer to view a cruise as too costly.
However, statistics for new passport issuances effectively dispute these claims.
According to Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Maura Harty, “there were over 60 million U.S. citizens who had a valid passport in 2005.” Further research shows substantial increase in the number of U.S. Passports issued since 2005. They include:
1. 2006: 12,133,537 new passports; and,
2. 2007: 18,382,798 new passports; and,
3. 2008: 16,208,003 new passports; and,
4. 2009: 13,486,000 new passports.
Thus, there were over 60 million new passports issued during the past four years, excluding the number of passports presently issued during FY 2010. Unquestionably, we have become a passport-friendly society. We contend that a previous position that a passport requirement results in financial disadvantages to commerce are inaccurate, clearly outdated, and are misguided.
Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Maura Harty, a proponent of harmonized passport travel stated, “For increased security and increased document integrity . . . State and DHS together rarely, singly or together, visit with a foreign entity without touching that very point, that the better and more secure documents are, the better and more easy it is to facilitate legitimate travel by legitimate travelers.”
Admittedly, passport requirements for all children traveling internationally under all circumstances will result in increased cost to the potential international traveler. However, this additional level of security will help ensure the safety of all children. Furthermore, the heavy financial burden associated with the recovery of criminally abducted or trafficked children should be paramount to any economic conversation.
Unequivocally, we take the position that a passport requirement for international travel can potentially protect thousands of our nation’s innocent children from the cruel fate of international abduction or from entering into the infernos of human slavery. Our U.S. child-citizens are entitled to the fundamental rights of freedom, justice and liberty and we must protect them.
We recommend that the documentary requirements implemented for air travel in Phase One of WHTI be the same requirements necessary for cross-border land and sea travel. In the interest of the safety of all children, we request that there be no exceptions to the passport mandate for contiguous countries, adjacent countries or "closed loop" voyages. Specifically, that all children, regardless of age must posses a passport for any cross-border travel. Harmonization of the documentary requirements for all modes of travel and at all international borders will help us achieve a reduction in the heinous crimes of child abduction and human trafficking.
Recommendations And Strategies
We hope that this report will educate victim parents, legal professionals, and members of the judiciary about an assortment of viable exit strategies that would-be abductors and traffickers can capitalize on in order to commit crimes against our and other nation’s children. Child abduction prevention strategies are critical and must include efforts to prohibit a child’s potential travel to or around our neighboring countries by land or sea, including specific court ordered prohibition for cruise ship travel by any at-risk child who may fall prey to a would-be abductor.
Notwithstanding the vital need to raise awareness of the issues presented herein, we urge that the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is immediately and urgently amended to include mandating that all international travel of any kind, including all travel for children, require a valid passport. By establishing all citizens to present a valid passport at a border crossing, the opportunity to reduce criminal activity as it is related to illegal border travel is substantial. If we are to close the existing loopholes that present child abductors and human traffickers the substantial opportunity to capitalize on the weak travel document requirement protocols presently in place under WHTI, the most effective and efficient way to do so is to establish an all-passport travel requirement for all international travel.
We recognize there must also be high priority short-term protocols implemented that will reduce the possibility of child abductions related to WHTI travel document requirement loopholes while moving to an all-passport travel requirement policy. Court-ordered prevention orders are critical to reduce child abduction threats; however, we acknowledge that under present WHTI travel requirements the use of documentation fraud is a strong reality. In addition, due to the limited existence of databases capable of flagging a child traveling under the present minimum travel documentation requirements established for children under WHTI and who are potential targets for abduction, we call for the implementation of substantially more training of CBP officers and for thorough security travel documentation checks for all children traveling abroad without a valid passport until such time that the desperately needed passport requirement is harmonized for all individuals regardless of age traveling abroad.
Pamela Michell, the founder of Survivor On A Mission and Heroes In Training stated, “As an advocate and survivor of human trafficking, I realize first-hand all types of abduction and abuse are widely unreported. Despite the spirit of the WHTI, international parental child abduction and trafficking of human cargo are rapidly increasing. An unacceptable and miniscule percentage of children and adults are ever recovered. Any loopholes in legal flaws in travel documentation requirements for international travel that may allow monsters to prey on others must immediately be changed. In the case of WHTI’s expansive flaws, we are not simply speaking about several isolated cases of targeted abduction, but of many thousands of at-risk children who could potentially fall into a dark world no words could ever possibly express. I call upon our political and governmental leaders to modify these laws in order to protect our children.”
If you believe your child is at risk of international abduction by their other parent, it is critical you immediately seek the assistance from the court overseeing your child’s welfare in order to obtain court-ordered abduction prevention orders issued by the court against the other parent. In initiating any urgent action, we strongly advise you seek the assistance of a lawyer familiar with both family court law and child abduction prevention strategies. We have provided a list of websites below that offer an array of prevention techniques and additional useful information that should be considered by you and your lawyer before you go into court. However, we also urge you to bring to the court’s attention potential exit strategies an abducting parent may attempt to capitalize on that are discussed specifically in this report, as the information we have exposed regarding land and sea exit options abductors may seek to capitalize on under the WHTI have, at the time of this report, have not been widely discussed until now.
It is not necessary to have a custody order for law enforcement to assist in the recovery of your child and any subsequent criminal proceedings. However, a custody order is often critical in recovery efforts if the other parent has abducted your child. A well-executed custody determination will establish the guidelines and protocols once your child is recovered. You must immediately seek civil remedies by going to court and obtaining a custody order and other civil relief that you may be entitled to.
If you believe the illegal removal of your child across international borders is in progress, we suggest you immediately and simultaneously, follow the action list below.
Immediately file a report with local law enforcement. Request local law enforcement to contact the FBI and enter information about your child in to the National Crime Information Center – Missing Person File (NCIC-MPF).
NOTE: The Adam Walsh Act and the PROTECT Act of 2003 (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today) require every local, state and federal law enforcement agency to report missing children, under 21 years of age, to NCIC within two hours of receiving the report. We advise that two hours after the report is made that you confirm the entry of your child into the NCIC system.
Contact the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)– Missing Child Division (MCD) at 1-888-24-NCMEC or 1-888-246-2632. Their website is: www.missingkids.com
Urge the law enforcement agencies involved to contact the United States National Central Bureau (USNCB)-INTERPOL. This agency serves law enforcement only (not parents), so requesting INTERPOL involvement must come directly from law enforcement.
Critically, contact the Office Of Children's Issues at the U.S. Department of State at 202-736-9090 Monday-Friday and at 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
1-888-407-4747 after hours, weekends or holidays. Their website is as follows:
http://travel.state.gov/abduction/emergencies/emergencies_3845.html
5. Request that local law enforcement immediately begin a missing persons investigation under The Missing Children's Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C., 5780 (3)(B), (C).
Contact the Missing Child Clearinghouse for your state (every state has one).
Contact NCMEC's Team HOPE (Hope Offering Parents Empowerment), which matches searching families with trained volunteers at 866-305-4673. Their website is: http://www.teamhope.org
For serious health and welfare concerns for a child, on occasion, the International Social Services, United States of America Branch, Inc, may be of assistance. Their phone number is 443-451-1200. Their website is: http://www.iss-usa.org/
As parents and activists we have directly and indirectly experienced the myriad of issues involving the tragedy of international child abduction and the difficulties in preventing it from occurring. We are committed to focusing our efforts on uncovering the deficiencies that currently exist that continue to make international child abduction an all too common occurrence. In coming forward, we encourage everyone involved with protecting the welfare of at-risk children, including parents, members of the judiciary, policymakers, and members of law enforcement to recognize the existing risks we have shed light on, and to do whatever is necessary to protect our nation’s children in conjunction with the laws of each child’s state as well as existing federal legislation. As a parent, it is imperative that you ensure your legal counsel and family court personnel are well informed as to the risks that exist in your particular case. For more information on international child abduction and prevention, we suggest you visit the following websites:
The United States Department of State (www.travel.state.gov/abduction/abduction_580.html) [The Official website of The Office Of Children’s Issues offers substantial information regarding IPCA].
National Center For Missing and Exploited Children (http://www.missingkids.com) [The Official website of NCMEC offers vast information on missing children and child abduction]
Amber Watch Foundation (http://www.amberwatchfoundation.org) [Provide educational programs and innovative technologies that proactively and preemptively protect children against abduction, predators, and the dangers of the digital world]
Chasing The Cyclone (http://www.chasingthecyclone.com) [The Official website of Peter Thomas Senese’s Chasing The Cyclone provides a wealth of information on IPCA, including over 3 hours of educational documentary film footage].
The Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act (UCAPA) (The Official website is: http://www.nccusl.org)
Team HOPE (http://www.teamhope.org) [Hope Offering Parents Empowerment official website: you will be matched with a trained volunteer).
We remain optimistic and hopeful that together we can raise awareness in order to create the changes necessary to better protect all children. We offer the following recommendations to educate and enlighten those whose duty and responsibility it is to protect our most treasured and vulnerable asset, our children.
It is critical that parents, lawyers, judges, policymakers, law enforcement, and all other individuals who are intricately involved in the welfare of our nation’s children who are at risk of international abduction to carefully consider the information we have provided in this report when implementing or overseeing policy or direction on behalf of an at-risk child. Failure to do so will lead to additional cross-border abductions.
If a policy is implemented where all foreign travel by U.S. adult and child citizens, requires the traveler to present a U.S. passport, we believe we will see a dramatic reduction in the total number of ‘reported’ and anticipated ‘unreported’ cases of international parental child abduction. We would also anticipate a substantial reduction in the number of human trafficking cases passing through our borders as well.
Protecting one child’s life from the fate of international abduction or human slavery is reason alone to seek the changes recommended above. However, with thousands of potential child victims each year at risk, the necessity of protecting our borders is critically urgent. We must act now to change current WHTI travel documentation policy.
About the Authors:
Carolyn Ann Vlk is a child abduction prevention advocate who drafted the landmark State of Florida’s ‘Child Abduction Prevention Act’ that will be enacted on January 1st, 2011. Ms. Vlk was highly influential in raising the public’s awareness on the little-known, highly effective child abduction prevention federal program titled the ‘Prevent Departure Program’. Carolyn is also a writer/producer of the highly educational documentary film series titled ‘Chasing Parents: Racing Into The Storms Of International Parental Child Abduction’, and, is the author of numerous essays and studies on parental child abduction, including the groundbreaking report titled ‘Crisis in America: International Parental Child Abduction Today’ (2010). Carolyn is dedicated to assisting parents and their children who are targets of international child abduction, and is committed to bringing about positive reform and change in law and government protocol that has been established to aid at-risk children. Ms. Vlk is a supporter of The Hague Convention, The Department of State’s Office Of Children’s Issues, and the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act (UCAPA). Carolyn is a loving and dedicated mother to her children, and fought rigorously to protect her own child who was a target for potential abduction that she went so far as to draft legislation that has now become new law in her home state of Florida. To contact Carolyn Ann Vlk, please e-mail her at carolynannvlk@yahoo.com
Peter Thomas Senese is a child abduction prevention advocate and a successful chasing parent in accordance to the rules of international parental child abduction law established under the Hague Convention. Peter advocated for the passage of the State of Florida’s ‘Child Abduction Prevention Act’ (CAPA) that will be enacted on January 1st, 2011. In addition, he contributed to raising public awareness on the previously widely underutilized federal child abduction prevention program; specifically, the ‘Prevent Departure Program’ (PDP) that is now more commonly implemented in aiding targeted parents and their child from abduction in certain case scenarios. Peter is the creator/writer/producer of the educational documentary film series ‘Chasing Parents: Racing Into The Storms Of International Parental Child Abduction’, a best-selling author whose upcoming world-wide book release that focuses on international child abduction titled ‘Chasing The Cyclone’ has been critically acclaimed as a call-to-arms against child abduction. Peter is the writer of an extensive number of influential articles and essays pertaining to IPCA. He has created and oversees a comprehensive website dedicated to child abduction prevention and good parenting (www.chasingthecyclone.com) where numerous essays and may be found, including the eye-opening report ‘Crisis In America: International Parental Child Abduction Today’ Peter co-authored with Ms. Carolyn Vlk. Dedicated to bringing about new child abduction prevention laws while creating dialogue that may reform certain government programs and protocols so that they may better serve targeted children and their parents, Peter Senese is a strong supporter of The Hague Convention and The Department of State’s Office Of Children’s Issues. Paramount to all things, Peter is a loving father deeply dedicated to raising his young son. To contact Peter Thomas Senese, please e-mail him at pthomas@chasingthecyclone.com or at peter@petersenese.com
END REPORT
The Executive Director of the I CARE Foundation, Peter Senese is dedicated to protecting children from trafficking and international abduction. Under Peter’s leadership with the I CARE Foundation, including hosting a conference on child abduction at the United Nations, the U.S. reported international child abduction rate declined 38% since 2009. Peter’s activism has been called heroic by dozens of families while being praised by global leaders. Peter is a multiple best-selling author.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
U.S. Courts Must Consider Travel Documenation Requirements For Children Under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.
Carolyn Ann Vlk and I worked dilegently in trying to find the answer to the question, How Are Our Children Being Internationally Abducted And Illegally Removed From Our Country?
We believe we have found a significant part of the answer, and on behalf of Carolyn and myself, we urge you to read the titled report: "International Parental Child Abduction and Human Trafficking In The Western Hemisphere".
The primary concern of this report concerns international departure documentation requirements children under the age of 16 are required to present to customs agents when exiting the United States via land or sea. These requirements presently a parent or legal guardian the ability to remove a minor under the age of 16 without a valid passport. In fact, part of the concern with the present travel requirements is that a child can be legally removed from the country using a photocopy of a valid birth certificate. Additionally, if the child or children are traveling with only one parent, all that is required is that the traveling parent present a letter from the child's other parent authorizing travel. According to the government official's comments cited in the report, documentation fraud is a great concern with respect to immigration to and from the United States.
Examples of potential loophole usage of WHTI for international parental child abduction include when a parent intends to wrongfully remove a child via a closed-loop cruise. In this typical scenario a parent will board a cruise ship with their child that begins and ends in the same port; however, these cruise ships typically will have port-of-calls in other countries (Mexico and island-nations of the Caribbean), making it easy for an abduction to occur. Another example of this type of loophole is when a parent simply drives or walks across the borders between the United States and Mexico or Canada.
It is imperative that our nation's courts become aware of these loopholes so that they may act to prevent a child's abduction. Equally, it is important that legislation is passed that will modify a child's travel documentation requirements under the WHTI. As our nation's citizens continue to obtain U.S. Passports in increasingly high numbers, any previous argument that the costs of a passport are too high for vacationing families intending to travel abroad for the first time is decreasing in validity. More importantly, with thousands of at-risk children and their lives at stake, combined with the fact that international parental child abduction is increasing at substantial rates, it is now more critical than ever that we correct an outdated law while also rasing awareness of this issue so that courts and judges may take appropriate steps to prevent an abduction from occurring.
To download a PDF copy of the report, Please Click Here.
To download a Word copy of the report, Please Click Here.
In advance, thank you for taking the time to read this report - it very well may one day help you protect a defenseless child.
Sincerely,
Peter Senese
www.peterthomassenese.com
We believe we have found a significant part of the answer, and on behalf of Carolyn and myself, we urge you to read the titled report: "International Parental Child Abduction and Human Trafficking In The Western Hemisphere".
The primary concern of this report concerns international departure documentation requirements children under the age of 16 are required to present to customs agents when exiting the United States via land or sea. These requirements presently a parent or legal guardian the ability to remove a minor under the age of 16 without a valid passport. In fact, part of the concern with the present travel requirements is that a child can be legally removed from the country using a photocopy of a valid birth certificate. Additionally, if the child or children are traveling with only one parent, all that is required is that the traveling parent present a letter from the child's other parent authorizing travel. According to the government official's comments cited in the report, documentation fraud is a great concern with respect to immigration to and from the United States.
Examples of potential loophole usage of WHTI for international parental child abduction include when a parent intends to wrongfully remove a child via a closed-loop cruise. In this typical scenario a parent will board a cruise ship with their child that begins and ends in the same port; however, these cruise ships typically will have port-of-calls in other countries (Mexico and island-nations of the Caribbean), making it easy for an abduction to occur. Another example of this type of loophole is when a parent simply drives or walks across the borders between the United States and Mexico or Canada.
It is imperative that our nation's courts become aware of these loopholes so that they may act to prevent a child's abduction. Equally, it is important that legislation is passed that will modify a child's travel documentation requirements under the WHTI. As our nation's citizens continue to obtain U.S. Passports in increasingly high numbers, any previous argument that the costs of a passport are too high for vacationing families intending to travel abroad for the first time is decreasing in validity. More importantly, with thousands of at-risk children and their lives at stake, combined with the fact that international parental child abduction is increasing at substantial rates, it is now more critical than ever that we correct an outdated law while also rasing awareness of this issue so that courts and judges may take appropriate steps to prevent an abduction from occurring.
To download a PDF copy of the report, Please Click Here.
To download a Word copy of the report, Please Click Here.
In advance, thank you for taking the time to read this report - it very well may one day help you protect a defenseless child.
Sincerely,
Peter Senese
www.peterthomassenese.com
Saturday, May 7, 2011
New York City Library Faces a 29% Budget Cut: Branches May Operate 3 Days A Week Under Mayor Bloombergs Budget.
Can someone please tell me why many government leaders at every level think that whenever there is a budget crisis on hand, that its time to cut library funding?
So, earlier this morning I was sipping my morning tea and reading one of the New York City local rags when I first read the article about how Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveiled a $66 billion dollar revised budget plan yesterday (Friday).
According to Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a possible mayoral contender, “library services will be cut by 29 percent, which means most branches would only be open three days a week.”
Are you kidding me?
Please say you are, because if library branches were to only be open three days a week in our nation’s biggest city with the largest population of children, we sure as heck are going to have a GIANT problem on our hands.
New York City with libraries closed four days a week? There are really no words that come to mind that can properly express the outrage and grave concern of this possibility. After all, we have a moral obligation to our children to keep our magical libraries open . . . just the way our parents helped build and sustain libraries that we all use today.
How big of a disaster is this going to be? The New York City has three independent public library systems. They are: The New York Public Library (which operates libraries in Manhattan, The Bronx, and Staten Island), The Brooklyn Public Library, and the Queensborough Public Library. Each library system has a central library and many local branch libraries. In fact, there are hundreds of local branch libraries – and from experiences I have witnessed with my own eyes, these local branches are substantially utilized by their local patrons.
Did I mention that if Mayor Bloomberg’s budget cuts are approved that there is a good chance our New York City public libraries will only operate three days a week? Well, it appears that this may be true.
This possibility must not be put anywhere near the table.
Our libraries are off limits. It is foolish to remove the one institution in our great city that is the truest, clearest, and most symbolic beacon of hope for mankind to enhance our own existence: our libraries.
Several months ago, I petitioned for the beautiful city of Los Angeles to pass ‘Measure L’, and keep our city’s libraries open. Fortunately, the citizens of Los Angeles overwhelmingly passed ‘Measure L’, and by doing so, actually increased the library’s operating budget to the point where local city branches should in the near future operate seven days a week.
It is inconceivable that the great City of New York and its three central libraries with their hundreds of local branches will operate only three or even four days a week if the mayor’s planned budget is adopted. But that is the reality if Mayor Bloomberg cuts this critically important cultural and learning institutions budget by 29%.
Our libraries are as vital an institution to our great city of New York as any other institution. We must not cut our library’s budget. We must not reduce operation hours and days. And we must not give up on ourselves.
We must keep our libraries open! After all, a book is a free ticket to anywhere in the universe, and our libraries are realm transporters that can take us anywhere.
I know I will do my best to keep our New York City Libraries open. I hope you will, too.
I think I am going to take a walk to midtown, say hello to Leo and Astor, stick my head into the great Map Room, and then walk up the marble stairway before visiting the Great Reading Room at the New York City Central Library on 5th Avenue. But not before I walk by my local branch on Columbus Avenue.
Peter Thomas Senese is a best-selling author and self-professed Librophiliac. He lives in New York and Los Angeles.
So, earlier this morning I was sipping my morning tea and reading one of the New York City local rags when I first read the article about how Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveiled a $66 billion dollar revised budget plan yesterday (Friday).
According to Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a possible mayoral contender, “library services will be cut by 29 percent, which means most branches would only be open three days a week.”
Are you kidding me?
Please say you are, because if library branches were to only be open three days a week in our nation’s biggest city with the largest population of children, we sure as heck are going to have a GIANT problem on our hands.
New York City with libraries closed four days a week? There are really no words that come to mind that can properly express the outrage and grave concern of this possibility. After all, we have a moral obligation to our children to keep our magical libraries open . . . just the way our parents helped build and sustain libraries that we all use today.
How big of a disaster is this going to be? The New York City has three independent public library systems. They are: The New York Public Library (which operates libraries in Manhattan, The Bronx, and Staten Island), The Brooklyn Public Library, and the Queensborough Public Library. Each library system has a central library and many local branch libraries. In fact, there are hundreds of local branch libraries – and from experiences I have witnessed with my own eyes, these local branches are substantially utilized by their local patrons.
Did I mention that if Mayor Bloomberg’s budget cuts are approved that there is a good chance our New York City public libraries will only operate three days a week? Well, it appears that this may be true.
This possibility must not be put anywhere near the table.
Our libraries are off limits. It is foolish to remove the one institution in our great city that is the truest, clearest, and most symbolic beacon of hope for mankind to enhance our own existence: our libraries.
Several months ago, I petitioned for the beautiful city of Los Angeles to pass ‘Measure L’, and keep our city’s libraries open. Fortunately, the citizens of Los Angeles overwhelmingly passed ‘Measure L’, and by doing so, actually increased the library’s operating budget to the point where local city branches should in the near future operate seven days a week.
It is inconceivable that the great City of New York and its three central libraries with their hundreds of local branches will operate only three or even four days a week if the mayor’s planned budget is adopted. But that is the reality if Mayor Bloomberg cuts this critically important cultural and learning institutions budget by 29%.
Our libraries are as vital an institution to our great city of New York as any other institution. We must not cut our library’s budget. We must not reduce operation hours and days. And we must not give up on ourselves.
We must keep our libraries open! After all, a book is a free ticket to anywhere in the universe, and our libraries are realm transporters that can take us anywhere.
I know I will do my best to keep our New York City Libraries open. I hope you will, too.
I think I am going to take a walk to midtown, say hello to Leo and Astor, stick my head into the great Map Room, and then walk up the marble stairway before visiting the Great Reading Room at the New York City Central Library on 5th Avenue. But not before I walk by my local branch on Columbus Avenue.
Peter Thomas Senese is a best-selling author and self-professed Librophiliac. He lives in New York and Los Angeles.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Estimate That U.S. Costs Due To bin Laden Exceed 3 Trillion Dollars
This is a great article written by Tim Fernholz and Jim Tankersley of the National Journal.
The most expensive public enemy in American history died Sunday from two bullets.
As we mark Osama bin Laden's death, what's striking is how much he cost our nation—and how little we've gained from our fight against him. By conservative estimates, bin Laden cost the United States at least $3 trillion over the past 15 years, counting the disruptions he wrought on the domestic economy, the wars and heightened security triggered by the terrorist attacks he engineered, and the direct efforts to hunt him down.
What do we have to show for that tab? Two wars that continue to occupy 150,000 troops and tie up a quarter of our defense budget; a bloated homeland-security apparatus that has at times pushed the bounds of civil liberty; soaring oil prices partially attributable to the global war on bin Laden's terrorist network; and a chunk of our mounting national debt, which threatens to hobble the economy unless lawmakers compromise on an unprecedented deficit-reduction deal.
All of that has not given us, at least not yet, anything close to the social or economic advancements produced by the battles against America's costliest past enemies. Defeating the Confederate army brought the end of slavery and a wave of standardization—in railroad gauges and shoe sizes, for example—that paved the way for a truly national economy. Vanquishing Adolf Hitler ended the Great Depression and ushered in a period of booming prosperity and hegemony. Even the massive military escalation that marked the Cold War standoff against Joseph Stalin and his Russian successors produced landmark technological breakthroughs that revolutionized the economy.
Perhaps the biggest economic silver lining from our bin Laden spending, if there is one, is the accelerated development of unmanned aircraft. That's our $3 trillion windfall, so far: Predator drones. "We have spent a huge amount of money which has not had much effect on the strengthening of our military, and has had a very weak impact on our economy," says Linda Bilmes, a lecturer at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government who coauthored a book on the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
Certainly, in the course of the fight against bin Laden, the United States escaped another truly catastrophic attack on our soil. Al-Qaida, though not destroyed, has been badly hobbled. "We proved that we value our security enough to incur some pretty substantial economic costs en route to protecting it," says Michael O'Hanlon, a national-security analyst at the Brookings Institution.
But that willingness may have given bin Laden exactly what he wanted. While the terrorist leader began his war against the United States believing it to be a "paper tiger" that would not fight, by 2004 he had already shifted his strategic aims, explicitly comparing the U.S. fight to the Afghan incursion that helped bankrupt the Soviet Union during the Cold War. "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy," bin Laden said in a taped statement. Only the smallest sign of al-Qaida would "make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations." Considering that we've spent one-fifth of a year's gross domestic product—more than the entire 2008 budget of the United States government—responding to his 2001 attacks, he may have been onto something.
Other enemies throughout history have extracted higher gross costs, in blood and in treasure, from the United States. The Civil War and World War II produced higher casualties and consumed larger shares of our economic output. As an economic burden, the Civil War was America's worst cataclysm relative to the size of the economy. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimates that the Union and Confederate armies combined to spend $80 million, in today's dollars, fighting each other. That number might seem low, but economic historians who study the war say the total financial cost was exponentially higher: more like $280 billion in today's dollars when you factor in disruptions to trade and capital flows, along with the killing of 3 to 4 percent of the population. The war "cost about double the gross national product of the United States in 1860," says John Majewski, who chairs the history department at the University of California (Santa Barbara). "From that perspective, the war on terror isn't going to compare."
On the other hand, these earlier conflicts—for all their human cost—also furnished major benefits to the U.S. economy. After entering the Civil War as a loose collection of regional economies, America emerged with the foundation for truly national commerce; the first standardized railroad system sprouted from coast to coast, carrying goods across the union; and textile mills began migrating from the Northeast to the South in search of cheaper labor, including former slaves who had joined the workforce. The fighting itself sped up the mechanization of American agriculture: As farmers flocked to the battlefield, the workers left behind adopted new technologies to keep harvests rolling in with less labor.
World War II defense spending cost $4.4 trillion. At its peak, it sucked up nearly 40 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Research Service. It was an unprecedented national mobilization, says Chris Hellman, a defense budget analyst at the National Priorities Project. One in 10 Americans—some 12 million people—donned a uniform during the war.
But the payoff was immense. The war machine that revved up to defeat Germany and Japan powered the U.S. out of the Great Depression and into an unparalleled stretch of postwar growth. Jet engines and nuclear power spread into everyday lives. A new global economic order—forged at Bretton Woods, N.H., by the Allies in the waning days of the war—opened a floodgate of benefits through international trade. Returning soldiers dramatically improved the nation's skills and education level, thanks to the GI Bill, and they produced a baby boom that would vastly expand the workforce.
U.S. military spending totaled nearly $19 trillion throughout the four-plus decades of Cold War that ensued, as the nation escalated an arms race with the Soviet Union. Such a huge infusion of cash for weapons research spilled over to revolutionize civilian life, yielding quantum leaps in supercomputing and satellite technology, not to mention the advent of the Internet.
Unlike any of those conflicts, the wars we are fighting today were kick-started by a single man. While it is hard to imagine World War II without Hitler, that conflict pitted nations against each other. (Anyway, much of the cost to the United States came from the war in the Pacific.) And it's absurd to pin the Civil War, World War I, or the Cold War on any single individual. Bin Laden's mystique (and his place on the FBI's most-wanted list) made him—and the wars he drew us into—unique.
By any measure, bin Laden inflicted a steep toll on America. His 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa caused Washington to quadruple spending on diplomatic security worldwide the following year—and to expand it from $172 million to $2.2 billion over the next decade. The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole caused $250 million in damages.
Al-Qaida's assault against the United States on September 11, 2001, was the highest-priced disaster in U.S. history. Economists estimate that the combined attacks cost the economy $50 billion to $100 billion in lost activity and growth, or about 0.5 percent to 1 percent of GDP, and caused about $25 billion in property damage. The stock market plunged and was still down nearly 13 percentage points a year later, although it has more than made up the value since.
The greater expense we can attribute to bin Laden comes from policymakers' response to 9/11. The invasion of Afghanistan was clearly a reaction to al-Qaida's attacks. It is unlikely that the Bush administration would have invaded Iraq if 9/11 had not ushered in a debate about Islamic extremism and weapons of mass destruction. Those two wars grew into a comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign that cost $1.4 trillion in the past decade—and will cost hundreds of billions more. The government borrowed the money for those wars, adding hundreds of billions in interest charges to the U.S. debt.
Spending on Iraq and Afghanistan peaked at 4.8 percent of GDP in 2008, nowhere near the level of economic mobilization in some past conflicts but still more than the entire federal deficit that year. "It's a much more verdant, prosperous, peaceful world than it was 60 years ago," and nations spend proportionally far less on their militaries today, says S. Brock Blomberg, a professor at Claremont McKenna College in California who specializes in the economics of terrorism. "So as bad as bin Laden is, he's not nearly as bad as Hitler, Mussolini, [and] the rest of them."
Yet bin Laden produced a ripple effect. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have created a world in which even non-war-related defense spending has grown by 50 percent since 2001. As the U.S. military adopted counterinsurgency doctrine to fight guerrilla wars, it also continued to increase its ability to fight conventional battles, boosting spending for weapons from national-missile defense and fighter jets to tanks and long-range bombers. Then there were large spending increases following the overhaul of America's intelligence agencies and homeland-security programs. Those transformations cost at least another $1 trillion, if not more, budget analysts say, though the exact cost is still unknown. Because much of that spending is classified or spread among agencies with multiple missions, a breakdown is nearly impossible.
It's similarly difficult to assess the opportunity cost of the post-9/11 wars—the kinds of productive investments of fiscal and human resources that we might have made had we not been focused on combating terrorism through counterinsurgency. Blomberg says that the response to the attacks has essentially wiped out the "peace dividend" that the United States began to reap when the Cold War ended. After a decade of buying fewer guns and more butter, we suddenly ramped up our gun spending again, with borrowed money.
The price of the war-fighting and security responses to bin Laden account for more than 15 percent of the national debt incurred in the last decade—a debt that is changing the way our military leaders perceive risk. "Our national debt is our biggest national-security threat," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters last June.
All of those costs, totaled together, reach at least $3 trillion. And that's just the cautious estimate. Stiglitz and Bilmes believe that the Iraq conflict alone cost that much. They peg the total economic costs of both wars at $4 trillion to $6 trillion, Bilmes says. That includes fallout from the sharp increase in oil prices since 2003, which is largely attributable to growing demand from developing countries and current unrest in the Middle East but was also spurred in some part by the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Bilmes and Stiglitz also count part of the 2008 financial crisis among the costs, theorizing that oil price hikes injected liquidity in global economies battling slowdowns in growth—and that helped push up housing prices and contributed to the bubble.
Most important, the fight against bin Laden has not produced the benefits that accompanied previous conflicts. The military escalation of the past 10 years did not stimulate the economy as the war effort did in the 1940s—with the exception of a few large defense contractors—in large part because today's operations spend far less on soldiers and far more on fuel. Meanwhile, our national-security spending no longer drives innovation. The experts who spoke with National Journal could name only a few advancements spawned by the fight against bin Laden, including Predator drones and improved backup systems to protect information technology from a terrorist attack or other disaster. "The spin-off effects of military technology were demonstrably more apparent in the '40s and '50s and '60s," says Gordon Adams, a national-security expert at American Univeristy.
Another reason that so little economic benefit has come from this war is that it has produced less—not more—stability around the world. Stable countries, with functioning markets governed by the rule of law, make better trading partners; it's easier to start a business, or tap national resources, or develop new products in times of tranquility than in times of strife. "If you can successfully pursue a military campaign and bring stability at the end of it, there is an economic benefit," says economic historian Joshua Goldstein of the University of Massachusetts. "If we stabilized Libya, that would have an economic benefit."
Even the psychological boost from bin Laden's death seems muted by historical standards. Imagine the emancipation of the slaves. Victory over the Axis powers gave Americans a sense of euphoria and limitless possibility. O'Hanlon says, "I take no great satisfaction in his death because I'm still amazed at the devastation and how high a burden he placed on us." It is "more like a relief than a joy that I feel." Majewski adds, "Even in a conflict like the Civil War or World War II, there's a sense of tragedy but of triumph, too. But the war on terror … it's hard to see what we get out of it, technologically or institutionally."
BIN LADEN'S LEGACY
What we are left with, after bin Laden, is a lingering bill that was exacerbated by decisions made in a decade-long campaign against him. We borrowed money to finance the war on terrorism rather than diverting other national-security funding or raising taxes. We expanded combat operations to Iraq before stabilizing Afghanistan, which in turn led to the recent reescalation of the American commitment there. We tolerated an unsupervised national-security apparatus, allowing it to grow so inefficient that, as The Washington Post reported in a major investigation last year, 1,271 different government institutions are charged with counterterrorism missions (51 alone track terrorism financing), which produce some 50,000 intelligence reports each year, many of which are simply not read.
We have also shelled out billions of dollars in reconstruction funding and walking-around money for soldiers, with little idea of whether it has even helped foreigners, much less the United States; independent investigations suggest as much as $23 billion is unaccounted for in Iraq alone. "We can't account for where any of it goes—that's the great tragedy in all of this," Hellman says. "The Pentagon cannot now and has never passed an audit—and, to me, that's just criminal."
It's worth repeating that the actual cost of bin Laden's September 11 attacks was between $50 billion and $100 billion. That number could have been higher, says Adam Rose, coordinator for economics at the University of Southern California's National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, but for the resilience of the U.S. economy and the quick response of policymakers to inject liquidity and stimulate consumer spending. But the cost could also have been much lower, he says, if consumers hadn't paid a fear premium—shying away from air travel and tourism in the aftermath of the attacks. "Ironically," he says, "we as Americans had more to do with the bottom-line outcome than the terrorist attack itself, on both the positive side and the negative side."
The same is true of the nation's decision, for so many reasons, to spend at least $3 trillion responding to bin Laden's attacks. More than actual security, we bought a sense of action in the face of what felt like an existential threat. We staved off another attack on domestic soil. Our debt load was creeping up already, thanks to the early waves stages of baby-boomer retirements, but we also hastened a fiscal mess that has begun, in time, to fulfill bin Laden's vision of a bankrupt America. If left unchecked, our current rate of deficit spending would add $9 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. That's three Osamas, right there.
Although Bin Laden is buried in the sea, other Islamist extremists are already vying to take his place. In time, new enemies, foreign and domestic, will rise to challenge America. What they will cost us, far more than we realize, is our choice.
On a very personal note, I, like millions of my fellow Americans are relieved to know that the madman no longer walks on this planet. There have been reports that Al Quada had split into two fractions, with the more lethal division still actively in existence. I pray that peace will prevail. God Bless America. Peter Thomas Senese
The most expensive public enemy in American history died Sunday from two bullets.
As we mark Osama bin Laden's death, what's striking is how much he cost our nation—and how little we've gained from our fight against him. By conservative estimates, bin Laden cost the United States at least $3 trillion over the past 15 years, counting the disruptions he wrought on the domestic economy, the wars and heightened security triggered by the terrorist attacks he engineered, and the direct efforts to hunt him down.
What do we have to show for that tab? Two wars that continue to occupy 150,000 troops and tie up a quarter of our defense budget; a bloated homeland-security apparatus that has at times pushed the bounds of civil liberty; soaring oil prices partially attributable to the global war on bin Laden's terrorist network; and a chunk of our mounting national debt, which threatens to hobble the economy unless lawmakers compromise on an unprecedented deficit-reduction deal.
All of that has not given us, at least not yet, anything close to the social or economic advancements produced by the battles against America's costliest past enemies. Defeating the Confederate army brought the end of slavery and a wave of standardization—in railroad gauges and shoe sizes, for example—that paved the way for a truly national economy. Vanquishing Adolf Hitler ended the Great Depression and ushered in a period of booming prosperity and hegemony. Even the massive military escalation that marked the Cold War standoff against Joseph Stalin and his Russian successors produced landmark technological breakthroughs that revolutionized the economy.
Perhaps the biggest economic silver lining from our bin Laden spending, if there is one, is the accelerated development of unmanned aircraft. That's our $3 trillion windfall, so far: Predator drones. "We have spent a huge amount of money which has not had much effect on the strengthening of our military, and has had a very weak impact on our economy," says Linda Bilmes, a lecturer at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government who coauthored a book on the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
Certainly, in the course of the fight against bin Laden, the United States escaped another truly catastrophic attack on our soil. Al-Qaida, though not destroyed, has been badly hobbled. "We proved that we value our security enough to incur some pretty substantial economic costs en route to protecting it," says Michael O'Hanlon, a national-security analyst at the Brookings Institution.
But that willingness may have given bin Laden exactly what he wanted. While the terrorist leader began his war against the United States believing it to be a "paper tiger" that would not fight, by 2004 he had already shifted his strategic aims, explicitly comparing the U.S. fight to the Afghan incursion that helped bankrupt the Soviet Union during the Cold War. "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy," bin Laden said in a taped statement. Only the smallest sign of al-Qaida would "make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations." Considering that we've spent one-fifth of a year's gross domestic product—more than the entire 2008 budget of the United States government—responding to his 2001 attacks, he may have been onto something.
Other enemies throughout history have extracted higher gross costs, in blood and in treasure, from the United States. The Civil War and World War II produced higher casualties and consumed larger shares of our economic output. As an economic burden, the Civil War was America's worst cataclysm relative to the size of the economy. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimates that the Union and Confederate armies combined to spend $80 million, in today's dollars, fighting each other. That number might seem low, but economic historians who study the war say the total financial cost was exponentially higher: more like $280 billion in today's dollars when you factor in disruptions to trade and capital flows, along with the killing of 3 to 4 percent of the population. The war "cost about double the gross national product of the United States in 1860," says John Majewski, who chairs the history department at the University of California (Santa Barbara). "From that perspective, the war on terror isn't going to compare."
On the other hand, these earlier conflicts—for all their human cost—also furnished major benefits to the U.S. economy. After entering the Civil War as a loose collection of regional economies, America emerged with the foundation for truly national commerce; the first standardized railroad system sprouted from coast to coast, carrying goods across the union; and textile mills began migrating from the Northeast to the South in search of cheaper labor, including former slaves who had joined the workforce. The fighting itself sped up the mechanization of American agriculture: As farmers flocked to the battlefield, the workers left behind adopted new technologies to keep harvests rolling in with less labor.
World War II defense spending cost $4.4 trillion. At its peak, it sucked up nearly 40 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Research Service. It was an unprecedented national mobilization, says Chris Hellman, a defense budget analyst at the National Priorities Project. One in 10 Americans—some 12 million people—donned a uniform during the war.
But the payoff was immense. The war machine that revved up to defeat Germany and Japan powered the U.S. out of the Great Depression and into an unparalleled stretch of postwar growth. Jet engines and nuclear power spread into everyday lives. A new global economic order—forged at Bretton Woods, N.H., by the Allies in the waning days of the war—opened a floodgate of benefits through international trade. Returning soldiers dramatically improved the nation's skills and education level, thanks to the GI Bill, and they produced a baby boom that would vastly expand the workforce.
U.S. military spending totaled nearly $19 trillion throughout the four-plus decades of Cold War that ensued, as the nation escalated an arms race with the Soviet Union. Such a huge infusion of cash for weapons research spilled over to revolutionize civilian life, yielding quantum leaps in supercomputing and satellite technology, not to mention the advent of the Internet.
Unlike any of those conflicts, the wars we are fighting today were kick-started by a single man. While it is hard to imagine World War II without Hitler, that conflict pitted nations against each other. (Anyway, much of the cost to the United States came from the war in the Pacific.) And it's absurd to pin the Civil War, World War I, or the Cold War on any single individual. Bin Laden's mystique (and his place on the FBI's most-wanted list) made him—and the wars he drew us into—unique.
By any measure, bin Laden inflicted a steep toll on America. His 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa caused Washington to quadruple spending on diplomatic security worldwide the following year—and to expand it from $172 million to $2.2 billion over the next decade. The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole caused $250 million in damages.
Al-Qaida's assault against the United States on September 11, 2001, was the highest-priced disaster in U.S. history. Economists estimate that the combined attacks cost the economy $50 billion to $100 billion in lost activity and growth, or about 0.5 percent to 1 percent of GDP, and caused about $25 billion in property damage. The stock market plunged and was still down nearly 13 percentage points a year later, although it has more than made up the value since.
The greater expense we can attribute to bin Laden comes from policymakers' response to 9/11. The invasion of Afghanistan was clearly a reaction to al-Qaida's attacks. It is unlikely that the Bush administration would have invaded Iraq if 9/11 had not ushered in a debate about Islamic extremism and weapons of mass destruction. Those two wars grew into a comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign that cost $1.4 trillion in the past decade—and will cost hundreds of billions more. The government borrowed the money for those wars, adding hundreds of billions in interest charges to the U.S. debt.
Spending on Iraq and Afghanistan peaked at 4.8 percent of GDP in 2008, nowhere near the level of economic mobilization in some past conflicts but still more than the entire federal deficit that year. "It's a much more verdant, prosperous, peaceful world than it was 60 years ago," and nations spend proportionally far less on their militaries today, says S. Brock Blomberg, a professor at Claremont McKenna College in California who specializes in the economics of terrorism. "So as bad as bin Laden is, he's not nearly as bad as Hitler, Mussolini, [and] the rest of them."
Yet bin Laden produced a ripple effect. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have created a world in which even non-war-related defense spending has grown by 50 percent since 2001. As the U.S. military adopted counterinsurgency doctrine to fight guerrilla wars, it also continued to increase its ability to fight conventional battles, boosting spending for weapons from national-missile defense and fighter jets to tanks and long-range bombers. Then there were large spending increases following the overhaul of America's intelligence agencies and homeland-security programs. Those transformations cost at least another $1 trillion, if not more, budget analysts say, though the exact cost is still unknown. Because much of that spending is classified or spread among agencies with multiple missions, a breakdown is nearly impossible.
It's similarly difficult to assess the opportunity cost of the post-9/11 wars—the kinds of productive investments of fiscal and human resources that we might have made had we not been focused on combating terrorism through counterinsurgency. Blomberg says that the response to the attacks has essentially wiped out the "peace dividend" that the United States began to reap when the Cold War ended. After a decade of buying fewer guns and more butter, we suddenly ramped up our gun spending again, with borrowed money.
The price of the war-fighting and security responses to bin Laden account for more than 15 percent of the national debt incurred in the last decade—a debt that is changing the way our military leaders perceive risk. "Our national debt is our biggest national-security threat," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters last June.
All of those costs, totaled together, reach at least $3 trillion. And that's just the cautious estimate. Stiglitz and Bilmes believe that the Iraq conflict alone cost that much. They peg the total economic costs of both wars at $4 trillion to $6 trillion, Bilmes says. That includes fallout from the sharp increase in oil prices since 2003, which is largely attributable to growing demand from developing countries and current unrest in the Middle East but was also spurred in some part by the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Bilmes and Stiglitz also count part of the 2008 financial crisis among the costs, theorizing that oil price hikes injected liquidity in global economies battling slowdowns in growth—and that helped push up housing prices and contributed to the bubble.
Most important, the fight against bin Laden has not produced the benefits that accompanied previous conflicts. The military escalation of the past 10 years did not stimulate the economy as the war effort did in the 1940s—with the exception of a few large defense contractors—in large part because today's operations spend far less on soldiers and far more on fuel. Meanwhile, our national-security spending no longer drives innovation. The experts who spoke with National Journal could name only a few advancements spawned by the fight against bin Laden, including Predator drones and improved backup systems to protect information technology from a terrorist attack or other disaster. "The spin-off effects of military technology were demonstrably more apparent in the '40s and '50s and '60s," says Gordon Adams, a national-security expert at American Univeristy.
Another reason that so little economic benefit has come from this war is that it has produced less—not more—stability around the world. Stable countries, with functioning markets governed by the rule of law, make better trading partners; it's easier to start a business, or tap national resources, or develop new products in times of tranquility than in times of strife. "If you can successfully pursue a military campaign and bring stability at the end of it, there is an economic benefit," says economic historian Joshua Goldstein of the University of Massachusetts. "If we stabilized Libya, that would have an economic benefit."
Even the psychological boost from bin Laden's death seems muted by historical standards. Imagine the emancipation of the slaves. Victory over the Axis powers gave Americans a sense of euphoria and limitless possibility. O'Hanlon says, "I take no great satisfaction in his death because I'm still amazed at the devastation and how high a burden he placed on us." It is "more like a relief than a joy that I feel." Majewski adds, "Even in a conflict like the Civil War or World War II, there's a sense of tragedy but of triumph, too. But the war on terror … it's hard to see what we get out of it, technologically or institutionally."
BIN LADEN'S LEGACY
What we are left with, after bin Laden, is a lingering bill that was exacerbated by decisions made in a decade-long campaign against him. We borrowed money to finance the war on terrorism rather than diverting other national-security funding or raising taxes. We expanded combat operations to Iraq before stabilizing Afghanistan, which in turn led to the recent reescalation of the American commitment there. We tolerated an unsupervised national-security apparatus, allowing it to grow so inefficient that, as The Washington Post reported in a major investigation last year, 1,271 different government institutions are charged with counterterrorism missions (51 alone track terrorism financing), which produce some 50,000 intelligence reports each year, many of which are simply not read.
We have also shelled out billions of dollars in reconstruction funding and walking-around money for soldiers, with little idea of whether it has even helped foreigners, much less the United States; independent investigations suggest as much as $23 billion is unaccounted for in Iraq alone. "We can't account for where any of it goes—that's the great tragedy in all of this," Hellman says. "The Pentagon cannot now and has never passed an audit—and, to me, that's just criminal."
It's worth repeating that the actual cost of bin Laden's September 11 attacks was between $50 billion and $100 billion. That number could have been higher, says Adam Rose, coordinator for economics at the University of Southern California's National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, but for the resilience of the U.S. economy and the quick response of policymakers to inject liquidity and stimulate consumer spending. But the cost could also have been much lower, he says, if consumers hadn't paid a fear premium—shying away from air travel and tourism in the aftermath of the attacks. "Ironically," he says, "we as Americans had more to do with the bottom-line outcome than the terrorist attack itself, on both the positive side and the negative side."
The same is true of the nation's decision, for so many reasons, to spend at least $3 trillion responding to bin Laden's attacks. More than actual security, we bought a sense of action in the face of what felt like an existential threat. We staved off another attack on domestic soil. Our debt load was creeping up already, thanks to the early waves stages of baby-boomer retirements, but we also hastened a fiscal mess that has begun, in time, to fulfill bin Laden's vision of a bankrupt America. If left unchecked, our current rate of deficit spending would add $9 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. That's three Osamas, right there.
Although Bin Laden is buried in the sea, other Islamist extremists are already vying to take his place. In time, new enemies, foreign and domestic, will rise to challenge America. What they will cost us, far more than we realize, is our choice.
On a very personal note, I, like millions of my fellow Americans are relieved to know that the madman no longer walks on this planet. There have been reports that Al Quada had split into two fractions, with the more lethal division still actively in existence. I pray that peace will prevail. God Bless America. Peter Thomas Senese
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Obama bid Laden Is Dead. God Bless America. God Bless All Who Stand Strong In The Name Of Liberty.
The news of Osama bin Laden's death is a great victory for the people of the United States and our government. Now, in the truest sense of the word 'closure' all of us connected to the attacks on our nation and the life we embrace can perhaps heal in a different way.
I know that my own heart and spirit moved forward after hearing the news of how our brave U.S. Navy SEAL 'Team Six' invaded the closed-quartered compound located in the heart of Abbottabad where bin Laden lived for what could have been up to six years. Flashbacks and memories created during the months I spent at and around Ground Zero continue to flood my mind. They are both hard and comforting. Yet, bin Laden's death eases the pain.
I also had many phone calls with friends and family deeply connected to Ground Zero. In fact, after speaking to my brother John, who is a 'First-in, Last-out' New York City Firefighter who heroically was at the Financial Center during the attacks on our nation's Twin Towers, I realized just how important finding bin Laden was. "We got him. It's finally over," my brother said before letting me know he was in route to Ground Zero to stand in honor of all who lost their lives during that 11th day of September.
So today we celebrate closure to a madman's wicked scheme to hurt innocence. This said, I know this war on liberty we face is far from over, but our SEAL's cut the Al Qaeda's serpent's head off with a bullet to the forehead and one to the chest. Amen.
Of course there are many questions, and they are extremely important. The first that comes to mind is how did bin Laden live in Abbottabad without our government being tipped off? Abbottabad is home of Pakaistan's elite military training grounds. Grounds mind you that appear to be less than a half mile from where bin Laden was holed up. Grounds that had U.S. military personnel training Pakistan's army only a few years ago. Did the elite military complex in Abbottabad serve as a protective fort for bin Laden. Was there a tunnel that connected the military academy with bin Laden's complex?
If in fact bin Laden was in Abbottabad for several years, then the possability that the Pakistani government was in collusion with protecting the world's number one terrorist and murderer is something we all must be deeply concerned with. After all, we provide Pakistan with billions of dollars each year in aide. Set that aside and add up all the tax-payers money that was spent looking for bin Laden alone, and I'm sure the number will surpass the aide provided to Pakistan.
I applaude President Obama and his team in their decision to keep the details of our U.S. SEAL strike concealled from the Pakistani government. It is unquestionably due to this strategy that we were able to get to bin Laden.
According to the news, the Navy SEAL 'Team Six' spend 40 minutes on the ground hunting for bin Laden. After killing the terrorist they were able to confiscate a large horde of computers and information storage devices. Hopefully this is the motherload our intelligence agencies have been looking for.
But today belongs to America and all who are attached to the victory found in the death of bin Laden.
As we all take a giant step forward in our healing process, we must keep a mindful eye on Abbottabad and discover exactly what the three-headed dysfunctional Pakistani government's operations run by the political government, the military, and the ISI [their intelligence branch] knew.
Additionally, in bin Laden's death combined with an anticiapted escalation to end the reign of terror against Al Quada, there is a sense of hope growing that I am unfamiliar with. It is the hope that my child and yours will sooon live in a world free of terrorist and perhaps one day in the not too distant future free of conflict that leads to man trying to act in violence against a people for whatever their reason is.
God Bless America. Land of the free. Home of the brave.
Peter Thomas Senese
I know that my own heart and spirit moved forward after hearing the news of how our brave U.S. Navy SEAL 'Team Six' invaded the closed-quartered compound located in the heart of Abbottabad where bin Laden lived for what could have been up to six years. Flashbacks and memories created during the months I spent at and around Ground Zero continue to flood my mind. They are both hard and comforting. Yet, bin Laden's death eases the pain.
I also had many phone calls with friends and family deeply connected to Ground Zero. In fact, after speaking to my brother John, who is a 'First-in, Last-out' New York City Firefighter who heroically was at the Financial Center during the attacks on our nation's Twin Towers, I realized just how important finding bin Laden was. "We got him. It's finally over," my brother said before letting me know he was in route to Ground Zero to stand in honor of all who lost their lives during that 11th day of September.
So today we celebrate closure to a madman's wicked scheme to hurt innocence. This said, I know this war on liberty we face is far from over, but our SEAL's cut the Al Qaeda's serpent's head off with a bullet to the forehead and one to the chest. Amen.
Of course there are many questions, and they are extremely important. The first that comes to mind is how did bin Laden live in Abbottabad without our government being tipped off? Abbottabad is home of Pakaistan's elite military training grounds. Grounds mind you that appear to be less than a half mile from where bin Laden was holed up. Grounds that had U.S. military personnel training Pakistan's army only a few years ago. Did the elite military complex in Abbottabad serve as a protective fort for bin Laden. Was there a tunnel that connected the military academy with bin Laden's complex?
If in fact bin Laden was in Abbottabad for several years, then the possability that the Pakistani government was in collusion with protecting the world's number one terrorist and murderer is something we all must be deeply concerned with. After all, we provide Pakistan with billions of dollars each year in aide. Set that aside and add up all the tax-payers money that was spent looking for bin Laden alone, and I'm sure the number will surpass the aide provided to Pakistan.
I applaude President Obama and his team in their decision to keep the details of our U.S. SEAL strike concealled from the Pakistani government. It is unquestionably due to this strategy that we were able to get to bin Laden.
According to the news, the Navy SEAL 'Team Six' spend 40 minutes on the ground hunting for bin Laden. After killing the terrorist they were able to confiscate a large horde of computers and information storage devices. Hopefully this is the motherload our intelligence agencies have been looking for.
But today belongs to America and all who are attached to the victory found in the death of bin Laden.
As we all take a giant step forward in our healing process, we must keep a mindful eye on Abbottabad and discover exactly what the three-headed dysfunctional Pakistani government's operations run by the political government, the military, and the ISI [their intelligence branch] knew.
Additionally, in bin Laden's death combined with an anticiapted escalation to end the reign of terror against Al Quada, there is a sense of hope growing that I am unfamiliar with. It is the hope that my child and yours will sooon live in a world free of terrorist and perhaps one day in the not too distant future free of conflict that leads to man trying to act in violence against a people for whatever their reason is.
God Bless America. Land of the free. Home of the brave.
Peter Thomas Senese
Friday, March 11, 2011
PETER THOMAS SENESE NARRATES FILM SERIES ON INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: RELEASES TENTH FILM SEGMENT IN 'CHASING PARENTS: RACING INTO THE S
PETER THOMAS SENESE NARRATES FILM SERIES ON INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: RELEASES TENTH FILM SEGMENT IN 'CHASING PARENTS: RACING INTO THE STORMS OF INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION.
In a recently released educational video segment concerning 'The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative', Peter Thomas Senese discusses how the policies established under WHTI substantially minimizes travel document requirements for children traveling abroad via land or sea, presenting significant opportunity for child abductors and human traffickers the means to criminally remove defenseless children from one nation's borders to another.
In the now completed new video segment, Senese presents how the detrimental issues concerning WHTI policy are outlined and offers solutions that must be implemented in order to help prevent this grave and growing problem.
'Challenges Connected To The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative' is the newest release in the now completed ten-segment educational documentary film series titled 'Chasing Parents: Racing Into The Storms Of International Parental Child Abduction' produced and narrated by best-selling author Peter Thomas Senese.
Mr. Senese, a child abduction prevention advocate and author of the critically acclaimed novel 'Chasing The Cyclone' stated, "It is inconceivable that in the severe and escalating environment of international child abduction and child stealing that exists today, the WHTI policy marginalizes children's safety by not requiring all individuals traveling abroad to use a passport regardless of their age. Harmonization of a passport mandate for all international travel will dramatically reduce the number of cross-border abductions immediately."
To view 'Challenges Connected To The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative' and the 'Chasing Parents: Racing Into The Storms Of International Parental Child Abduction' film series, please visit http://www.chasingthecyclone.com or http://www.internationalparentalchildabduction.info.
Pacifica TWST is a media and entertainment company. Our feature film, television, documentary, and publishing efforts focus on current issues that effect the global community at large.
In a recently released educational video segment concerning 'The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative', Peter Thomas Senese discusses how the policies established under WHTI substantially minimizes travel document requirements for children traveling abroad via land or sea, presenting significant opportunity for child abductors and human traffickers the means to criminally remove defenseless children from one nation's borders to another.
In the now completed new video segment, Senese presents how the detrimental issues concerning WHTI policy are outlined and offers solutions that must be implemented in order to help prevent this grave and growing problem.
'Challenges Connected To The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative' is the newest release in the now completed ten-segment educational documentary film series titled 'Chasing Parents: Racing Into The Storms Of International Parental Child Abduction' produced and narrated by best-selling author Peter Thomas Senese.
Mr. Senese, a child abduction prevention advocate and author of the critically acclaimed novel 'Chasing The Cyclone' stated, "It is inconceivable that in the severe and escalating environment of international child abduction and child stealing that exists today, the WHTI policy marginalizes children's safety by not requiring all individuals traveling abroad to use a passport regardless of their age. Harmonization of a passport mandate for all international travel will dramatically reduce the number of cross-border abductions immediately."
To view 'Challenges Connected To The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative' and the 'Chasing Parents: Racing Into The Storms Of International Parental Child Abduction' film series, please visit http://www.chasingthecyclone.com or http://www.internationalparentalchildabduction.info.
Pacifica TWST is a media and entertainment company. Our feature film, television, documentary, and publishing efforts focus on current issues that effect the global community at large.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Peter Thomas Senese Supports Los Angeles' Measure 'L': Save Our Libraries
The Los Angeles Public Library System has faced dramatic operating budget reductions over the past few years, substantially limiting the library’s operations and services it offers the city’s patrons. On March 8th, 2011 the citizens of Los Angles have an opportunity to vote ‘Yes’ on Measure ‘L’ and have the city’s budget appropriate much needed funding for the city’s library system.
On March 8th, 2011 the citizens of Los Angeles will have an opportunity to vote “Yes” on Measure ‘L’ and keep the city’s revered cultural and educational institution open.
By voting ‘Yes’ on Measure ‘L’, the citizens of Los Angeles will have the opportunity to significantly impact the financially handicapped Los Angeles Public Library System, which in recent years has received inadequate funding from the city’s operating budget. The goal is clear: to reverse the already incomprehensible and highly detrimental damage done to one of the nation’s finest cultural and learning centers by halting the existing city policy that has caused dramatic library programming cutbacks and budget reductions – a trend that clearly will continue if Measure ‘L’ does not pass.
Author Peter Thomas Senese, a strong proponent of Measure ‘L’ commented, “It is critical for the immediate and long term future of the city of Los Angeles and for all who live here to vote “Yes” on Measure ‘L’. By doing so, we will keep our library doors open and accessible, adequately staffed, and capable of delivering much needed resources and programming that will serve the unique and large patron population that exists in our wonderful community. I urge everyone to support our libraries and vote ‘Yes’ on measure ‘L’.
Presently, the Los Angeles Public Library, with the Riordan Central Library and 72 branch facilities has been reduced to operating 5 days a week. According to various studies, if Measure ‘L’ does not pass, there is a distinct possibility that branches may only remain open 4 days a week. Already, the library staff – gatekeepers of knowledge and information – has been cut by 28% this past year. Similar to a very real potential reduction in library hours if Measure ‘L’ fails, it appears certain that there will be additional personnel reductions for an already understaffed library staff.
If Measure ‘L’ passes, it is expected that library hours will soon resume from the present shortened operating week, to a six-day, and eventual seven-day schedule in the near future. Alarmingly, Los Angles ranks last in the country of the top eight public library systems with respect to resources for acquisitions. This too would change if Measure ‘L’ passes, as the city would be obligated to increase as a percentage of its budget, resources dedicated to library operations.
Peter Thomas Senese, a self-professed Librophiliac added after a day of calling Angelinos seeking their support for Measure ‘L’, “A book is a free ticket to anywhere in the universe and our libraries are realm transporters that can take us anywhere. It is clear that many individuals in this city do not realize the dire situation our libraries face today, but it is serious. Unquestionably, it is the responsibility of those individuals who can vote ‘Yes’ on Measure ‘L’ to do so. After all, all of us, including our children, have a right to have access to our library and all the wonderful resources and unique programming it could offer if properly funded. By saying ‘Yes’ to Measure ‘L’, what we’re really saying is ‘Yes’ to our future.”
Measure ‘L’ will not require residents or property owners to pay more taxes or fees. While the amount of funds the Library receives from the city is based on a percent of property values, Measure L will only increase the library’s share of existing city funds. Measure ‘L’ funds are subject to audits.
For More Information on Measure ‘L’, please visit www.yesonlibraries.com.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Child Abduction Prevention Law In Florida Changes Court Rules on Custody Cases

On January 1st, 2011 Florida’s landmark ‘Child Abduction Prevention Act’ (CAPA) was enacted as law. The new legislation establishes an array of risk factors a judge may consider when deciding if there is a chance that one parent may remove a child of a relationship from the state or country or conceal the whereabouts of the child in violation of a parenting plan. Additionally, and critically, the CAPA provides a selection of preventative measures that may be utilized in order to prevent child abduction from occurring.
The new law that unquestionably will protect the lives of thousands of children in Florida each year was drafted by child abduction prevention advocate Carolyn Ann Vlk of St. Petersburg, FL. Ms. Vlk added, "In my opinion the biggest obstacle faced was a lack of information and education. My focus was to protect children by enlightening all individuals involved in the process including judges, attorneys, parents and policy makers. Tragically, too many of our nation's children have been abducted due to the failures by individuals and the courts responsible for overseeing their best interest, including assessing dangers that may lead to their possible criminal abduction. The CAPA law addresses this concern."
The new law was sponsored by Representative Darryl Rouson (D-St. Petersburg) and Senator Eleanor Sobel (D-Ft. Lauderdale). Under their careful guidance, the groundbreaking legislation did something near impossible: it unanimously passed each of the three Senate and three House committees before being resoundingly passed on both the House and Senate floors.
Representative Rouson was previously cited as saying, “I am extremely pleased to announce that as of today, my dream and goal of creating law that would help prevent our state’s children from experiencing the nightmare of child abduction is now a reality. As abduction cases in our state and the nation continue to increase at alarming and unprecedented levels, it has become apparent that the combative way to prevent this epidemic from spreading was to create a sweeping law that will aid the courts in protecting our children. The ‘Child Abduction Prevention Act’ certainly does this. I would like to thank Governor Crist and all of my fellow lawmakers, including child advocate Senator Eleanor Sobel, for realizing the importance of this law. The significance of this new law in Florida should be a lesson for all states presently considering child abduction prevention legislation; it is critical to the children of every state to have preventive laws in place that will protect their well being. I would also like to thank Carolyn Ann Vlk, the astute writer of the ‘Child Abduction Prevention Act’ for her tremendous leadership in writing such a sweeping law, and, I would like to also acknowledge Peter Thomas Senese for his substantial advocacy in support of our state’s new law. Today is a great day for the children of Florida.”
As the number of criminal international parental child abductions continues to escalate substantially each year, lawmakers at both the state and federal level appear to have taken notice. The Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues reported that there were 1,623 U.S. children criminally abducted from the United States in 2009. The aggregated growth rate over the past few years is well over 20%. These statistics do not include the substantial number of ‘unreported’ cases that were cited in the landmark report titled ‘Crisis In America: International Child Abduction Today’ (2010) researched and published by Peter Thomas Senese and Carolyn Ann Vlk.
Peter Thomas Senese, the author of the upcoming book ‘Chasing The Cyclone’ and producer of the educational documentary film series ‘Chasing Parents: Racing Into The Storms Of International Parental Child Abduction’ stated, “The number of criminal international child abductions has reached alarming levels. If we project the present growth rate of ‘reported’ abductions to 2020, an astronomical number of our nation’s children will have been ‘reported’ as being criminally abducted. And this does not include the reality that the number of ‘unreported’ cases of international abduction are expected to be at least the equivalent to the number of ‘reported’ cases. This all should raise a flag for every lawmaker and judge in the country that abduction laws and the consideration of risk factors related to a potential abduction are critical rights of a child. A failure by a court to consider such concerns and not apply appropriate abduction prevention measures to ensure an at-risk child’s safety is child abuse.
“The CAPA law unequivocally will protect the lives of many children in the State of Florida so long as judges implement the law. Hopefully more states will follow Florida’s lead. In addition, and equally important to preventive measures in the courtroom, it is critical that federal prevention measures are also implemented. This includes closing the loopholes associated with the travel documentation requirements for children connected to the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.”
The CAPA law allows for the presentation of competent and substantial evidence of risk factors. Factors that may be considered when determining if a risk exists include a previous history of child abduction or has been known to violate a court ordered parenting plan, or if there are known threats or clear intent to illegally abduct a child outside of the country, or if the party is likely to take a child to a country that is not a party to the Hague Convention, or if the party has forged or presented misleading or false evidence on government forms or documents in an attempt to obtain travel documents.
Preventative measures which may be utilized as a guideline in protecting children from abduction may include placing the child's name in the Children's Passport Issuance Alert Program, a provision that any U.S. or foreign passport issued in the child's name be surrendered to the court or the petitioner's attorney, that the respondent not apply on behalf of the child for a new or replacement passport or Visa, assessing the need to require a party post a bond, a prohibition that a party may not remove or retain the child in violation of a custody determination.
This law also indicates that violations of the terms of the parenting plan are subject to specific civil or criminal penalties or a federal or state warrant under federal or state laws and may subject the violating parent to apprehension by law enforcement.
Child advocate and lawyer Martin Asatrian commented, "The Florida legislation is a remarkable accomplishment Florida's policymakers achieved in the name of the children of that state. As social and political awareness continues to rise, so too will the outrage of having a child abducted across international borders. It is my hope that not only will the public have a deeper, more compassionate understanding of what both child and targeted parents of abduction must face, but more importantly, it is my hope that lawmakers in other states will demonstrate the courage and wisdom similar to what Representative Rouson and Senator Sobel demonstrated. Clearly, prevention is key to protecting our nation's children."
In closing, Carolyn Ann Vlk stated, "Parental child abduction cases can become very costly especially if search and rescue efforts become necessary. I anticipate that there will be less need for law enforcement involvement if risks are identified and preventative measures are implemented. The State of Florida now has additional capabilities to protect children from becoming victimized and to conserve our state's financial resources. However, the problems of international parental child abduction that need to be addressed as a nation are significant. I look forward to participating in dialogue and action that will better protect our nation's children, including co-drafting new legislation that will close loopholes related to travel documentation requirements for children traveling under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative."
For more information on IPCA please visit www.chasingthecyclone.com