Skip this site's navigation and go to its main content


Receive Updates From Heritage

Receive Updates From Heritage

The Heritage Foundation
Leadership for America

Our Vision

Building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.

About The Heritage Foundation

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles.


The GAO, ICE, and Mohammad Atta

Posted March 9th, 2009 at 10:53am in Protect America 3 Print This Post Print This Post

Last week the Government Accountability Offices (GAO) released a report calling for better oversight of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) 287(g) state and local law enforcement training program. We agree that the program could use additional oversight, but the GAO report also recommends a fundamental rethinking of the program that defeats its original purpose.

Heritage analysts Jena Baker McNeill and Diem Nguyen explain:

The report proposes that the program’s objective should be to only address serious criminal activity and that officers who check the immigration status of those committing minor offenses are in violation of the spirit of the program. But GAO admits that such an objective is not required in the statute or the legislative history, and the law does not prevent 287(g) participants from inquiring into the immigration status of those apprehended for minor offenses.

The fallacy of the GAO’s suggested objective could not be clearer than in the example of Mohammad Atta. Atta, one of the September 11 hijackers, was pulled over in a minor traffic stop two days before the 9/11 attacks. Under GAO’s proposed objectives, because Atta’s traffic offense was minor, it would not have warranted an inquiry into his immigration status. But had the officer inquired into his immigration status–even though it was only a minor offense–they would have found he was in the country illegally and could have prevented his participation in the attacks, or perhaps prevented 9/11 all together.

Tags: , ,

3 Responses to “The GAO, ICE, and Mohammad Atta”

  1. Heretic, Oregon on at said:

    It’s terrorists like in yemen,(which we released out of guantanamo), that could use these routes the illegal immigrants use. This immigration is becoming out of hand, my nephew lives in Arizona where it is becoming if not already the state with the most kidnapping.

  2. Wanda,San Francisco on at said:

    It is the birthday of economist and ethicist Adam Smith: “Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.” Our immigration laws must be strictly enforced or we will not have a nation soon.

    Everything you need to know about immigration and what to do about it humorously told.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBw1nUlf38I

    (Roy Beck and NumbersUSA are the “gumaball” heroes)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ

  3. Strong Immigration Enforcement Supporter on at said:

    I support the 287(g) program and feel that the GAO report was not supported by a realistic investigation. As to Atta, even if he was stopped and the officer inquired into his status, Atta was not in violation of immigration based on his entry as a B-1 for business that allowed him to remain legally in the United States until November, 2001. He manipulated the deceived the State Department and INS but he was legally in the United States prior to 9/11.

    Refer to: 9/11 and Terrorist Travel, produced by the staff of the 9/11 commission, page 38 and other sites.

Leave a Comment

In order to leave a comment, you must supply information for all of the required fields below (which are indicated by bold text).

Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.