Está en la página 1de 2

OBP005514

From: (b) (6)


To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Possible question from Del Rio Sector
Date: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:33:49 PM
Attachments: (b) (5)

Good afternoon all.

I have incorporated the feedback I received, and am attaching what I think is a good compromise.

I am submitting this version to the Border Patrol; please forward any additional suggestions to (b)
. (6)

Thanks.

(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)


Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 9:28 AM
To: (b) (6)

Subject: RE: Possible question from Del Rio Sector

Good morning all.

I drafted a response to the question (b) (6) submitted.

In accordance with the draft protocols, and per Greg’s specific request, I am forwarding the draft
response to the members of the Comms IPT for review and comment.

I will accept any comments submitted by 2:00 pm Monday. I will incorporate feedback at that time, and
forward the consolidated response to the Border Patrol (which is (b) again).
(6)
Thank you.

(b) (6)
Secure Border Initiative
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)


Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 2:18 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Possible question from Del Rio Sector

(b) ,
(6)
This question came in from Del Rio Sector as a possible issue/question at a townhall/meeting. Could
we get a good solid answer that hits the appropriate message?! I know what the answer is but am
having difficulty shaping that without saying we WON’T build fence anymore because SBInet is down
the road. Any help is appreciated.
(b)
(6)
OBP005515

1. The Secure Fence Act includes mileage in addition to the proposed 6 miles of
P225 surrounding the Del Rio and Eagle Pass Port of Entry. Has the Secretary
decided to allow a virtual fence as a substitute for physical fencing in those
additional miles addressed within the Secure Fence Act? I believe this is some
89 miles located within remote areas adjacent to the Rio Grande River within the
Del Rio Sector.

También podría gustarte