Setting the record straight about immigration law enforcement.
Imagine if somehow members of the United States Congress, from both political parties, could engage in meaningful negotiations to create a body of laws that would ensure public health, national security, public safety and the jobs and wages of American workers.In point of fact, the body of laws that have those vital goals was actually enacted back in 1952 and is known as the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). It easily passed, garnering the votes cast by an overwhelming majority of the members of Congress from both political parties and still serves as the foundation of the current Immigration and Nationality Act that, over the years, has been amended but retains the underlying primary goal of protecting America and Americans.
It is hard to imagine that any politician would oppose the enforcement of our federal laws that puts the safety and well-being of Americans and our nation first and, as a nation important bonus, combats the scourge of human trafficking!
Today, however, the great majority of Democrats are adamantly opposed to the enforcement of the laws comprehended within the Immigration and Nationality Act and with their opposition it is clear they oppose the essential protections that those laws afford America and Americans and therefore oppose the arrest and removal of any aliens who violate the INA.
There are a number of ways that aliens may be subject to arrest and deportation (removal) from the United States. The one most commonly associated with aliens being subject to removal are aliens whose presence in the United States, from the outset of their entrance into the United States are aliens who evade the inspections process conducted by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Inspectors.
Aliens seek to evade the required vetting process for many reasons, but principally because they know that they fall within one or more classes of aliens who, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, are deemed “inadmissible.”
Contrary to the lies and propaganda spewed by duplicitous opponents of immigration law enforcement, our immigration laws are utterly and totally blind about such insignificant matters as race, religion and/or ethnicity- simply stated, our immigration laws were enacted to protect public, health, public safety, national security and the jobs and wages of American workers. This fundamental fact can be easily and readily verified by reviewing a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that enumerates the classes of alien who may not be admitted into the United States:
8 USC 1182: Inadmissible Aliens.
Incredibly, today with precious few exceptions, Democrat politicians on all levels of government are calling for the abolition of ICE (immigration and Customs Enforcement), the federal agency that has primary responsibility for the administration and enforcement of those vital immigration laws!
Many Democrat candidates have even made the abolition of ICE the center piece of their political campaigns, whether they seek the mayoralty of their cities, the governorship of their states or even in their campaigns to attain a seat in the House of Representatives or the United States Senate!
Some of these candidates even boast that they had proudly served the United States as members of the U.S. military and conspicuously provide photos and videos of themselves in their military uniforms in conjunction with their political campaigns!
Here is what they blithely and inexplicably ignore- the common shared mission of all branches of the United States military is to keep the enemies of our nation as far from our shores as possible. However, up close and in person that vital mission to defend our nation against its enemies falls to the valiant men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard, the United States Border Patrol and ICE.
My roughly 30 year career with the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) that began back in 1971 has provided me with insight and perspectives that have been largely missing from the national debate, in recent years, about the importance of secure borders and effective immigration law enforcement.
I noted that my perspectives have been missing from the national debate for a number of years because I had testified before more than 15 congressional hearings in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 and was actually invited by both sides of the political aisle. I also provided sworn testimony to the 9/11 Commission.
Back then, with the memory of the 9/11 terror attacks fresh in everyone’s minds just about everyone was on the proverbial “same page,” taking seriously the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
The official report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel: Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States begins with this excerpt:
It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.
Congress gave the Commission the mandate to study, evaluate, and report on “immigration, nonimmigrant visas and border security” as these areas relate to the events of 9/11.
The report went on to note:
Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.
In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the U.S. terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack.
Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the U.S. government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.
So-called “Sanctuary policies” that obstruct and block the enforcement of the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States are diametrically opposed to the findings, recommendations and indeed, explicit warnings of the 9/11 Commission!
In fact I was invited, by none other than Democrat Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, the then Ranking Member of the House Immigration Subcommittee to testify before a hearing on March 19, 2002, on the concerning subject:
Sheila ultimately invited me to testify before two additional hearings on immigration-related issues.
However, as the saying goes, “That was then, this is now!” --->READ MORE HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment