The dire threat to our national security and public safety.
In the wake of the horrific November 13th terror attacks in Paris, coming on the heels of the downing of the Russian Metrojet airliner on October 31, 2015 in Egypt, many of America's political leaders are finally coming to the inevitable realization that we need to be careful as to who we let into the United States because of the clear and present danger posed by ISIS and other terror organizations.
However, even as many of these very same politicians insist that the United States suspend the admission of Syrian Refugees until and unless the vetting process by which these aliens are screened is truly effective and has integrity, they continue to support plans to provide unknown millions of illegal aliens who entered our country surreptitiously without inspection with lawful status.
These “leaders” describe illegal aliens as being “undocumented immigrants,” using language that is "politically correct,” but actually Orwellian and constitutes a deceptive and dangerous example of Newspeak.
To provide a bit of essential clarity, the difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.
Often the politicians repeat the false mantra, “We are fighting them (terrorists) over there so that we will not have to fight them over here.” In point of fact, we are most definitely fighting them “over here.” The terrorists who attacked our nation on September 11, 2001 carried out those deadly attacks inside the United States. The Boston Marathon bombing was obviously carried out inside the United States, as were other attacks that were perpetrated or attempted by still other terrorists.
Additionally, the FBI has announced that it is conducting investigations into sleeper cells across the United States.
On January 23, 2015 FrontPage Magazine published my article: “Sleeper Cells: The Immigration Component of the Threat.”
As I have noted in previous commentaries, consider the duplicitous Chuck Schumer, New York's senior senator who was arguably the ringleader of the “Gang of Eight” (or as I have come to refer to that bunch of politicians, the “Eight Gangsters”), whom I wrote about in my April 15, 2013 article for Accuracy In Media (AIM), “Unobtainium” and Border Deception. It is worth reviewing my AIM article to see who was a part of this travesty.
Schumer called for creating a federal law that would provide a five-year prison sentence for people who trespassed on national landmarks such as the Brooklyn Bridge or Statue of Liberty, while favoring granting a pathway to United States citizenship for aliens who trespassed on the United States by evading the inspection process conducted at ports of entry of inspectors of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The vital inspections process that is conducted at ports of entry is mandated by the Immigration and Nationality Act to prevent the entry of aliens whose presence in the United States would undermine national security and/or otherwise pose a threat to the safety and wellbeing of America and Americans.
I have, on occasion, referred to this obviously contradictory posture assumed by Schumer as providing incontrovertible evidence that he suffers from a lack of “mouth/ear coordination.” He is unable to hear the words that come out of his own mouth. This was one of my points in my recent article for FrontPage Magazine, “Immigration Politics: Where Facts and Commonsense Are Ignored.”
Chuck Schumer, New York's senior senator and one of the biggest metronomes in all of Congress, had called for suspending the admission of Syrian refugees but as reported in the November 19, 2015 Politico article, “Schumer opposes 'pause' for Syrian refugee program,” after a “briefing” has decided to oppose the suspension. Obama must have made him the proverbial offer he could not refuse.
Now Schumer is playing the game of “bait and switch” by coming out in favor of putting those on “no fly” lists on watch lists to prevent them from purchasing firearms and now also supports Senator Feinstein's bill to require aliens from the 38 Visa Waiver countries who have traveled to Iraq or Syria within the past five years to obtain a visa before seeking entry into the United States. Of course, aliens who embrace radical Islam but have not traveled to the Middle East would still not need a visa and it may not be possible to accurately determine if aliens traveled to those two countries.
Clearly Schumer and others are willing to literally play politics with national security and the safety of our citizens. Schumer initially voiced concern about the vetting process for aliens seeking admission into the United States who pose a threat to national security and public safety. Why don't Schumer and other politicians understand or at least acknowledge that aliens who evade any sort of screening process conducted by CBP Inspectors at ports of entry also pose a serious threat to national security and public safety?
Those inspectors base their decisions about the admissibility of aliens on our immigration laws and regulations. I am intimately familiar with the importance of this mission -- I began my 30-year career with the former INS as an Immigration Inspector assigned to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York before I made the transition to becoming an INS Special Agent.
Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens is a section of law that is contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act and enumerates the grounds for excluding aliens from the United States and includes aliens infected with dangerous communicable diseases, suffer from extreme mental illness and are prone to violence, aliens who are criminals, human rights violators, war criminals, spies or terrorists. Finally that list also includes aliens who would likely become public charges or displace American workers. There is nothing in that list that relates to the race, religion or ethnicity of these aliens.
My October 20, 2015 article for FrontPage Magazine, “Immigration Law Enforcement: Why Bother?: The crucial issues at stake for American citizens,” included the mission statement that is included in the Performance and Accountability Report/Fiscal Year 2014:
We are the guardians of our Nation’s borders. We are America’s frontline. We safeguard the American homeland at and between our borders.
We protect the American public against terrorists and the instruments of terror. We steadfastly enforce the laws of the United States while fostering our Nation’s economic security through lawful international trade and travel.
We serve the American public with vigilance, integrity, and professionalism.
CBP’s approximate 60,000 employees manage, control, and protect the Nation’s borders at and between 328 ports of entry. CBP is responsible for protecting more than 5,000 miles of border with Canada, 1,900 miles of border with Mexico, and 95,000 miles of shoreline.
While CBP’s missions are complex and diverse, the principal operational requirements can be summarized in three distinct and mutually supporting themes:
Protect the American people;
Protect the national economy; and
Safeguard and manage the U.S. air, land, and maritime borders.
The men and women of CBP pursue these mission themes every day as they safeguard America at its borders with vigilance, selfless service, and unyielding integrity.
That mission statement makes the crystal clear connection that exists in issues concerning border security and national security. How could any reasonable person ignore the true significance of this major component of national security?
It is worth noting that the Performance and Accountability Report/Fiscal Year 2014 reports that for FY 2014 CBP had 59,544 employees and was provided with a $13.9 billion annual budget for law enforcement and trade operations. Hardly an unimportant or insignificant set of statistics.
The CBP inspectors, who are charged with enforcing our immigration laws at America's 328 ports of entry across our nation; the U.S. Border Patrol, which is charged with securing our land borders; and the U.S. Coastguard that patrols America's 95,000 miles of coastline represent America's first line of defense and last line of defense against international terrorists and transnational criminals.
How on earth could any honest and responsible political leader not understand that aliens who evade the inspections process at ports of entry pose a threat to national security and public safety?
Furthermore, dead is dead. Whether a person is killed during a terror attack or by a criminal alien, that person is no less dead.
It is unfathomable that the administration or politicians on any level, could or would minimize the true importance of our nation's borders or immigration laws in this extremely perilous era.
Aliens who evade the inspections process conducted at ports of entry pose no less a threat than aliens who would submit fraudulent claims about being Syrian refugees. In point of fact, any alien who would lie about a material fact in an application for a visa or immigration benefit must be seen as not only committing a crime, but potentially posing a threat to national security and the safety and wellbeing of our fellow citizens.
It is worse than delusional to think otherwise.
The Summer 2015 edition of the quarterly journal, The Social Contract, just published my in-depth analysis of the nexus between immigration and national security and the threat of terrorism, “The 9/11 Commission Report and Immigration: An Assessment, Fourteen Years after the Attacks.”
I will end my article with an important excerpt from The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel:
It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the U.S. 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 U.S., 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.