Today my focus is on the way that open borders anarchists vilify anyone who would dare suggest that it is not only reasonable but essential that the United States government lives up to its obligation of securing our borders to prevent the entry of aliens whose presence would pose a threat to the safety and well-being of our nation and our citizens.
It is not “Anti-Immigrant” to insist on enforcing our immigration laws but actually “Pro-Enforcement.” It is a contradiction in terms to claim that it is anti-immigrant to enforce our immigration laws because our immigration laws not only provide for the exclusion and/or removal (deportation) of aliens who would pose a threat to our safety or well-being, but also provides for the lawful admission of roughly one million lawful immigrants each and every year. The term “lawful” refers to the immigration laws we want enforced! In point of fact, the United States admits more lawful immigrants than all of the other countries on this planet- combined!
My article was written several days ago- before the most recent terror attacks were carried out in Belgium, but the fact that immigration has been a key issue for national security for all nations has been hammered home time and again as international terrorists have traveled across international borders in preparation for deadly terrorist attacks.
For quite some time, pollsters have been spewing drivel and falsehoods about mythical “Latino Voters” who purportedly will only vote for candidates for political office who support the obliteration of borders and importation of unlimited foreign competitors for the jobs they desperately want and need to support themselves and their families.
Houses and apartments are provided with secure front doors, peepholes and doorbells or other such signaling devices so that the homeowner may make a conscious and reasonable decision as to whether or not to admit a stranger, is not unlike the mandate our government has- to make certain that aliens- who not unlike a stranger knocking on the front door of a home, have not inherent right to enter, will not pose a threat to the safety or well-being of those who live within our borders.
To provide a bit of clarity, the difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar!
The 9/11 Commission identified failures of the immigration system, including fraud in the visa process and fraud in the adjudications program as being at the root cause of terrorists not just the 9/11 hijackers, to enter the United States and embed themselves in the United States as they went about their deadly preparations.
Consider this excerpt from Chapter 12 of the 9/11 Commission Report:
Looking back, we can also see that the routine operations of our immigration laws-that is, aspects of those laws not specifically aimed at protecting against terrorism-inevitably shaped al Qaeda’s planning and opportunities. Because they were deemed not to be bona fide tourists or students as they claimed, five conspirators that we know of tried to get visas and failed, and one was denied entry by an inspector. We also found that had the immigration system set a higher bar for determining whether individuals are who or what they claim to be-and ensuring routine consequences for violations-it could potentially have excluded, removed, or come into further contact with several hijackers who did not appear to meet the terms for admitting short-term visitors.
Our investigation showed that two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system’s inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks: a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism.
When the INS was sliced and diced and divided into several separate agencies, these separate agencies were folded in with other agencies- principally U.S. Customs. Many of the leaders of these component agencies did not come from the former INS but rather from other agencies- especially the U.S. Customs Service. Similarly, the managers of many field offices also came from U.S. Customs. These managers had little or no experience enforcing immigration laws. I came to refer to this as the “Customization of immigration law enforcement!”
This made the effective enforcement and administration of immigration laws unlikely.
A series of Congressional oversight hearings were conducted into the impact that the creation of the DHS was having on immigration law enforcement because there were serious concerns about how this would impact immigration law enforcement. I testified before a number of those hearings.
On May 5, 2005 I testified before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Claims and Border Security’s hearing on the topic, “New "Dual Missions" of the Immigration Enforcement Agencies.”
The current administration has continually found ways of undermining the security of our nation’s borders and the enforcement of our immigration laws- even as our leaders warn that the threat of terror attacks have never been greater.
There is absolutely no justification for the decisions made by the administration- but I want you to remember that it was President George W. Bush who presided over the creation of the bureaucratic leviathan- the DHS- and agency I have to refer to as the Department of Homeland Surrender.
Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. | Photo: |
You must also remember that USCIS would be put in charge of any massive legalization program for unknown millions of illegal aliens and yet there is no shortage of Republicans who have all but demanded that such a program be created.
President Obama has certain kept his campaign promise that he would bring “change to America.”
Many years ago my dad sagely told me that “nothing was so good it could not be made better or was so bad that it could not be made worse.”
Many people have come to complain that we have become too “Politically Correct” to speak the truth about important issues. My view is that the artful use of language that has been described as examples of political correctness are in fact, examples of Orwellian “Newspeak.”
Having invoked George Orwell
, it is appropriate to consider, a couple of his brilliant quotes:
Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.