It may be difficult to understand how the leadership of our own government could be behind a push for anarchy, but incredibly this is precisely what we are witnessing — not only in Washington, but among political leaders in some states and cities across the United States. The prime issue behind this lunacy is immigration. Entering the realm of immigration is the equivalent of entering a parallel universe where up is down, left is right and right is wrong.
On December 22, 2014 the newspaper, Arizona Daily Star published an article titled “Tucson ‘dreamers’ line up to get driver’s licenses” that contained the following quote:
Many undocumented immigrants have to drive without licenses to get to work or school or do anything in their daily lives, said Rodriguez, who said he was brought to the United States from Agua Prieta, Sonora, when he was in third grade.
Consider that illegal aliens who should not be in the United States in the first place openly say that they “had to drive” to work or go to school. Illegal aliens are not supposed to be here or be working. However, their attitudes are perfectly normal and understandable considering the statements made by the president of the United States as well as by politicians from both political parties on the federal, state and local levels.
Consider how many politicians in Washington and in cities and states around the United States have blithely stated that illegal aliens are going to drive anyway so that providing them with licenses will enable them to drive safely. Given the terror attacks conducted in Paris, it is clear that the “all clear” has not sounded. We remain at risk of terror attacks and our leaders had better dust off their copies of the 9/11 Commission Report and relating documentation and finally get serious about truly protecting America and Americans.
It is more than mere irony that legislators, also known as “lawmakers,” are quick to justify illegal activities that aliens who have violated our borders and immigration laws engage in, such as driving without licenses, committing identity theft to gain unlawful employment, etc.
These are the same politicians who will seek opportunities to stand before television cameras and microphones to talk about the need to protect America and Americans from terrorism yet they will never, ever make any references to the findings of the 9/11 Commission which was prepared in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 to identify the vulnerabilities that enabled those terrorists, as well as others, to enter the United States and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparations.
Advocates for Comprehensive Immigration Reform ignore the fact that the administration has provided hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens up to age 31 with temporary lawful status and official identity documents without an interview or a field investigation to verify the information contained in their applications leading to a lack of integrity to the process. There is no reliable way to verify the identities of the applicants. There is, consequently, no way to know anything about their backgrounds, affiliations or when, where or how they actually entered the United States. Yet all too many of our “leaders” are more than willing to overlook these issues and the way that this undermines national security.
On December 21, 2014 CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization) posted my extensive article, “Obama’s ‘Gift’ to International Terrorists: Immigration Executive Action.”
Of all of the federal laws, our immigration laws are among the most essential and commonsense. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was fundamentally enacted to protect innocent lives and the jobs of American workers by preventing the entry of aliens who would pose a threat to national security, public safety or the overall well-being of America and Americans.
During the extensive coverage of the recent terror attacks in Paris, as well as during other news reports about the “War on Terror,” much has been made about the need for our government to maximize efforts to gather effective actionable intelligence. On November 10, 2014 CAPS posted my article, “Lack of Intelligence in Failures to Enforce Immigration Laws.” In my article I explained how effective immigration law enforcement can be instrumental in recruiting informants and cooperating witnesses.
On November 15th I was honored to join three true leaders in the United States Congress in a panel discussion on immigration: Senator Jeff Sessions and Congressmen Louie Gohmert and John Fleming. The perspectives of these true leaders are well worth listening to. FrontPage Magazine posted the video and a transcript of this panel discussion.
During my remarks at the panel discussion, I referenced an op-ed I had written for the Washington Times in which I articulated my concerns about the previous attempt to enact Comprehensive Immigration Reform. My op-ed was quoted by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, on three separate dates, from the floor of the U.S. Senate during the contentious bill debates. In my piece I recommended that Comprehensive Immigration Reform be given a more honest and descriptive title. I suggested that it be renamed the “Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act.”
I recommend you review Senator Session’s statement on June 27, 2007 from the floor of the U.S. Senate on the immigration bill in which the Senator made reference to my suggested new name to that disastrous legislation. His impassioned pleas to his colleagues averted a catastrophe and that legislation was defeated. However, not unlike Freddy Krueger, Comprehensive Immigration Reform has been brought back to life through the unilateral actions of President Obama and his proposed executive actions. Furthermore, there are politicians from both parties willing to support this legislative betrayal of America and Americans CPR.
There is nothing in Comprehensive Immigration Reform that would address the failings of the immigration system that threaten national security or public safety. There is nothing in Comprehensive Immigration Reform that would deter future illegal immigration.
On July 12, 2011 CAPS posted my article, “Visa Waiver Program Endangers our Safety and Security” in which I enumerated the half-dozen benefits that an effectively administered visa program could enhance airline safety and national security — benefits that are utterly lost when aliens are permitted to enter the United States under the auspices of the ill-conceived Visa Waiver Program. At the time I wrote that article 36 countries were on the list of participating countries. Today that list now includes 38 countries while back on September 11, 2001 there were only 26 countries on the list.
The push for expanding this dangerous program is coming from many directions but arguably the biggest push has been coming from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce under the aegis of its “Discover America Partnership.”
That unholy alliance of partners includes executives from the hotel, hospitality and tourism industries that are pumping huge sums of political campaign contributions to sway our political leaders.
How reassuring is it that the folks responsible for room service are making national security decisions?
These executives are incapable of even considering the way that this program would undermine irreparably undermine national security and even their own corporate best interests should their be another terrorist attack.
There is a joke that says that the difference between pessimists and optimists is that the pessimist says most women are bad while the optimist hopes that they are. A variation of this is that pessimists say that most Americans are ill-informed and foolish while con artists, politicians and exploiters hope that they are.
In the wake of the Jonathan Gruber fiasco, the MIT-educated economist who proclaimed that Americans were so dumb that they could be easily fooled about the true nature of Obama-Care, it would certainly seem that Mr. Gruber and the advocates for Obama-Care see in low-information Americans opportunities to swindle them. However, this tactic has not only been used where ObamaCare is concerned but where many other issues are concerned — in particular, immigration.
Repeating a lie as frequently as possible causes many people to begin to believe the lie. The concept of the “Big Lie” was, in fact, a key tool of the Third Reich which led to the Holocaust. Consider this quote from Adolf Hitler:
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
The Carter administration, sought to all but expunge the term “alien” from the immigration debate. The term alien is a legal term that, according the Immigration and Nationality Act, is defined simply as being “any person, not a citizen or national of the United States.” There is no insult in that definition and consequently, in that term, only clarity. However, charlatans use deceptive language the way that magicians use blue smoke, dramatic lighting, deft hand movements and scantily clad young ladies to confuse, confound and distract the audience through a tactic know as “misdirection” to keep them from seeing how the trick is done.
It is important to note, however, that the DREAM Act is an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors. It is amazing that the term “alien” became palatable in this one situation — and this one situation alone — because it conjured up the powerful imagery of the “American Dream,” although for an increasing number of Americans and especially their children, the “American Dream” has become all but unattainable.
Using the term “undocumented” to describe aliens who run our nation’s borders and enter the United States by evading the inspections process at ports of entry glosses over the true dangers inherent in foreign nationals sneaking into the United States. Back when I was an INS agent my colleagues and I used the term “EWI” to describe aliens who trespassed on the United States. EWI is an acronym for Entry Without Inspection. This was the officially designated term to describe such aliens.
By using the term “undocumented immigrant” the open borders advocates (immigration anarchists) then claim that anyone who wants our borders secured and our immigration laws enforced are “anti-immigrant.” Other more vituperative terms are also used by these individuals to describe Americans who are concerned about the myriad failures of the immigration system. Some of those words include, “racists,” “nativists,” “bigots” and “haters.”
This use of language by the immigration anarchists is designed to intimidate and stigmatize their opponents and shut down any civilized discussions.
The truth is that those who support secure borders and effective immigration law enforcement are not “anti-immigrant” but pro-enforcement. There is nothing wrong with supporting existing immigration laws that were enacted to protect innocent lives and the jobs of American workers. In point of fact, our immigration laws not only contain provisions that enumerate the categories of aliens to be excluded from the United States and the circumstances under which aliens should be removed (deported) from the United States, but also enable more than one million lawful immigrants to legally immigrate to the United States. Those same laws also permit hundreds of thousands of permanent resident aliens to acquire United States citizenship via the naturalization process.
It must be noted that the immigration laws of the United States, which are contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), make absolutely no distinction by race, religion or ethnicity. Nevertheless, politicians and journalists who bridle at the slightest of hints that a law enforcement officer might be engaged in “profiling” are quick to discuss that the way to win the “Latino vote” is to support Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
Here is something to consider that is rarely publicly discussed — there is a legitimate need for profiling where law enforcement is concerned, provided, of course, that it is done properly and any interactions between law enforcement and the public be conducted in a civil and decent manner. Proper profiling involves far more than the race or ethnicity of a person being stopped. There are behavioral and situational components to effective and appropriate profiling.
To provide an example, a police officer observing a young person slowly driving an expensive vehicle with out of town license plates down a block in a high-crime neighborhood late at night should raise some suspicions. If the driver appears to be looking around for someone, the possibility is that the driver might be seeking to make a drug connection. Of course this motivation is only one of several possibilities. The officer would be justified in approaching the driver and striking up a conversation and checking the motorist’s license, registration and other documentation. This is only reasonable and commonsense.
However, when discussing ethnic or religious votes, those who talk about the “Latino vote” or the “black vote” or the “Jewish vote” are actually saying that all people who have ethnically similar last names vote the same way and have the same goals and values. The same can be said about all people of the same race or religion. This is a vile and despicable way of profiling people, yet this issue is never discussed.
By not drawing a clear distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration, many people simply presume that anyone with an accent is probably an illegal alien. This slanders many millions of lawful immigrants who have abided by our laws and have every right to live and work in the United States.
Imagine lawful immigrants who are so thrilled to finally immigrate to the United States only to have Americans look askance at them. Rather than feel welcomed into the United States they come to find themselves ostracized through no fault of there own.
This use of the “race card” by journalists and politicians leads to additional strife in other communities around the United States, fanning the flames of intolerance.
When the charlatan in question is a politician, deceptive language is called propaganda.
Here are a few quotes, appropriately enough, from the author of the classic novel, “1984” George Orwell who, through that masterpiece, created “Big Brother” and Newspeak:
“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.“
Language is critical and words certainly do have real meaning. While we have all heard the expression that “sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never harm me,” the truth is that properly spoken words can incite riots and even lead to wars.
The savage terror attack carried out in Paris purportedly was done to punish the cartoonists and journalists who mocked Islam. It was also apparently motivated to intimidate free speech. Censorship is a powerful and essential tool traditionally used by totalitarian regimes to quell dissension and control the masses.
When we consider words, we must consider that the oaths of office taken by members of our armed forces, law enforcement officers and publicly elected officials do not provide for any “wiggle room” where our Constitution or our laws are concerned.
Our Constitution and our laws are not the equivalent of items on a menu where the patron of a restaurant decides whether or not to order both soup and salad or one or the other.
Oaths of office do not provide the person taking that oath the option of picking and choosing what laws he/she will uphold, defend or enforce. The oaths mandate that the person taking that oath will honor and respect all laws equally.
All too often, politicians who invoke the “Rule of Law” when they claim to be “constitutionalists” will, however, frequently call for changing our laws and ignoring elements of the Constitution that they, or more likely their major campaign contributors, find inconvenient and an impediment to huge profits often at the expense of America and Americans.
Our political leaders must be made to understand that they cannot have it both ways — they either support our Constitution and our laws or they do not.
They either stand with America and Americans or they do not.