Election Day is rapidly approaching. In considering what is at stake, it is important to understand that, as I recently noted, “The Three Most Important Issues For 2016: Immigration, Immigration, Immigration.”
Most polls skew how the concerns of the majority of Americans are reported by the media. Most Americans are most concerned about the threats posed by terrorists and criminals. All too many Americans fear losing their jobs and are concerned about the opportunities that their children will have in these United States. Generally, when polls and surveys are conducted, participants cannot pick more than one item that they consider to be the most important issue. When those polled need to decide what is their biggest worry, they tend to ignore the fact that failures of the immigration system profoundly undermine national security and have a huge impact on nearly every other issue of great concern.
In the Orwellian world of politics and journalism, cities that violate our immigration laws by shielding illegal aliens from detection are referred to as “sanctuary cities.” I addressed the threat that such jurisdictions create in my article, “Terrorism, Enclaves and Sanctuary Cities: How sanctuary cities facilitate the growth of terror enclaves in America.”
In point of fact, on October 3, 2016 the New York Times ran an article with the breathless title, “Millions at Risk of Deportation as Justices Refuse to Rehear Case.”
The “millions at risk” are aliens who either entered the United States without inspection. In the parlance of immigration enforcement personnel, such aliens are referred to as Entrants Without Inspection (EWI). They were not vetted and their presence in the United States is a violation of our laws that are supposed to prevent the entry of aliens who pose a threat to the safety and/or well-being of Americans.
Such “at risk” aliens also include those who, subsequent to being admitted into the United States, went on to violate the terms of their admission by remaining in the United States beyond their authorized period of admission if they were admitted as non-immigrant (temporary) visitors. Foreign students who fail to attend school or fail to maintain proper grades are subject to removal. Aliens who take jobs for which they lack authority are subject to removal, as are aliens who are admitted under the provisions of temporary work visas and fail to report for those jobs or leave those authorized jobs, but remain in the United States without permission.
Finally, aliens who commit a variety of serious crimes may be subject to removal even if they were admitted as lawful immigrants.
Would the New York Times run a report about efforts to get more drunk drivers off the road by saying that stepped-up police efforts to identify and arrest drunk drivers put those drunk drivers “at risk” of arrest? It is more likely they would accurately report that such enforcement programs were aimed at making our roads safer.
Aliens who work illegally, it must be noted, are likely displacing American and/or lawful immigrant workers. In this faltering economy where so many Americans are unemployed and under-employed, a job is a valuable commodity. Somehow the nonsense spewed by the media makes it appear that there is nothing wrong with aliens who are present in the United States provided that they are working, even if they have stolen the jobs of hard-working Americans.
Additionally, every year hundreds of billions of dollars are wired or otherwise sent from the United States to the home countries of aliens working legally and illegally in the United States, hobbling our economy and driving up our national debt.
Our immigration laws are not about bias, but about protection — protection for America and Americans.
Claiming that Obama sought to “protect” illegal aliens through his executive orders and misuse of “prosecutorial discretion” is as Orwellian as it gets. The same could be said of “sanctuary cities.”
If our government ought to be protecting anyone, it should be the citizens of the United States. Our government should be seeking to protect victims of crimes committed by aliens who have no right to be present in the United States and American workers who are displaced by foreign workers.
It is essential to note that often the victims of criminal aliens are members of the ethnic immigrant communities in which these criminal aliens live.
When illegal aliens evade the inspections process, there is no record of their entry. We don’t even know that they are here. This is a matter of national security.
Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton would, if elected president, fill the current vacancy at the Supreme Court presumably with an appointee who would be predisposed to support her proposed massive amnesty program.
There would be no way to interview those millions of illegal aliens or conduct field investigations to verify their identities, entry data and other pertinent facts.
There would be no way to even know if they are actually citizens of the countries they will have claimed to be citizens of. There will be no way to verify their true identities or when they actually entered the United States. All that the beleaguered adjudications officers of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) would have to go by are the responses that these aliens provided in their applications.
It would be relative child’s play to defraud this system. It was noted by the 9/11 Commission that immigration fraud and visa fraud were the key methods by which terrorists enter the United States and embed themselves.
Having raised the issue of fraud, the Daily Caller ran an article on October 3, 2016 showing that the lack of integrity of the immigration system apparently mirrors the lack of integrity demonstrated repeatedly by Ms. Clinton. The title of that article was, “EXCLUSIVE: DHS Refuses To Investigate Top Official Who Fast-Tracked Visas For Hillary’s Brother.”
This hard-hitting news report began with this excerpt:
Both the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Government Ethics have refused to fully pursue an ethics investigation against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, and now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, despite findings that DHS official Alejandro Mayorkas gave preferential visa treatment to a company founded by Rodham.
This is likely a breach of federal law.
The DHS’s inspector general determined in 2015 that Deputy Secretary Mayorkas, who at the time served as director of Citizenship and Immigration Services, had improperly involved himself in fast-tracking visa applications under the E-5 investor visa program for Rodham and McAullife’s company GreenTech Automotive, which McAullife was involved in four years before he became the governor of Virginia in 2013.
Federal regulations state that the director of the Office of Governmental Ethics (OGE) “may recommend” that the head of an agency launch an investigation if the OGE director “has reason to believe” a violation has taken place. These regulations also empower the agency to take “appropriate disciplinary or correction action.”
The article concluded this way:
In other words, neither agency filed reports on Mayorkas’ major ethics violations.
Rodham launched GreenTech Automotive in 2010. The company has in large part been financed by EB-5 investors, in addition to receiving millions in support from Mississippi and the U.S. government. The EB-5 funding came through Gulf Coast Management LLC, which Rodham operated. When Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state, Rodham traveled through China funneling investment through Gulf Coast via the EB-5 program into GreenTech.
Still, the company has not sold a single electric car and has only manufactured 25 vehicles, even though it projected the production of 30,000 cars every year since 2014 and after. The type of car GreenTech has produced, called MyCar, can’t go any faster than 25 miles an hour because of regulations.
GreenTech is also currently being investigated by the Securities and Exchange for securities fraud, the details of which are unknown.
Neither the DHS, nor OGE responded to a request for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation.
For all too many of our corrupt politicians, the lack of integrity to the immigration system is a cash cow.
For terrorists, it is something quite different.
As noted in a Washington Post article written by Bob Woodward, “In Hijacker’s Bags, a Call to Planning, Prayer and Death,” for terrorists, the failures of the immigration system open the doors to terrorists. Take, for instance, these chilling words found in the notebook of Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of the terror attacks of 9/11, quoted in Woodward’s article:
“Oh, God, open all doors for me. Oh God who answers prayers and answers those who ask you, I am asking you for your help. I am asking you for forgiveness. I am asking you to lighten my way. I am asking you to lift the burden I feel.
“Oh God, you who open all doors, please open all doors for me, open all venues for me, open all avenues for me.”
Metaphorically, America’s doors are found at our nation’s 325 ports of entry. Most of those terrorists were admitted into the United States through those “front doors” and thousands of innocent people were slaughtered.
Those “doors” were also open to the other terrorists who subsequently went on bloody, murderous rampages at Boston, San Bernardino and elsewhere.
Our borders and our immigration laws are our first line of defense and our last line of defense.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.