It should be commonsense that a nation’s security begins and ends at its borders.
The primary mission of the military is to keep America’s enemies as far from its shores as possible.
There is a stirring Navy commercial “America’s Navy – The Shield” in which numerous members of the United States Navy from a wide array of divisions appear on screen and a voice says, “To get to you they’d have to get past us.”
Indeed, the valiant members of our armed forces from all five branches routinely go in harm’s way to defend America and Americans.
However, as we saw all too clearly on September 11, 2001, in this era of asymmetrical warfare, America’s enemies are likely to not come to our country in a warship but on an airliner.
Indeed, on that horrific day more than 15 years ago, 19 men from the Middle East carried out the deadliest terror attack ever mounted on American soil. The casualties of 9/11 surpassed the number of casualties that the Japanese fleet inflicted on the United States at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
The 9/11 Commission was convened to determine the vulnerabilities that the terrorists successfully exploited to attack the United States. Among the most fundamental vulnerabilities were those that pertain to the various components of the immigration system.
I addressed these issues in my article “The 9/11 Commission Report and Immigration: An Assessment, Fourteen Years after the Attacks.”
To be clear, our immigration laws have nothing to do with race, religion or ethnicity but everything to do with preventing the entry of aliens who suffer dangerous communicable diseases or mental illness as well as aliens who are criminals, spies, human rights violators, fugitives from justice, war criminals and terrorists.
The federal government created the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of those terror attacks to better protect America and Americans from the threat of international terrorism. The enforcement of our immigration laws was moved into that new department because it was understood that border security and the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the United States back-stops the efforts of the military to prevent the entry and embedding of terrorists and criminals in the United States.
You would think that across America our nation’s leaders, irrespective of party affiliations, would all be in agreement about the need to prevent the entry of terrorists and criminals into the United States.
You would think there would be universal agreement to prevent contraband such as narcotics and dangerous weapons from entering the United States in this perilous era.
It would also seem that these concerns would be of particular focus for the political leaders of New York City, the city that bore the brunt of the hellacious attacks of 9/11 especially when you realize that there had been a previous deadly terror attack committed at the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 and still other attacks in New York.
Certainly Mayor DeBlasio and New York Senator Chuck Schumer make frequent note of those terror attacks to demand that Washington provide additional funding to protect New York City from international terrorists.
However, over time, the nexus between immigration and national security has been, by design, gradually expunged from the narrative.
Over time, beginning with President Jimmy Carter’s strategy of blurring the distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens, the term alien has been replaced by the term immigrant.
Any effort to distinguish lawful immigrants from illegal aliens is now met with accusations of racism, xenophobia, nativism and other such insults.
The complicit mainstream media has come to refer to anyone who calls for securing our borders against illegal entry as being “Anti-Immigrant” while immigration anarchists have been re-branded “Pro-Immigrant.”
By blurring the distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens has tragically conditioned many Americans to believe that the term “Immigrant” is synonymous with “law violator” when nothing could be further from the truth.
The Trump administration is not seeking to deport true “Immigrants” unless, of course a lawful immigrant commits certain serious crimes.
One progressive organization, Credo Action, posted this petition with the bogus premise: Senate Democrats: Block Trump’s attacks on immigrants.
The push for the deportation of illegal aliens must not be confused with the bogus narrative of the politicians who say that they will prevent President Trump from deporting immigrants. The administration is not attempting to deport immigrants but is attempting to deport illegal aliens, especially when they have committed serious crimes and pose a threat to public safety the same way that criminals living in public housing pose a threat to public safety.
Not content with simply declaring NYC a “Sanctuary City” DeBlasio has provided hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens with municipal identity documents that help illegal aliens embed themselves in NYC and provide them with a level of credibility they should not have.
After Donald Trump was elected president, ABC News reported, Mayor Says If Trump Tries To Deport Undocumented Immigrants He’ll Destroy IDNYC Data.
Following the attacks of 9/11 politicians from both parties stood in front of forests of microphones at news conferences and demanded to know, “Why did no one connect the dots?”
Now Mr. DeBlasio has unbelievably threatened to erase potential dots, thereby obstructing governmental administration in matters involving national security.
When I have attempted to explain immigration law enforcement in a way that most folks could relate to, I have come to say that the difference between an immigrant and and illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.
When I provided a deposition to the law firm retained by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to help in their defense against the Obama DOJ lawsuit over SB 1070 (Arizona’s immigration law that largely paralleled our federal immigration laws) I noted that “During the first four years of my career with the INS when I served as an immigration inspector at JFK International Airport in New York City, you could say that I had my eye to the peephole to America’s front door.”
I believe the analogy of comparing our homes with our nation and how reasonable people take whatever measures they can to protect themselves and their homes by locking their doors at night and being careful about letting strangers into their homes or apartments parallels the mission of immigration law enforcement for the United States.
That analogy works quite well and is worth considering today considering that on March 29, 2017 Spectrum News published a report, “NYPD and NYCHA Need to Do More to Remove Criminals from Public Housing, DOI Says.”
That report prompted me to do a bit of research on the issue of how, in New York City, residents of public housing become subject to eviction when they are convicted of committing certain serious crimes and may be excluded from living in public housing permanently.
I found a December 2015 New York Times article, “Report Details ‘Systemic Failures’ in Communication Between New York Police and Housing Authority” that contained a quote from none other than New York City’s Mayor DeBlasio.
Here is the pertinent segment of the news article:
The issue of excluding violent offenders from public housing gained new attention after the fatal shooting of Officer Randolph Holder near the East River Houses in Upper Manhattan on Oct. 20. The authorities have said the officer was killed by a man, Tyrone Howard, who should have been barred from public housing long before based on his criminal history.
Without mentioning the investigation or its findings, Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office issued a news release last week promising improved interagency communication and strategies “aimed at quickly and accurately identifying individuals who pose a serious risk to public safety and taking appropriate action.”
“Improved N.Y.P.D. and Nycha communication and process will shorten eviction and exclusion proceedings from public housing to weeks, as opposed to months, for serious offenders,” Mr. de Blasio said in the statement.
This is absolutely stunning.
Mr. DeBlasio has shown commonsense about keeping criminals out of public housing the same way that DeBlasio’s mayoral predecessor and proponent of Sanctuary Cities, Mayor Mike Bloomberg, demanded that police officers patrol public housing and arrest anyone who would trespass on public housing because, he stated, such trespassers pose a threat to the safety of those who live in public housing.
However, while DeBasio is all for evicting criminals from public housing to keep the residents of those housing developments safe, he determined to prevent the deportation of criminal aliens from the United States.
The hypocrisy is startling. and provides evidence of Theft By Deception: The Immigration Con Game.
On March 15, 2017 Newsday quoted the Speaker of the New York City Counsel in an article, NYC’s Mark-Viverito: Trump deportation plan ‘ethnic cleansing.’
The term depravity come to mind in contemplating her reckless, incendiary and outrageous allegations. Could you imagine if President Trump had said anything that even approached that insane statement?
In “Sanctuary Cities” public safety, law, reason, commonsense and morality are mere speed bumps to be overcome to create immigration anarchy.
RELATED ARTICLE: The Case Against Immigration | Foreign Affairs
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.