Border Security is national security.

Illegals

The preface of the official government report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel began with the following paragraph:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States 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 United States, 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.

That report was authored by the federal agents and attorneys who were assigned to the 9/11 Commission.  The 9/11 Commission was created and tasked with conducting an exhaustive investigation into how the 9/11 terrorists were able to carry out the most deadly terror attack in the history of the United States.

Indeed, the 19 hijacker-terrorists slaughtered more innocent victims on September 11, 2001 than did the Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and the death toll continues to rise as still more people, including valiant first responders succumb to illness directly attributable to the toxins they were exposed to when the World Trade Center Complex was reduced to rubble.

Today more than 10,000 people are being treated for illnesses directly related to those terror attacks.

The mission for the 9/11 Commission was not simply to document that which had transpired on that horrific day, but to identify the vulnerabilities that enabled those attacks to be carried out so that remedial measures could be implemented to prevent future attacks.

The 9/11 Commission determined that multiple failures of the immigration system, including failures of border security and a lack of interior enforcement of our immigration laws, undermined national security. These failures enabled, not only the 9/11 terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparations, but also other terrorists that the 9/11 Commission studied.

Since the terror attacks of 9/11, additional deadly terror attacks have been carried out by aliens who, in one way or another, managed to enter the United States, commit immigration fraud and/or violate other immigration laws and then commit mass murder.

Other foreign terrorists were thwarted, either by law enforcement, by courageous civilians, by dumb luck or by their own ineptitude.

My recent article, Congressional Hearing: Iranian Sleeper Cells Threaten U.S. included the Congressional testimony of national security experts who warned of the presence of large numbers of terrorists in Latin America who are supported by Hamas and Hezbollah—funded by Iran in Latin America—who are increasing their cooperative efforts with drug trafficking organizations to move large quantities of narcotics and individuals into the United States across the highly porous U.S./Mexican border.

That hearing was conducted on April 17, 2018 by the House Committee on Homeland Security, Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee on the topic, “State Sponsors of Terrorism: An Examination of Iran’s Global Terrorism Network.”

How then could any rational individual or organization oppose securing our nation’s borders against the entry of international terrorists and/or transnational criminals?

That is the question that the executives of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) should answer.

On October 12, 2018 the ACLU issued a press release: ACLU Responds To Introduction Of McCarthy Immigration Bill.

Here is what the press release contained:

WASHINGTON — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy introduced a bill today that includes provisions to violate the constitutional rights of immigrants and inflate the Department of Homeland Security budget.

The bill would allocate $23.4 billion for a border wall, which even members of the Republican party have referred to as a “quantum leap” in funding. The sweeping bill also includes several bills previously introduced in the House that raise serious constitutional concerns.

Lorella Praeli, deputy political director at the American Civil Liberties Union, had the following response:

“Let’s be clear: this bill is blatant political posturing ahead of the election and a total disregard for how voters want the government to use their taxpayer dollars. It rewards Trump for his brutal deportation force crackdown and family separation policy. Moreover, the bill is riddled with constitutional violations that completely disregard the civil and human rights of immigrants.

“The true intent of these bills is to empower Trump’s deportation force and anti-immigrant agenda. It’s inhumane, unacceptable, and voters will remember it in November.”

A border wall would not stop the lawful entry of even a single alien into the United States, or prevent anyone from having access to a U.S. port of entry.

All that a border wall would do is funnel all traffic destined to the United States into ports of entry where inspectors of CBP (Customs and Border Protection) would interview them, examine their documents and make law-based decisions as to whether or not to admit those aliens into the United States.

The grounds for excluding aliens from entering the United States are enumerated in one of the sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)- Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182.  Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness.

Additionally, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists and spies and aliens who were previously deported are to be excluded, as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed and aliens who would likely become public charges.

It is vital to note that our immigration laws make absolutely no distinction in any way, shape of form as to the race, religion or ethnicity of any alien.

Opponents of border security would undermine national security and the integrity of the immigration system itself, leading America to anarchy.

Additionally, the above-noted ACLU press release made note of “several bills.”  The link that was provided in the press release related specifically to “Kate’s Law” named for murder victim, Kate Steinle who was killed by an illegal alien who had previously been deported multiple times by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents and repeatedly reentered the United States in violation of federal law.

Criminal aliens who are deported from the United States and then unlawfully reenter the United States face a maximum of 20 years on prison.  Kate’s law would mandate that such aliens who are deemed “aggravated felons” would face a minimum of 5 years in prison for committing the crime of unlawful reentry.  Aggravated felons are particularly dangerous criminals who have committed specific felonies for which they were convicted.

The enhancement in punishment for such criminals are intended to act as a deterrence against such threats to public safety from returning to the United States, thereby threatening innocent lives.

As I noted in a recent article, Sanctuary Policies Protect Sex Offenders, this section of law is of particular interest to me.  In the early 1980’s I approached then U.S. Senator Al D’Amato with the proposition that the federal law that addressed the unlawful reentry of aliens who had been deported be amended. At the time, the section of law in question, 8 U.S. Code § 1326 provided for a two year maximum penalty for aliens who had been previously deported from the United States and subsequently reentered without authorization. Because the penalty for this crime was so low and because so many aliens who had been deported from the United States returned, the U.S. Attorneys, particularly in major cities such as New York City, rarely prosecuted aliens for that crime. Back then the law made no distinction between aliens who had been convicted of committing serious crimes and those who did not.

I suggested that a clear distinction be made for aliens who had been convicted of serious crimes, were deported and then reentered the United States.  I suggested that they be subjected to a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison as a means of deterring such threats to public safety and possibly national security from returning to the United States where they might harm more victims.

Working with the Senator and his staff and with my colleagues at the former INS including Walter Connery, who headed up the Investigations Branch of the NYC District Office of the INS, the law was amended.  Consequently, the crime of unlawful reentry of “aggravated felons” as specified in section b of 8 U.S. Code § 1326, is the most frequently prosecuted federal crime.

However, the ACLU adamantly opposes efforts to protect innocent victims from aliens who are convicted felons.  The American justice system operates via the principle of deference through enforcement.  Penalties are imposed on those who are convicted of crimes to not only punish the guilty but to deter future crimes.

Deporting criminal aliens and preventing their return, protects public safety.

Would that the ACLU be concerned about the civil liberties of the victims of alien criminals and terrorists.

Those who lose their lives to criminals and terrorists also lose their civil liberties.

RELATED ARTICLE: Will the migrant caravan headed north from Honduras have implications for U.S. midterm elections?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission.

The issue of sexual assault has become the latest focus for the leaders of the increasingly radical Democratic party.

Make no mistake, sexual assault is a terrible crime that may prove to be life-altering for the victim of such crimes and for members of the victim’s family.

However, the question that must be asked, is whether or not the Democrats really care about preventing sexual assault or in simply exploiting this horrific crime for political purposes.

Consider how so-called “Sanctuary Cities” shield aliens from detection and apprehension by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents including aliens who have been convicted of committing violent crimes that include sexual assault and rape that allow them to remain at large.

Sanctuary Cities are almost entirely the invention and creation of Democratic politicians.

While radical Democrats in the U.S. Senate desperately and viciously attacked Judge Kavanaugh for an alleged but utterly unsubstantiated sexual assault that purportedly occurred more than three decades ago, law enforcement officers on Long Island diligently went about their jobs to locate and apprehend an illegal alien from El Salvador, Ever Martinez Reyes (pictured above), an alleged violent rapist who is accused of raping a 36 year old woman on the lawn of her own house in Freeport, New York on September 28th of this year.

On October 6, 2018 a local television station, WPIX posted a news report about the case, Police arrest man accused of raping woman in Freeport.  The report concluded with these two sentences:

“I’ve been doing this a long time this is one of the most brutal rapes I have ever seen,” said Nassau County District Attorney Madeline Singas.

Police say Martinez Reyes is an illegal immigrant and was preparing to flee back to his native El Salvador when he caught.

That last sentence addresses an issue I have noted in many of my previous articles and even in some of my Congressional testimony over the years, that criminal aliens have a “trap door” that they may use to escape the “Long arm of the law.”  They have the ability to flee the United States and hide in their home countries where extradition bay be difficult if not impossible.

This provides foreign criminals with an advantage over law enforcement that American criminals don’t have and, in my experience, emboldens alien criminals who know that they can “get out of Dodge” when they commit crimes.

On October 6th the local CBS television station also posted an article about this case, Arrest Made In Violent Freeport Rape reporting that the attack on the 36 year old woman went on for approximately one hour during which She was allegedly knocked unconscious twice and suffered eye damage,   Her alleged assailant, Martinez Reyes has been charged with two counts of rape in the first-degree, two counts of sexual abuse and assault.

The CBS report noted:

Police describe Reyes as a day laborer/landscaper who did not know the victim with no prior criminal record. Investigators say he first came to the United States in 2010 at 16 after crossing the border in Texas. He was sent back and crossed the border again illegally in 2014.

The inexact language used by the reporters and police officers in describing immigration law violations underscores how immigration laws are ignored by all too many local law enforcement officers and prosecutors, thereby endangering public safety and national security.  What does the term “sent back” mean?  Was he ordered removed?

In point of fact, the expanding tactic for local, city and even some state governments to promulgate so-called “Sanctuary” policies all too frequently stymie law enforcement efforts by ICE agents to identify, locate, arrest and deport criminal aliens to effectively address the problem of recidivism.  This would help protect members of the ethnic immigrant communities where criminal aliens, from around the world, ply their criminal “trades.”

The stark reality is that Sanctuary Policies Protect Sex Offenders, where victims are mere “speed bumps” on the road to anarchy.

The title of a frustrating recent report, States Enacted 116 Immigration Laws in 2018 It’s a slight decline from last year but still more than usual, shows how more and more jurisdictions are undermining border security and the integrity of the immigration system and, consequently, endangering public safety and national security.

Sanctuary policies may prohibit any sort of cooperation between those law enforcement entities and ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to shield illegal aliens, including vicious criminals, from detection and removal from the United States by ICE agents.

As I noted in a recent article, Democrats’ Attack On Ice Agents Is Working (working to block border security and immigration law enforcement).

Meanwhile, there is irrefutable evidence that a nexus exists between Illegal Immigration And Crime.

News reports noted that Reyes was “sent back” but there is not clarity as to whether or not he was formally removed (deported) from the United States in 2010 per an order by an Immigration Judge.  He is alleged to have subsequently reentered the United States without authorization.

If his removal from the United States was the result of an order of removal, that act, of reentering after removal without authorization, in and of itself, would constitute a federal felony that carries a maximum of two years in prison under the provisions of 8 U.S. Code § 1326 – Reentry of removed aliens.  Under s section of that statute, aliens who have convictions for serious crimes face a maximum of 20 years in prison.

Aliens who had been previously deported and illegally reentered the U.S. would not only face jail tim[e], upon conviction. for crimes he/she may have committed upon returning illegally to the U.S., but could also face additional significant jail time for the crime of unlawful reentry.

Finally, such a criminal alien would then be deported from the United States.

These efforts would shield potential victims of such violent criminals who would be spending years in prison and then be removed from the United States.

Instead, sanctuary policies shield criminal aliens while endangering their potential victims.

However, none of the news accounts indicate that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) had been involved in the investigation and arrest of Ever Martinez Reyes.

Today the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States is greatly hobbled because of a number of factors beginning with the pitifully small number of ICE agents.  There are approximately 6,000 ICE agents throughout the entire United States.. Furthermore, these overwhelmed and beleaguered agents not only enforce our immigration laws but customs laws, intellectual property laws, narcotics laws, laws pertaining to financial crimes and even laws that focus on the production of kiddie porn along with many other laws that are irrelevant to the enforcement of our immigration laws.

While the Democrats have literally gone off the “deep end” Republican politicians are only marginally better.  The federal budget, for example, once again did not include funding for the border wall.

In fact, it is my belief that when President George W. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in response to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, rather than enhance border security and the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States, his actions did quite the opposite.

On May 5, 2005 I testified at a hearing conducted by the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on the topic, “New ‘Dual Mission’ Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies.”  Of particular significance is the statement made by the then-chairman of that subcommittee, Rep. John Hostettler who, in part said in his prepared statement:

The Homeland Security Act, enacted in November 2002, split the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS, into separate immigration service and enforcement agencies, both within the Department of Homeland Security. This split had been pursued by Chairman Sensenbrenner based on testimony and evidence that the dual missions of INS had resulted in poor performance.

Consider this additional excerpt from Chairman Hostettler’s testimony:

At no time during the reorganization planning was it anticipated by the Committee that an immigration enforcement agency would share its role with other enforcement functions, such as enforcement of our customs laws. This simply results in the creation of dual or multiple missions that the act sought to avoid in the first place.

Failure to adhere to the statutory framework established by HSA has produced immigration enforcement incoherence that undermines the immigration enforcement mission central to DHS, and undermines the security of our Nation’s borders and citizens.

The midterm elections are nearly upon us.  The Republicans must finally come to terms with what is in the best interests for America and Americans, effective immigration law enforcement that does more than pay “lip service” to the demands of the great majority of American citizens.

As I noted in a recent article, America Needs A Border Wall Like Houses Need Insulation.  Insulation, as any homeowner will tell you, pays for itself in short order.  Securing the U.S./Mexican border would save lives and billions of dollars annually in the terms of money flowing out of the United States from illegal aliens working in the United States and as a result of the drug trade.

The Republicans must provide Americans with a true alternative to the anarchy and calls to sedition by the radical Left even as more innocent people fall victim to criminal aliens that the Democrats sanctimoniously shield from ICE.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo by Ari Spada on Unsplash.