Posts

Immigration Anarchists vs. National Security: Dismantling ICE would lower America’s shields in a dangerous era.

Just when you thought you’d heard and seen it all, members of the Looney Left have shown that there is no end to the insanity and depravity that they would foist upon America and Americans.

Their creation of “Sanctuary Cities” has done incredible damage to national security and public safety by harboring and shielding illegal aliens, including those who have serious criminal convictions from detection by ICE.  These bastions of anarchy should be referred to as “Magnet Cities” because they attract international terrorists and fugitives and transnational gang members.  In point of fact, Sanctuary Cities Endanger – National Security and Public Safety.

Not content with this insanity, some politicians are now demanding that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) be dismantled altogether, creating a de facto “Sanctuary Country.”

They attempt to justify this lunatic proposal by decrying the separation of illegal alien children from their parents when they are arrested for entering the United States without inspection.

In this Orwellian era, smugglers who assist aliens in entering the United States without inspection are referred to as “Human Traffickers.”  Years ago these criminals were referred to as “Alien Smugglers.”  In point of fact, I was assigned to the Anti-Smuggling Unit of the New York District Office in the late 1970’s.

There is a major difference in the perceptions created by this deceptive word-smithing, creating the false illusion that somehow these illegal aliens are “victims of human trafficking.”

To be clear, aliens who are brought to the United States through coercion or deception, are truly the victims of human trafficking.  However, aliens who pay smugglers to enter the United States illegally are not victims but co-conspirators!

Currently hundreds of thousands of American children are in foster care for a number of reasons that include the fact that their parents have been arrested for committing various crimes and there are no family members who can care for them.

This is the unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of prosecuting any law violators who have children.

The media also ignores that many of the illegal alien children were separated from their families before they came to the U.S. / Mexico border when their parents gave their children over to criminal human traffickers / alien smugglers who then attempted to smuggle these unaccompanied children into the United States.  The potential, in fact, exists that even when very young children are found in the care of their “parents” that these adults really are not the parents of the children but are posing as the parents of these alien children in the hopes of not being taken into custody.

Consequently it would be reckless for the Border Patrol to release these very young children along with the adults who brought them here, without first being certain that the adults are truly the parents of these young children.

We cannot rule out the possibility that infants and extremely young children may have been kidnapped by criminals and smugglers to be used as a “get out of jail card” if caught by the Border Patrol.

Therefore I would strongly recommend that DNA testing be conducted before any of these young children are reunited with those claiming to be their parents.

Immigration law enforcement is central and critical to national security, consequently terminating the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States would do irreparable harm to national security and public safety and would violate the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

The 9/11 Commission staff comprised of attorneys and agents of various federal agencies noted this about the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior: abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity.”

Termination of immigration law enforcement from the interior would also flood America with a virtually limitless supply of foreign workers, thus displacing huge numbers of American and lawful immigrant workers, driving down wages, and resulting in huge increases in remittances wired home by foreign workers, greatly increasing the U.S. national debt and stifling the U.S. economy.

The stampede would overwhelm America’s infrastructure including mass transit, education, healthcare and other such systems and services.

The common mission for all five branches of the U.S. military is to keep America’s enemies as far from our shores as possible.  However, today not all enemy combatants are members of the military of foreign nations.

International terrorists must also be considered enemy combatants who engage in asymmetrical warfare.  Some of these terrorists are supported by foreign governments such as Iran as I noted in my recent article, Congressional Hearing:  Iranian Sleeper Cells Threaten U.S.

Unlike enemy saboteurs during World War II, who sought to enter the United States surreptitiously on U-Boats, today’s terrorists and enemy combatants seek to infiltrate the United States by entering without inspection by running our borders or stowing away on ships or by subverting the lawful entry process conducted at ports of entry by committing visa fraud as nonimmigrant (temporary) visitors, as refugees or as lawful admitted permanent resident immigrants.

Border security and the interior enforcement of our immigration laws are, in a very real sense, extensions of the primary mission of the U..S. military, to protect the United States and its citizens from the Damoclean threats posed by terrorists and other enemy combatants.

The official report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel focused specifically on the ability of the terrorists to travel around the world, enter the United States and ultimately embed themselves in the United States going about their deadly preparations.and carry out an attack.

Here are some key excerpts:

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.

If the United States stopped deporting aliens who entered the United States without inspection, there would be no reason to continue to spend nearly 14 billion dollars per year on CBP (Customs and Border Protection) to conduct inspections at ports of entry and to operate the Border Patrol to interdict those who attempt to evade that important inspections process.

Furthermore, the interior enforcement mission involves much more than simply arresting and deporting aliens who enter the U.S. illegally or subsequent to lawfully entering the U.S. commit crimes and/or violations of their immigration status.

Immigration fraud investigations are critical to the integrity of the immigration system and to national security.

The report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel  addressed immigration fraud this way:

Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.”

Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.

ICE agents are also conduct investigations into crooked employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens- not out of compassion but greed, paying these employees substandard wages under often illegally hazardous conditions.

ICE agents also play a major role in various task forces.

In fact, ICE contributes the second largest contingent of law enforcement personnel to the JTTF (Joint Terrorism Task Force) because virtually all international terrorists violate immigration laws to enter the United States and embed themselves in our country.

Another critical task force, and one I am intimately familiar with, is the Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) where I was assigned for the final ten years of my INS career.

There is a clear nexus between alien smuggling and drug smuggling and, indeed, today much of the alien smuggling crimes are committed by members of major drug trafficking organizations.

Furthermore, since heroin and cocaine are not produced in the U.S. and much of the meth and marijuana sold by drug trafficking organizations are smuggled into the United States, aliens tend to head up most of these operations in the U.S.

Calls for terminating ICE are tantamount to calling for “shields down” in a particularly dangerous era.

Politician who seeks the termination of ICE should hear from the voters in the voting booth.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Commentary on the Saudi Situation

Since 9/11, the terms of our relationship with Saudi Arabia have been defined by the Saudis, not by the U.S.

To gain their support in the ‘War on Terror,’ one of the first post-9/11 compromises America made with the Saudis was to redact the 28 pages in the 9/11 Commission Report, thus shielding and/or exonerating them from any involvement or responsibility.

A second compromise we made with our Wahabbi partners in peace was to ignore their decades-long role in the funding and support of thousands of pro-Jihad Madrassas throughout the Eastern Hemisphere.

Nor should we overlook Saudi Arabia’s ongoing support of Hamas, a Muslim Brotherhood family member and Globally Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization since 1997. On July 16, 2015, King Salman of Saudi Arabia met with top Hamas leaders, including Qatar resident and political leader Khaled Meshal, thus publicly revealing his willingness to work with known Islamist terrorist organizations.

According to the Saudi royal family, the meeting reflected King Salman’s determination to rally the Arab world against Iran, as Iran becomes empowered by its “deal with Western powers to lift economic sanctions in exchange for limits on its nuclear program.”

So, as a consequence of the Iran Deal, we are now seeing a revived Saudi-Sunni-Hamas alliance

The one-sided quid pro quo arrangement between America and Saudi Arabia is remarkably similar to the ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ between Turkey and Europe (and the West), to overlook the Armenian Genocide, for the sake of peace, and political and economic stability.

In fact, President Obama reinforced this point on April 19, 2016, when he stated: “A country with a modern and large economy like Saudi Arabia would not benefit from a destabilized global financial market, and neither would the United States.”

To reiterate this response, Josh Earnest, Assistant to the President and Press Secretary in the White House Office of Communications, stressed that the administration’s concerns about the pending Congressional legislation (allowing U.S. citizens to sue the Saudi government for their possible part in 9/11), were not just about Saudi Arabia.

On April 15, 2016 (‘Tax Day’), he said “The concern that we have is simply this: It could put the United States and our taxpayers and our service members and our diplomats at significant risk if other countries were to adopt a similar law,” he said.

More ominously, Mr. Earnest asserted that “The whole notion of sovereign immunity is at stake.” If we pause and explore what this revealing statement actually means, we might easily come to the conclusion that no country on earth will ever be held accountable for supporting terrorist attacks and/or regional wars, simply because one country’s terrorist is another country’s freedom fighter.

Ironically, the first reaction by the Saudis to the pending legislation and simultaneous possible release of the redacted 28 pages was to threaten the U.S. with an economic assault.

Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, personally informed Washington in March 2016 that “Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.”

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the administration has been aggressively lobbying against the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) bill, which is sponsored by a bipartisan group of 16 US senators who are attempting to curtail the ability of countries to invoke sovereign immunity in lawsuits accusing them of supporting terrorism.

Specifically, this effort is move designed to clear the way for U.S. citizens seek legal remedy for  Saudi Arabia’s alleged complicity in the 9/11 terror attacks.

As cited here, on Thursday, April 14, 2016, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) reintroduced JASTA, which is the third time the bill has been submitted since 2011. The Senate passed it last December, but it stalled in the House.

There is hope that the time has finally come for Congress to approve it. The latest version is co-sponsored by 14 other senators, including Al Franken (D-MN), Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

Finally, the families of 9/11 victims remain infuriated by the Obama administration, which has consistently sided with the kingdom and thwarted efforts to discover the truth about the role Saudi officials may have played in the attacks 15 years ago.

“It’s stunning to think that our government would back the Saudis over its own citizens,” said Mindy Kleinberg, whose husband died in the World Trade Center, and who is part of a group of victims’ family members pushing for the legislation.

At least 14 members of the House also agree with Ms. Kleinberg. On January 13, 2016, they introduced House Resolution 588, entitled Condemning and Censuring President Barack Obama, which “Censures and condemns President Barack Obama for having willfully disregarded the President’s constitutional responsibilities as Commander in Chief of the United States through his continued failed lack of foreign affairs strategy, failure to follow the advice of military and intelligence advisors, and failed national security policy.”

To conclude, President Obama landed in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, April 20, in the midst of a swirling storm of controversy and confusing, contradictory policies and allegiances. The world will be watching, and many questions will need to be answered.

First, the Saudis will want to know: Is Obama a friend of the Sunni world, or of the Shia world? “It is a concerning factor for us if America pulls back,” said Prince Turki al-Faisal, an outspoken member of the Saudi royal family, a former head of intelligence and a former ambassador to the United States. “America has changed, we have changed and definitely we need to realign and readjust our understandings of each other.”

Second, Americans will want to know: Will he put the interests of American citizens first, who deserve to know the truth about any possible Saudi involvement (enablement) in 9/11, or will he compromise for the sake of ‘peace and stability’?

And, third, analysts and members of Congress will want to know: What price will President Obama agree to pay Saudi Arabia for their help in the war against ISIS, and/or to continue harboring former Guantanamo Bay detainees?

We should all carefully note the statements Obama makes in Saudi Arabia, and the outcome(s) of the decisions he will have to make.

Will he call Saudi Arabia’s bluff (about economic consequences), or will he continue appeasing the Guardian Of The Holy Places; Islam and Muslims?

The next three days will have a major effect on the course our two countries will take (along with the rest of the world) in the weeks, months and years ahead.