Illegal alien from Mexico Cristhian Bahena Rivera
On July 13, 2018, Mollie Tibbetts was murdered when she went jogging in her hometown of Brooklyn, Iowa. Her alleged killer, Cristhian Bahena Rivera, is an illegal alien from Mexico.
Many articles and commentaries have detailed this horrific crime.
But my goal today, in addressing the murder of Mollie Tibbetts, is to provide insight into the lessons that must be learned, from my perspective, as an experienced, 30-year veteran of the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service).
For starters, immigration anarchists on the left decry any mention of the fact that Rivera is an illegal alien because, they claim, that doing so is an attack on all “immigrants.”
But these immoral leftists could not care less about the real carnage created by systematic failures of the current immigration system. To them, the bodies of those who are killed by illegal aliens are simply “Speed Bumps” on their road to a borderless and defenseless United States.
Let’s be crystal clear: Rivera is many things. I could use all sorts of terms to describe him and his horrific, infuriating murder of a 20-year-old young woman he, allegedly, committed for no damned reason. However, one name that most certainly does not apply to him is “immigrant.”
Rivera is an illegal alien. Period!
It is the radical leftists who, themselves, refuse to make the supremely fundamental distinction between legal and illegal immigrants who come into the U.S.
But we must understand the importance of U.S. immigration laws to our nation’s borders. National sovereignty requires nations to control the admission of foreign nationals, the same way that sensible homeowners exercise caution in deciding on whether to admit strangers into their homes.
Simply stated, Border Security Is National Security.
Consider this – guests and legitimate visitors are expected to present themselves at our front doors and ring the bell, or knock on the door, to let us know that they want to visit.
Legitimate visitors and guests certainly don’t sneak around to the back of our houses and try to climb in through a back window.
Legitimate alien visitors are required to similarly present themselves for inspection at ports of entry by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors.
A section of law contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act, Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 defines categories of aliens who may be excluded. Among these classes of aliens who cannot enter our country are those suffering from deadly diseases, those with severe mental illness, and, of course, aliens who are smugglers, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists, or spies.
Aliens evading inspections at our border know that he/she can be barred U.S. entry for one or more the above-noted reasons. They may have criminal histories or known ties to criminal or terrorist organizations.
But, open-border leftists and immigration anarchists use the Orwellian term “Undocumented” to describe the manner of illegal entry of aliens who enter the United States – seeking to minimize the significance of this lawbreaking. Leftists blithely claim that these criminals “enter the United States undocumented.” That is a grammatically incorrect, and legally false statement. When I was an INS agent, my colleagues and I used the factually and legally accurate three-letter acronym, “EWI” (Entry Without Inspection) to describe this method of entry.
In other words, at a minimum, we could refer to these individuals by a term that served as the title of an article I wrote a while back,
Aliens Trespassing.
The term trespassing is particularly noteworthy because as I noted in that commentary,
On October 13, 2014, Schumer posted a press release on his official website that disclosed that because of the threat of terrorism, he had proposed legislation that would make trespassing on critical infrastructure and/or landmarks a federal crime with a maximum prison sentence of five years.
Schumer’s press release stated:
Currently NYC Law Has Max. Penalty for Trespassing of Under 1 Year – In Light of Terrorism, Fed Law Should Make Loud & Clear, Particularly to Trespassers from Overseas, That Wrongdoers Should Stay Off Bridges, WTC, Statue of Liberty or Other Critical Infrastructure
Schumer said NYPD has done great work pursuing cases, but available punishments are too weak.
Here is another excerpt:
“With terror threats at a high, it must be made loud and clear to any would-be trespassers, adrenaline junkies or potential criminals that the federal government and the NYPD take trespassing on critical infrastructure and national monuments very seriously; a law that makes this a federal crime and raises the current maximum jail time from one to five years would help deter this behavior, and provide the NYPD with stronger tools to combat this disturbing trend.”
However, the very same Schumer and his immigration anarchist cohorts insist that aliens who trespass on the United States should be granted U.S. citizenship.
Rivera not only entered the United States without inspection but, reportedly, after illegally entering the United States, procured false identity documents to game the vetting process required to be used by employers. While there is some controversy over whether or not Rivera’s employer used E-Verify, they apparently made use of a screening system that failed to identify Rivera as an imposter.
In other words, Rivera committed immigration fraud. The issue of immigration fraud was the focus of both an extensive article and a booklet I wrote on the topic, Immigration Fraud, Lies That Kill.
This shows why the claim made by politicians that simply making E-Verify mandatory would end the hiring of illegal aliens is bogus and naive. In fact, it is dangerous.
Unscrupulous employers who are determined to hire illegal aliens to pay them substandard wages and work them under substandard conditions would simply hire them “off the books” so that these employees don’t appear on company records. Additionally, aliens can, as we have seen in this case, game this process by committing identity theft.
The solution is, not only require all employers to use E-Verify, but to also hire thousands of additional ICE agents to conduct field investigations and audits of employers to identify instances where employers and/or alien employees have defrauded the system to punish the employers and arrest and seek the deportation (removal) of illegal aliens, but to also deter crooked hiring practices by employers and to deter aliens from seeking to enter the United States illegally and to seek illegal employment.
There are several other “take-aways” from this case.
Let’s consider The DACA Sword of Damocles that hangs over our heads.
Rivera’s attorney initially claimed that he was legally present in the United States, and made some remarks about how he had entered the country as a child – presumably because the lawyer wants to claim that Rivera could be eligible for DACA.
Curiously, DHS officials have unequivocally stated that there are no immigration records for Rivera.
Having raised the issue of DACA, here is what we can learn from this case where DACA is concerned. Even days after Rivera was arrested, neither the police in Iowa nor DHS appears to know when he entered the United States.
Reportedly he entered the United States without inspection between four and seven years ago. There are no specifics as to his date of entry and, perhaps, of his true identity.
The adjudication of DACA applications would be extremely problematic. While it has been falsely sold as being about “young immigrants,” it would actually provide illegal aliens as old as 37 years of age who claim to have entered prior to their 16th birthdays to apply.
There would likely be millions of applications and only a relative handful of adjudications officers to deal with the onslaught of applications that would flood into USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) the division of the DHS that is responsible for the adjudication of all applications filed for various immigration benefits that range from providing non-immigrant aliens with authority to extend their temporary visits to change their immigration status. They adjudicate applications for political asylum and lawful immigrant status and finally, they adjudicate applications for United States citizenship.
At present, that overwhelmed agency handles more than six million applications annually.
Adding unknown millions of DACA applications would require that the beleaguered adjudications officers to stop conducting interviews. There would be no resources for field investigations. To keep up with the tsunami of applications the adjudications, officers would have to make decisions in minutes, not days or hours.
This would cause the adjudications system to implode and fraud would undoubtedly permeate the process. Immigration fraud was identified by the 9/11 Commission, as being the key method of entry and embedding for terrorists.
A wall on the U.S./Mexican border would certainly go a long way to stemming the flood of illegal aliens into the United States, but it would not stop it. Some aliens will find an alternative route to enter the United States. When we get into our cars to drive to work, we are likely to listen to the traffic reports on the radio to find the quickest way of getting to our destination by driving around traffic, construction or accidents.
Effective interior enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States must be a part of any coordinated effort to finally gain control over our borders and protect America – and innocent Americans like Mollie Tibbetts – not from immigrants but from illegal aliens. Enforcing existing laws will, at long last, imbue our immigration system with actual integrity.
Integrity is, of course, a term that scares the hell out of all too many of our politicians.
RELATED ARTICLE: Case of Iraqi refugee linked to ISIS exposes failed vetting system under Obama
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.
Trump’s declaration to Ryan is the latest in a head-spinning saga of shutdown politics with a central fight for funding his proposed wall along the U.S. southern border. Democratic lawmakers insist they will give Trump no more than $1.3 billion in funding while Republicans say they need $5 billion.
