Immigration Crackdown Proves Chertoff Wrong

When the government initiates an enforcement "crackdown," it is reasonable to conclude that it was previously lax on enforcement. Today's headlines read, "Bush to Order New Crackdown on US Border," or "Feds Stepping Up Immigration Efforts." Less than three months ago, while pleading for passage of the McCain-Kennedy illegal immigration amnesty bill, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff warned that America needed to "bow to reality" and realize that deportation of illegal immigrants in large numbers was "not going to happen."

At the time, Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA) rebutted Chertoff's white flag approach by pointing out that the proposed legislation would not be necessary if the Bush administration actually enforced existing laws. Bilbray accused Chertoff of intentionally following a "conscious strategy of not enforcing the law," that has created the crisis of 12-20 million illegal immigrants to which Chertoff and President Bush wanted to grant amnesty. Who was right, Bilbray or Chertoff, in the debate over enforcement of existing laws versus the need for "comprehensive" solutions contained in the failed McCain-Kennedy legislation?

The answer to that question will be officially announced today by the Bush administration and the Department of Homeland Security. Without passing the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, the government is initiating a series of "initiatives" that increase punishments for employers hiring illegal immigrants, crack down on workers using fake or stolen Social Security numbers, reform temporary worker programs, deploy Border Patrol agents to the borders in larger numbers and with less delay, and increase the number and pace of deportations. Secretary Chertoff had previously claimed that such reforms were "not going to happen" without the McCain-Kennedy legislation, yet now we see most of those reforms being implemented through internal initiatives within Homeland Security and executive initiatives authorized by the president. As the Associated Press reports, the initiatives are strikingly similar to many of the immigration reform and enforcement provisions of the McCain-Kennedy bill, minus the "path to citizenship" aspects that critics rightfully castigated as facilitating amnesty for those already in America illegally.

Chertoff has apparently changed his tune, now vowing to enforce laws that in May he considered unrealistic. From the AP and Fox News:

Chertoff alluded to the new enforcement tactics in a speech in Boston on Wednesday, calling it "tool sharpening."

"We shouldn't have a patchwork of laws. We should be doing a comprehensive federal solution, but we haven't got that thing done," Chertoff said. "What I can tell you is we will certainly use every enforcement tool that we have, and every resource that we have available, to tackle the problem."

Even after suffering a major defeat when the proposed amnesty bill went down in flames this summer, Chertoff continues to pine for his beloved "comprehensive federal solution." Yet now, under enormous political pressure from conservatives to enforce existing immigration laws or be replaced by someone who will, Chertoff vowed to use every tool and resource available "to tackle the problem" of illegal immigration. Congressman Bilbray and American voters have the right to ask Chertoff, why weren't you using every available tool and resource to crack down on illegal immigration before your beloved reform bill was rejected?

There was no such assurance of enforcement before the defeat of McCain-Kennedy. Homeland Security appeared to be content to place strict enforcement efforts on sabbatical until an amnesty bill could be passed that would remove the impetus for tracking down 12-20 million illegal immigrants and gradually deporting them. It is clear that Congressman Bilbray's accusation against Chertoff was accurate: prior to the failure of the recent amnesty bill, the Bush administration was indeed consciously avoiding strict enforcement of existing illegal immigration laws, which only made the problem more severe. The administration seemed to believe that it could get itself off the hook for lax immigration enforcement and simultaneously earn the affection of millions of potential voters by granting amnesty.

Why has the Bush administration stepped forward now to enforce laws it would have been content to replace with amnesty only a few months ago? Considering its intentional failure to enforce existing law prior to the McCain-Kennedy debacle, the Bush administration appears now to be stepping up enforcement and initiating internal immigration reform within Homeland Security out of political expediency rather than actual desire for enforcement. The grass-roots groundswell in both parties, but championed most effectively by conservatives, that was created by the president's attempt to grant amnesty was much stronger and career-threatening than anyone in the White House or Congress apparently anticipated.

Now running for their political lives, those who once claimed reform could not happen without amnesty are rapidly "discovering" that the reform that voters wanted most, strict enforcement of existing immigration laws, is possible and essential to their future political viability.

Without granting amnesty and by merely changing internal priorities, Homeland Security will reportedly announce later today the following crackdown enforcement measures, among others:

1. Impose criminal sanctions against employers who refuse to terminate workers using fake or stolen Social Security numbers.

2. Install by the end of the year an exit visa system to track foreigners leaving the U.S. Currently only entrance visa data is collected.

3. Update the list of international gangs whose members are denied U.S. entry.

4. Speed up deployment of Border Patrol agents to the border.

5. Increase fines imposed on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

6. Reduce processing times for immigrant background checks.

7. Request that states voluntarily share driver's license info and photos with DHS to facilitate an employment verification system.

8. Reform temporary worker programs.

9. Increase the number of beds for detained illegal immigrants so they will not be released due to insufficient detention space.

10. Train increasing numbers of state and local law enforcement to identify and detain immigration offenders.

11. Reduce the number of documents accepted as foreign identification for immigration purposes and weed out those most frequently associated with fraud.

Each of these is certainly a welcome change from what could charitably be described as "deficient" previous enforcement efforts. The very fact that the government can "crackdown" on illegal immigration when it becomes politically expedient demonstrates that it already had all of the tools and resources needed to enforce existing laws, as Congressman Bilbray argued. While this new crackdown is a step in the right direction, it should also keep Americans wary of government officials who insist that something cannot be done. The McCain-Kennedy bill debate demonstrated that the government did not lack the tools or resources needed for strict illegal immigration enforcement, it simply did not have the stomach or political will to enforce the law.

Our justice system is supposed to be blind, as the symbol of that system, Lady Justice, illustrates. She holds the scales of justice and hears the arguments from each side of the scale, yet she also wears a blindfold. This is symbolic of the need for justice to not see or take into consideration the race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, or any other characteristic of the parties pleading their cases before her. Law enforcement is supposed to take the same approach. It should not matter whether an administration, Democratic or Republican, might suffer politically from the enforcement of our laws. Those laws were enacted by the people's representatives and should be enforced with blindness to the political climate of the moment. Governments should not pass laws they do not intend to enforce. Hopefully these new initiatives to be announced later this morning signal a new resolve within this administration to listen to voter concerns and strictly enforce existing laws long enough for us to determine what changes, if any, are needed in the future.

Technorati Tags:
Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Brian Bilbray, Illegal Immigration, Immigration Reform, McCain-Kennedy, Border Enforcement, Immigration Crackdown

Did FBI Call ABC but not Border Patrol?

The ABC News Blotter reported yesterday that Iraqis are being smuggled from Mexico across the Rio Grande River into New Mexico by a human smuggling ring, and this ring has been in operation for more than a year, according to an FBI intelligence report issued last week. This ABC story received significant attention in Internet news forums, but reader commentary at The Blotter web site and one of my favorites, Lucianne.com, was focused almost exclusively on our porous borders and the Bush administration's crusade for amnesty at the expense of national security through secure borders. These criticisms were, of course, perfectly valid, but when I read Brian Ross' Blotter piece, I observed something different and troubling that unless rectified, will almost certainly lead to continued vulnerability to terrorist attacks. Here is the portion of Ross' report that caught my attention:

An FBI intelligence report distributed by the Washington, D.C. Joint Terrorism Task Force, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, says the illegal ring has been bringing Iraqis across the border illegally for more than a year.

Border Patrol officials in the area said they were unaware of the specifics of the FBI's report, and federal prosecutors in New Mexico told ABCNews.com they had no current cases involving the illegal smuggling of Iraqis.

The FBI report, issued last week, says the smuggling organization "used to smuggle Mexicans, but decided to smuggle Iraqi or other Middle Eastern individuals because it was more lucrative....

If Ross' source is accurate, the FBI distributed this Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) report last week to agencies that are participating members of the Washington DC JTTF. That list would include most federal agencies with counterterrorism and law enforcement functions, including Department of Homeland Security components such as Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as well as many local and state law enforcement agencies. Yet when contacted for information about the Iraqi smuggling ring and the FBI's information about its existence, Border Patrol officials "were unaware" of the FBI report. Is this another example of the FBI keeping its terrorism investigation details close to the vest? It should concern all Americans that Brian Ross can obtain a copy of a restricted document about the smuggling of Middle Easterners into New Mexico, but the Border Patrol in New Mexico cannot.

What was the lesson from 9/11 if not the importance of information sharing among government agencies? I have decried the lack of openness in the intelligence and law enforcement communities in previous posts and there is ample blame to go around, but here we find ourselves nearly six years after 9/11 and the lead agency charged with investigating terrorism learns of a ring smuggling Middle Eastern individuals into America and no one bothers to tell the Border Patrol? The media should not be tasked with notifying law enforcement agencies about illegal activities that likely have a terrorist nexus. Brian Ross is not an FBI agent or counterterrorism specialist, yet when he contacted the Border Patrol in New Mexico, they received first notice of the FBI report from a journalist.

To make matters worse, the new National Intelligence Estimate issued yesterday made it quite clear that al Qaeda in Iraq has expressed significant interest in possibly attacking the U.S. homeland with Iraqi operatives to be placed in America. I'm sure it is just coincidence that the smuggling of Iraqis from Mexico into New Mexico has been occurring for over a year. Are they really "refugees fleeing the violence in Iraq" as Brian Ross claims, or are some of them the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing?

Do you feel safer knowing that those sworn to protect you work harder to avoid communicating with each other than they do to warn each other of newly obtained intelligence? This is a problem that must be stopped before an attack that could have been detected early is brought to terrible fruition.

Technorati Tags:
Border Patrol, Border Security, Human Smuggling, Iraqis, New Mexico, FBI, Information Sharing, National Intelligence Estimate, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Brian Ross

"Tamper-Proof" ID is Fantasy

The buzzword in the illegal immigration debate is “tamper-proof,” as in tamper proof ID cards for aliens. I just watched Tony Snow’s interview this morning with Steve Doocy on Fox and Friends, and Snow was out there front and center defending the proposed amnesty bill by touting the “tough” enforcement measures it allegedly contains. Perhaps some of the measures would be “tough” if the government had any track record whatsoever of enforcing past laws. However, the most outrageous falsehood that Snow, President Bush, and even the field of 2008 presidential candidates continue to perpetuate, aside from claiming the bill is not amnesty, is the notion of a “tamper-proof” government issued ID card.

Show me a “tamper-proof” ID card, and I can take you to a street corner in Los Angeles near MacArthur Park where the card can be taken, analyzed, dissected, and reproduced to near perfection in a matter of minutes. Governments have a poor history of making “tamper-proof” official documents, as evidenced by the phenomenally lucrative criminal market for counterfeit or forged Social Security Cards, passports (including the new ridiculously vulnerable RF chip encoded version), driver’s licenses, and even law enforcement credentials and badges. The simple truth is that there is no such thing as “tamper-proof,” whether one is referring to ID documents, ID cards, computer networks, or product packaging. Computer hackers, some of them mere teens testing their skills on a dare, have penetrated “secure” networks operated by the Defense Department and many other local, state, and federal agencies. Private corporations guarding priceless trade secrets have also learned by sad experience that their secure systems are anything but tamper proof. Credit card companies have spent millions of dollars attempting to make their cards as tamper-proof as possible, but with only mixed results.

Tony Snow told Steve Doocy moments ago that the proposed “tamper-proof” ID card for illegal aliens would allow the government to know who is currently here, because, according to Snow, anyone found without one would be “kicked out” of America. Let me see if I have this straight: The government that has never made any serious effort to deport illegal aliens it stumbles upon or are handed to it without proper documentation or ID will miraculously transform itself and “kick out” any illegal aliens found without the magic “tamper-proof” ID card after they are issued to amnesty recipients? It doesn’t take a math whiz to calculate that something in that equation is significantly flawed.

Americans should be suspicious of anyone who insists that something is tamper-proof, and even more skeptical of the pie-in-the-sky promise that any new form of ID card will eliminate the underground market for counterfeit official documents. Unfortunately, many 2008 presidential candidates have adopted the lingo of “tamper-proof” ID cards in their policy positions on illegal immigration, including Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. To their credit, they advocate a “tamper-proof” ID card AFTER the borders have been secured and after illegal aliens currently here are given Z visa applications and sent back to their native country to await the granting of legal permission to enter the U.S. That is not the case when the White House champions “tamper-proof” ID cards. President Bush’s vision for immigration reform does not require anyone currently in America to leave, allowing all to remain in place, apply for the Z visa, and continue working and living in America.

As Romney pointed out strongly in the third GOP candidates’ debate, allowing any Z visa applicants to remain in the U.S. to await adjudication of their status gives them tremendous advantages over applicants from other countries who are waiting in their homeland, where they should be. Let’s face facts: immigration adjudication officers will be under enormous pressure to grant Z visas first to applicants already in America, and they will receive preferential treatment despite the illegality of their presence here. A law abiding foreign national who wants to become a U.S. citizen will be kept waiting for years, while foreign nationals who broke our laws by entering the U.S. without documentation will be rewarded with all the benefits of life in the U.S. throughout the entire application time line.

Consider the following whopper from Tony Snow, courtesy of World Net Daily. I preface the inclusion of Snow’s comment and my subsequent analysis with the disclaimer that I think Snow is a fantastic White House Press Secretary, tragically tasked with defending a terrible piece of legislation. Having made that point, note in Snow’s comment all of the violations for which illegal aliens would allegedly be deported under the proposed McCain-Kennedy-Bush amnesty bill:

Snow launched his response by denying that the plan is amnesty. "Right now a lot of times 'amnesty' is used as shorthand for saying, we don't like the bill," he said. "If you look up the dictionary definition of amnesty, it means total forgiveness of a crime.

"What you have here is a crime [entering the U.S. illegally] for which there was no punishment originally. Now what we're saying is everybody who came across the border, No. 1, you pay a thousand dollar fine. No. 2, you are on permanent probation. If you break the law, you're deported. If you do not maintain a job, you are deported. If you do not learn the English language, you're deported. If you do not subject yourself to a criminal background check, you're deported. If you do not have an ID that allows us to trace who you are, where you are, for whom you work, you are deported," he said.

This statement by Snow is astonishing in its scope and in its audacity. When someone has to pull out the dictionary to explain why a proposed bill is not amnesty, you can rest assured that he is in fact trying to conceal amnesty. The semantic hairsplitting involved in defining amnesty is disgustingly reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s legal obfuscations over the legal definition of “sex” in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Trying to sound tough on illegal immigration after doing virtually nothing about it for 6 years is also less than impressive. Snow stated, “If you break the law, you’re deported.” That’s a good place to start, Tony. We have laws on the books that include deportation. Enforce them. The government has not enforced them in the past and claims that deporting illegal aliens already here is logistically impossible. If the government has not been deporting illegal aliens who have already broken our laws, why should anyone accept the claim that the government will suddenly grow sufficient spine to start deporting violators of the proposed bill?

There are certainly a lot of violations listed in Snow’s comment for which deportation is promised. Snow should be reminded that deportation has always been the prescribed punishment for illegal immigration but the government never writes the prescription and the medicine is never administered, hence the 12-20 million who have come here with impunity knowing that the government lacked the spine and/or stomach to deport anyone unless public outcry over a specific case made it unavoidable.

Even in those cases, most criminal deportees are back in the U.S. in a matter of weeks, free to commit further crimes or kill law enforcement officers (remember the slayer of L.A. County Sheriff’s Deputy David March). They return so easily because the borders are not secure. Note that I wrote “borders” rather than “border,” because there are enormous security problems associated with both our northern and southern borders. Instead of offering “tamper-proof” ID cards as a spoonful of sugar to help the amnesty medicine go down more smoothly, the government should strive for a “tamper-proof” border and “tamper-proof” deportation proceedings.

Technorati Tags:
Illegal Immigration, Amnesty, Tamper Proof Identification, Tony Snow, Deportation, Immigration Reform, Border Enforcement, Border Security

Should National Security "Bow to Reality?"

The old adage “don’t shoot the messenger” is nowhere more applicable than in the debate over the Bush-Kennedy amnesty for illegal aliens bill currently before Congress. Those who oppose President Bush’s “path to citizenship” (amnesty) for an estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens are branded as racists by Latino groups, as nativists lacking compassion, or as fear mongers by the president himself. Latino groups assume that all opposition to illegal immigration reform is directed solely at Mexicans, but that is ethnic vanity. They would like to believe the issue is all about them, but it not. Illegal immigration is illegal, whether the violator is Mexican, Canadian, German, or Tibetan. Of course, due to geographic proximity, the vast majority of illegal aliens are Mexican, but violators should not be allowed to profit from their illegal action simply because they violate in bulk.

The most effective media messenger thus far in the illegal alien immigration debate has been Ann Coulter. Of course, because Coulter is blunt and opposes the proposed “reform” legislation, she is portrayed by the liberal media as a radical hate monger. It is unfortunate that few seem capable of looking beyond Coulter’s biting sarcasm of past columns to discover the gems of logic in her most recent and quite astute assessment of the Bush-Kennedy bill.

Coulter’s column, “Importing a Slave Class,” unintentionally became a forceful rebuttal to comments made later in the day by Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff. Let’s examine Chertoff’s statements, and then apply Coulter’s arguments to determine who makes a better case.

Chertoff, in an extensive interview with USA Today’s editorial board on May 23, made some comments that were extraordinary coming from the man charged with protecting homeland security. The most telling remark may have been his criticism of Bush-Kennedy bill opponents for demanding deportations that are “not going to happen.” There it was, in black and white print; Homeland Security throwing up its arms in surrender to 12-20 million lawbreakers and admitting they will not be deported, apparently regardless of whether the Bush-Kennedy bill passes. The following excerpt from USA Today’s report provides a sample of Chertoff’s embrace of amnesty:

Chertoff acknowledged that there is "a fundamental unfairness" in a bill allowing illegal immigrants to stay. But trying to force them to leave would be impossible, Chertoff said, "We are bowing to reality."

He dismissed the argument of Republican conservatives, such as Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., who argue that illegal immigrants will leave if strict enforcement of U.S. laws makes it impossible for them to find a job.

"You're not going to replace 12 million people who are doing the work they're currently doing," Chertoff said. "If they don't leave, then you are going to give them silent amnesty. You're either going to let them stay or you're going to be hypocritical."

Bilbray said his idea hasn't worked because "there's been a conscious strategy of not enforcing the law."

Chertoff, whose department has staged a number of recent raids that have resulted in mass roundups of illegal workers and sharp protests from religious groups, warned there will be more if the workers don't get a chance to become legal. "We're going to enforce the law," he said. "People all around the country will be seeing teary-eyed children whose parents are going to be deported."

There is a lot in that excerpt to turn one’s stomach, but I will begin with the white flag attitude that deportation is impossible. No one asked Chertoff to deport all 12-20 million illegal aliens overnight, but his response is very clear; if you can’t deport them all, why try to deport any? Remembering that Coulter wrote her column before Chertoff’s interview, here is Coulter’s rebuttal to the notion that deportation is impossible:

…The jejune fact that we "can't deport them all" is supposed to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that we must grant amnesty to illegal aliens – and fast!

I'm astounded that debate has sunk so low that I need to type the following words, but: No law is ever enforced 100 percent.

We can't catch all rapists, so why not grant amnesty to rapists? Surely no one wants thousands of rapists living in the shadows! How about discrimination laws? Insider trading laws? Do you expect Bush to round up everyone who goes over the speed limit? Of course we can't do that. We can't even catch all murderers. What we need is "comprehensive murder reform." It's not "amnesty" – we'll ask them to pay a small fine.

If it's "impossible" to deport illegal aliens, how did we come to have so much specific information about them? I keep hearing they are Catholic, pro-life, hardworking, just dying to become American citizens and will take jobs other Americans won't. Someone must have talked to them to gather all this information. Let's find that guy – he must know where they are!

…If the 12-million figure is an extrapolation based on the number of illegal immigrants in public schools or emergency rooms and well-manicured lawns in Brentwood, then shouldn't we be looking for them at schools and hospitals and well-manicured lawns in Brentwood?

There are a lot of well-manicured lawns in the Metropolitan Washington DC area too, but I am SURE that has no bearing on the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill debate.

I keep hearing President Bush and others claim that this is our best chance for reform, or something similar, but Americans should not accept the “either/or” choice placed before them. Coulter’s point is valid; No one is demanding 100% deportation or overnight deportation. For that matter, everyone hopes for but few expect Homeland Security to identify and catch 100% of the terrorists in America. Americans do, however, expect a 100% effort to do so, and should demand the resignation of anyone who considers less than 100% effort to be acceptable. What Americans have wanted all along is an honest, adequately funded, and consistently applied effort to enforce the illegal immigration laws already in place. What Americans did not request was for someone in Washington to unilaterally decide that it was not in America’s best interest to actually enforce immigration laws. That decision is not Chertoff’s to make, nor is it the president’s responsibility to interfere with a law enforcement function. Does America want a Homeland Security Secretary who thinks his tasks are impossible? Should Homeland Security be in the business of “bowing to reality” or creating reality through determined application of the law?

The number has reached 12-20 million precisely because the government has not enforced existing laws. The goal of law enforcement is often as much to produce societal deterrence as it is to punish individual offenders. By granting previous amnesty (1986) and then not enforcing existing laws, no deterrent was ever applied and now officials like Chertoff are unwilling even to try enforcement. Instead of rolling up his shirtsleeves and going to work, Chertoff wants to roll up his shirtsleeves and wash his hands of that 12-20 million figure.

It has been claimed that there is not enough money to hire additional Customs, Border Patrol, or Immigration and Citizenship personnel to handle any large scale deportation effort. Yet Chertoff is convinced that he could secure additional funds and staff to handle performing 12-20 million background checks in a gradual process to legalize (amnesty) the illegals he claims it impossible to deport. Hugh Hewitt recently interviewed Chertoff and the Homeland Security Secretary made it quite clear that while he is willing to gradually legalize illegal aliens, he will not consider gradually deporting those same aliens:

HH: I know it’s a little more prosaic what I’m getting to, Mr. Secretary, which is you’ve got 12 million applications.

MC: Right.

HH: Who’s physically going to pick them up and handle them? Which department’s going to do that?

MC: We’re going to use…DHS will collect the applications, collect the fingerprints. The process of background checking then will occur in cooperation with the FBI and its databases, our databases, and all the databases that are currently kept in the terrorist screening center.

HH: And have you allocated staff time? I mean, an 11 million, if it’s on the low end, 12 million investigations, 12 million interviews, have you got an analysis of where that’s going to funnel to, and who’s actually going to do that work, because from my time in the government as deputy director of OPM running the securities investigation, it takes days to do a decent investigation, and this is all going to hit at once. I don’t know where the people are.

MC: Well, it’s not going to hit at once. It will hit over a period of time, because there will be an enrollment period. And as I know you know, Hugh, obviously, we’re not going to be doing background checks of the kind that you do for a top security clearance. What we’re going to be doing is running fingerprints and names against various databases, which is a process we currently use, for example, in screening people who get visas to come into the country for all kinds of purposes. So we already do millions of these through our existing processes. There’s no question we’re going to need money to increase the staff and the capability for these 12 million. But I want to put it in perspective by saying that we process 80 million air travelers every year coming through our airports, so we already deal with a very large volume of people that we are screening to let them come into the country legally.

It is incredible that the head of Homeland Security would ask for additional funding and staff to help streamline the legalization process but adopts a “bowing to reality” posture when it comes to enforcement of current laws. Chertoff attempted to cast the debate in compassionate terms, citing examples of federal raids that resulted in a press conference, some token arrests, and news coverage of crying children. Americans should reject this clouding of the issue. Raids and deportations are rare, not because of the negative press or crying children, but for reasons Ann Coulter captured most effectively:

The people who make arguments about "jobs Americans won't do" are never in a line of work where unskilled immigrants can compete with them. Liberals love to strike generous, humanitarian poses with other people's lives.

Something tells me the immigration debate would be different if we were importing millions of politicians or Hollywood agents. You lose your job, while I keep my job at the Endeavor agency, my Senate seat, my professorship, my editorial position or my presidency. (And I get a maid!)

The only beneficiaries of these famed hardworking immigrants – unlike you lazy Americans – are the wealthy, who want the cheap labor while making the rest of us chip in for the immigrants' schooling, food and health care.

These great lovers of the downtrodden – the downtrodden trimming their hedges – pretend to believe that their gardeners' children will be graduating from Harvard and curing cancer someday, but 1) they don't believe that; and 2) if it happened, they'd lose their gardeners.

The Bush administration is busy casting verbal stones at those who oppose the current immigration “reform” bill, but there should be no surprise that Americans are angered by the proposed legislation. The federal government has proven unwilling to enforce existing laws for decades, but now a new bill with new laws will magically be enforced and seal up our borders? Rather than granting amnesty, government should work to earn our trust by securing America’s borders, not just the one with Mexico, and then enforcing laws already in place. “Sanctuary cities” became sanctuaries because local law enforcement encountered illegal aliens, reported them to INS-CBP-ICE, and then waited eternally for a response or sign of interest in taking custody of the alien. When those agencies demonstrated no effort to take immigration status seriously, local governments adopted the same stance.

Illegal immigration, like Iraq, is a difficult national security situation. The president refuses to “cut and run” in Iraq, but amnesty would be to illegal immigration what surrender in defeat would be to Iraq. America can afford neither.

France Doing Job Americans Won't Do

I never thought it would come to this. The more I observe America’s political state, I find myself wishing that our president and Congress were, well, more French. I do not refer to their culinary tastes or mandatory maximum 35 hour work week (that would require Congress to put in many more hours than they currently do!). Perhaps it would be more accurate to write that I wish our leaders had the courage of the newly elected and unapologetic pro-American French President, Nicolas Sarkozy. While President Bush and political opportunists in the House and Senate, such as John McCain and Ted Kennedy, attempt to sneak amnesty past the American people while insisting it is not amnesty, the French are taking steps to do what the vast majority of its citizens have demanded: Not granting legalization (amnesty) to France’s illegal immigrants and continuing to deport them at an increasing rate.

When did the French develop more backbone than Americans? Why is France becoming increasingly aware of the need to enforce its existing laws and adopting stronger new ones at the very time America’s elected officials are insisting that a “path to citizenship” (amnesty) should be provided to illegal immigrants? Is it possible that France, faced with the largest Muslim population of any European nation, realized that its very survival might depend on securing its borders and developing intelligence regarding who resides in France and why they are there? President Bush and vote pandering members of both parties claim enforcement and deportation are not realistic, yet France is stepping up its efforts to do both.

One of President Sarkozy’s first post-election moves was to establish a Ministry of Immigration and National Identity, which is charged with enforcing immigration laws and deporting violators. At Sarkozy’s urging, the new ministry is also concerned with helping legal immigrants better assimilate into French society, culture, and education. Sarkozy insists that immigrants learn the French language and that once legal citizenship is extended and family members from the native country seek to join the new French citizen, those family members must demonstrate French language proficiency as well. While the French require immigrants to speak the national language and integrate better with their new country, America cannot even agree that English is the national language, thus integration or assimilation are optional for immigrants, regardless of legal status.

It is a dangerous situation when law enforcement or other first responders cannot communicate with citizens in entire sections of American cities because learning English is not required for driving, shopping, obtaining government services, or citizenship. France is moving to correct this; America is afraid of offending immigrants by imposing American civilization upon them.

The Senate immigration bill put forward by Senators Kennedy, McCain, Kyl, and others late last week and praised by the president, is rightfully under assault as amnesty by another name. 2008 GOP candidate Mitt Romney spoke out forcefully against the bill, and was joined later by 2008 GOP expected candidate Fred Thompson in that assessment. The 2008 DNC candidates are avoiding this issue like the plague, as they cannot pander to Latino voters and appear tough on homeland security simultaneously. Romney and Thompson appear to grasp that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose amnesty or any policy that offers anything similar to it. Over time, Americans will embrace candidates who, like Sarkozy, recognize that the existence of national culture and identity are threatened by illegal immigration and legal immigration without integration.

Sarkozy’s election victory sparked rioting in French suburbs populated in large part by Muslim immigrants living on government subsidies who feared Sarkozy would follow through with his promises to slash welfare programs and make immigrants work to support themselves. When French voters see this unrest, it only assures that they will continue to ask pertinent questions of their political leaders: Where did these immigrants come from? Are they here in France legally? Why aren’t they trying to become French? Sarkozy offered the desired though controversial answers and the French elevated him to the presidency to restore order and preserve France from a perceived invasion of immigrants, legal and illegal.

Jokes about French retreat are becoming stale and do not apply to Sarkozy’s France, while America’s government is replacing France as a punch line. It is the American government that wants to retreat from Iraq, retreat from confronting near-nuclear Iran, retreat from securing its borders, retreat from establishing English as the national language, and retreat from enforcing existing deportation laws. In coming years, the French may boycott American cheese, American Airlines, and all things American because America, particularly through its elected officials, increasingly symbolizes cowardice.

"Sanctuary" Nearly Fatal For Fort Dix

At first glance, the plot by six recently converted Islamic terrorists to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey with automatic weapons seemed like a ridiculous idea. Why attack a target that was defended by armed security and had, within the confines of the military base, tactical response teams that could respond with significant force and firepower to repel the attack? How did they decide to target Fort Dix?

Media coverage of the foiled plot has offered a mixture of praise for the FBI and condemnation of everyone from President Clinton (for intervening in the former Yugoslavia and sheltering uprooted ethnic Albanians in New Jersey) to President Bush (for encouraging terrorism by our presence in Iraq). However, three sources offered even-keeled and informative reporting and analysis.

The first was a good general account of the plot and the arrest operation in the Washington Post yesterday that detailed each participant as well as how an alert video store clerk tipped off the FBI in 2006 after the co conspirators requested that a VHS videotape be converted into DVD format. The file contained video of the group training at a firearms range while calling for Jihad and importuning the name of “Allah.” The article also provided links to the criminal complaint and affidavit filed by the U.S. Attorney’s office and the FBI. Those documents present a complete description of the defendants, their actions, and their intentions.

The second source was a blog I read regularly, In From the Cold, the author of which often has unique perspectives, particularly on issues involving the military or military intelligence. In a post Tuesday titled “Terror Plot Thwarted,” the author, Spook86, addressed the knee-jerk question many likely had when they first read that the terrorists intended to attack a “secure” military base. Spook86 described some of the inner workings of military bases like Fort Dix, and focused on the security weaknesses that are common to all such facilities. Food delivery drivers bringing eagerly anticipated meals are a welcome and mundane sight at military bases and federal buildings for that matter, and entering the base under the guise of pizza delivery was a well selected tactic. Taxis, shuttle buses, food delivery, all of these are so common that they are rarely screened properly, especially if the driver is recognized by security guards. If you thought a military base on American soil was too secure to be a viable target for terrorists, you will reconsider that position after reading In From the Cold’s analysis of the plot’s potential success.

The third source, and certainly the most disturbing, was yesterday's Fox News story that reported the immigration/citizenship status of the terrorists. According to Fox News interviews with a federal law enforcement source, three of the terrorists were living illegally in the United States. While it may not be unusual for known terrorists to enter the United States illegally, the immigration pattern of these previously unknown terrorists will sound familiar to those who are concerned about America's porous borders. Three of the terrorists, the Duka brothers, were apparently smuggled into the United States near Brownsville, Texas in 1984, when they were children between ages 1-6, along with other family members. The family settled in New Jersey, and, to fit the hotly debated stereotype of so many illegal immigrants, worked various blue collar jobs into adulthood. Of the six terrorists arrested for plotting to assault Fort Dix, one was a cab driver, three were roofers, one worked as a 7-11 clerk, and one worked at his father's pizza restaurant. It was as a delivery driver that one of the terrorists obtained extensive knowledge of base operations. These blue collar hard working illegal aliens were seemingly assimilating into American society, just trying to find a better life than the one they left behind in their home country. Stop me if this story sounds familiar.

These young, hard working blue collar illegal immigrants, however, became enamored with the ideology and "heroism" of al Qaeda and were inspired by the recorded last "wills" of the 9/11 hijackers and according to the Fox report, the group watched video footage containing terrorist training instructions, including simulated and actual attacks on U.S. military personnel. In time, the group progressed from embracing ideology to actively plotting attacks on a variety of nearby targets, eventually escalating to the point where they attempted to purchase automatic weapons from an FBI informant who had infiltrated this illegal immigrant terrorist cell. That is when the FBI made its move. The outrageous aspect of this story is that these terrorists were known to local law enforcement (not as terrorists of course) long before they mutated into al-Qaeda wannabes, but because of city ordinances prohibiting police officers from questioning an individual's immigration or citizenship status, they continued living, working, and plotting in their neighborhood rather than being arrested, included in illegal immigrant databases, or deported. Fox News reported:

FOX News has also learned that there were 19 traffic citations against the Duka brothers, but according to a federal law enforcement source, because they operated in so-called "sanctuary cites," where law enforcement does not routinely tell the Homeland Security Department about illegal immigrants in their towns, none of the tickets raised red flags.

The terrorists in this case scouted multiple targets before choosing Fort Dix because of their familiarity with and proximity to it. If you live near a military base or government installation, be extra vigilant and report any suspicious activity immediately, because if you live in a "sanctuary" city, your city government has tied the hands of law enforcement and placed you in danger. It is no exaggeration when the President states that we must be right 100% of the time to prevent an attack, while the terrorists only have to get it right once. This group might have gotten it right had it not been for the DVD request and an alert store clerk’s willingness to take action. In this case, a Circuit City store clerk did more to protect homeland security than the local government. Rather than protect its citizens, local governments instead offered "sanctuary" to America-hating illegal immigrants who came alarmingly close to slaughtering many of America's finest at Fort Dix.

Terrorists Motivated by Global Warming?

"It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism." So wrote Gen. Anthony Zinni, President Bush's former Middle East envoy in a 35 page report produced by CNA Corporation, a national security think tank. 6 retired admirals and 5 retired generals contributed to the report, which asserts that global warming poses a significant threat to national security. Zinni’s quote above may also illustrate why he is the President’s former Middle East envoy.

The existence and rise of terrorism has been blamed on a variety of factors, all of which inevitably lead to a central villain: America. U.S. support of Israel, America’s declining morals and corrupt culture, placement of U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, “occupations” of Iraq and Afghanistan, all of these have been cited as reasons for why terrorists hate America. Now, eleven distinguished retired military leaders have come to the logic defying conclusion that terrorists, who willingly dwell in 130 degree Fahrenheit desert heat, want to kill Americans because of global warming.

According to CNN:

The report says that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism. . . ."

Stanford scientist Terry Root, who co-authored a similar paper earlier this month on global warming’s impact on earth’s inhabitants, quoted by CNN/AP, warned:

"We're going to have a war over water," Root said. "There's just not going to be enough water around for us to have for us to need to live with and to provide for the natural environment."

On a related note, the U.S. Northeast today awakened to flooding and continued torrential rain as a “nor’easter” hit the region over the weekend. Amazingly, the earth’s natural environment has distributed water for eons without the assistance or obstruction of feeble mankind. The earth never loses water, as the condensation, evaporation, precipitation cycle returns moisture into the atmosphere where clouds transport it elsewhere. Droughts and floods were common throughout recorded history in most parts of the world long before “greenhouse gasses” became a concern. Polar icecaps have thawed and refrozen to varying degrees during the earth’s existence, before CFCs and carbon footprints (or in Al Gore’s case, Bigfoot prints-get a smaller house Al!).

In fairness to the NCA report, migrating populations seeking better resources and opportunities throughout the world are indeed a threat to world stability, but not for the reasons their report claims. Hence the need for better border security and enforcement of our existing immigration statutes, to get ahead of this problem that is, in fact, a quest for freedom rather than an escape from melting ice caps. The migrations are already occurring and have been for decades. Global warming is not driving Mexicans to leave their families to seek employment and income in America.

The large influx of immigrants from Europe in the nineteenth century that made America a strong and inclusive nation were not fleeing Europe’s coal belching factories choking the air in the great industrial centers. They came to America seeking greater freedom and opportunity. In all respects, population migrations are a search for better opportunity, and the nations of the world should prepare to receive immigrants and heat up the melting pots.

NCA and other think tanks should focus on devising secure, organized, and humanitarian immigration systems to prepare for normal cyclical climate change and resulting migration rather than urging the government to spend billions on emissions protocols and mandating consumer behavior. President Bush deserves praise for rebuffing demands to place a restrictive carbon emissions stranglehold on American businesses competing with other nations not lifting a finger to curb “global warming,” such as China. It would be foolish to impose economy crushing standards on American companies and hope that other nations will eventually follow our example.

Global warming must be globally accepted and globally combated in an “all for one and one for all” program, or it should be ignored. In the Cold War, President Reagan did not disarm America because nuclear weapons posed a threat to the earth and then hope that the Soviets would follow that example out of the goodness of their hearts. Instead, negotiations over arms control required mutual effort and reductions. In the so-called global warming battle, the U.S. should not expose its economy to the ravages of the financial battlefield until China and all other emissions culprits are playing on the same level playing field.

General Zinni and his collaborators on the global warming report are strategists, and as such have experience developing tactical and logistical plans for virtually any contingency. While it is not unusual for such men to prepare for any eventuality, the recent rush by members of Congress, 2008 presidential candidates, and think tankers (perhaps with aspirations for public office) appears politically opportunistic in the embrace of the cause du jour. As I wrote last week, elevating global warming to a national security issue may satisfy a need for political attention, but it will significantly hamstring our military resources and dilute priorities as attention is diverted from al Qaeda to Al Gore.