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

From "Freakonomics" to "Freakoterror"?

Has NY Times blogger and co-author of the best-seller Freakonomics, Steven Levitt, unintentionally spawned a new phenomenon that could be referred to as “Freakoterror?” Levitt’s post to the Times’ Freakonomics blog yesterday titled “If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?” has generated much controversy in the media, with seemingly equal numbers condemning Levitt as irresponsible for giving terrorists ideas or praising him for getting ideas out into the open so counterterrorism officials can consider them and plan accordingly. Could Levitt's foray into issues beyond his expertise result in waves of attacks by "Freakoterrorists," inspired by the attack ideas submitted by Levitt's readers?

I will admit that my career involvement in threat assessment and security planning caused me to react initially to Levitt’s post title with a slight cringe. This was not because I think he was doing terrorists any favors with his amateurish attempt to address a deadly serious issue, but because such hypothetical questions tend to blur the distinctions between what law enforcement and intelligence agencies can prepare for realistically and grandiose attack plans that would be a nightmare but are ultimately unpreventable.

Much of the criticism directed at Levitt for his choice of topic centered on the notion that by soliciting readers to submit their ideas for effective terrorist attacks in the United States, Levitt was somehow providing terrorists with potential plans they may not have thought of previously. That logic is flawed on several levels: First, it is a misguided assumption that radical Islamic terrorists read the Freakonomics blog. For argument’s sake, even if terrorist planners read Levitt’s blog, they would not have gained any knowledge they did not already possess; second, Levitt would not have been accused of helping terrorists if he had merely posed the question a different way. For example, if Levitt had asked his readers to submit their best ideas for an action movie involving a terrorist attack in America, as former CIA officer Bruce Schneier did last year, his readers would have proposed the same ideas, using their imaginations to attempt to concoct “realistic” terrorist attacks that would make for riveting film entertainment.

Some authors or screenplay writers have proven prescient, such as Tom Clancy’s novel Debt of Honor, in which a large jet was flown into the U.S. Capitol building during a State of the Union speech, wiping out most high-ranking government leaders. Did al Qaeda come up with the 9/11 plot after gathering around a campfire in Afghanistan and listening to Clancy’s book on tape? Of course not. Drawings of aircraft ramming American buildings were found in Ramsey Yousef’s dwelling during the investigation of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, two years before Clancy’s novel was published. It should surprise no one that terrorists are perfectly capable of hatching effective and original plots without the help of creative geniuses in American literature or Hollywood.

It is a testament to our arrogance that so many condemned Levitt based on the belief that terrorists lack the intelligence to come up with thousands of hypothetical plans on their own, without help from New York Times readers. Such thinking misses the mark. While western counterterrorism officials go home each day to eat, sleep, and interact with their families as much as their demanding schedules permit, radical terrorist planners go “home” by moving from one part of daily training camp to another, caves or tents, eating while discussing potential methods of attack, and relaxing around the campfire at night by tossing out hypothetical attack plans for debate. That is their life and the sole purpose to which they have dedicated themselves.

Levitt’s hypothetical plan, imagined shortly after the DC Sniper rampage, involved a score of armed terrorists driving around in cities of various sizes randomly shooting citizens. That was his suggestion for a terror attack that would meet his proposed criteria for fear inducement and low potential for the attackers to be captured or killed. Levitt is a professor of economics, not a counterterrorism analyst, thus it was not surprising that his proposal was not particularly imaginative.

Reader submissions, on the other hand, offered a variety of plot ideas that ranged from beautiful female Lara Croft versions of al Qaeda to Molotov cocktails constructed only with items purchased in airport terminal Duty Free shops, including gift cigarette lighters that are now allowed on flights after the TSA ban was lifted. Liberal readers argued that the terrorist threat is greatly exaggerated by the Bush administration to keep Americans in fear and Republicans in office. One reader suggested that it would be simple for terrorists to acquire automatic weapons, cross the U.S.-Mexico border, and shoot up movie theaters in south Texas, further alleging that the reason that has not happened under Bush’s watch is that such threats are concocted by the government to enslave fearful citizens.

It is obvious that the author of that comment underestimates, or more likely avoids discussions of one important reason why we have not seen attacks of that nature on American theaters, restaurants, or shopping malls, and especially such establishments in Texas: the 2nd Amendment. Yes, it would be relatively easy for a determined terrorist to acquire a weapon and go on a rampage at a mall. Non-terrorists have done that, as recently as February at Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City. That gunman killed several people, but was cornered and shot by an off duty police officer who had been dining at a mall restaurant. That is the key obstacle for organized plots for terror attacks at public places in America: the terrorists cannot predict how many average citizens among the potential victims is carrying a firearm and could thwart the plot before it achieves its goal of mass casualties.

This, among other reasons, is why gunmen plotting mass casualties like the Columbine killers or the Virginia Tech shooter focus on schools. Students are not allowed to carry guns on campus, thus the possibility of resistance is greatly reduced. Some commenters clearly missed another Clancy novel, The Teeth Of The Tiger, in which Islamic terrorists attempt a firearms rampage in a Northern Virginia shopping mall and are killed by off-duty counterterrorism operatives who resided in the area.

Such an attack might work in Britain or other “enlightened” European nations that have banned gun ownership by citizens, but Americans present a well-armed and action-oriented populace that would not easily be cowed into submission. American malls, theaters, and restaurants are filled each night with men and women who carry firearms and are willing to use them to preserve the lives of their families and fellow citizens. I can assure Levitt’s commenters that terrorists would not do much damage in a Texas (or Northern Virginia) theater or mall before being brought to justice by an armed movie-goer. Those clothing bulges aren’t concealing food smuggled into the movies to avoid high concession stand prices!

While Americans love to conjure up imaginative conspiracy theories, movie plots, or methods terrorists could use to attack us, ultimately the exercise is futile. Counterterrorism officials, limited as they are by budget constraints, must pick and choose which forms of attack are most probable, and dedicate resources and assets accordingly. Americans rightfully do not want to live in a police state or pay the terribly burdensome taxes that would be required to fund efforts to secure the country against all possible attacks. The alternative to a police state is what we see currently: government doing what it can with available resources, combining forces with an armed and vigilantly observant populace, knowing that we will be attacked but hoping to thwart as many attempts as possible.

In the end, it is good that we have Tom Clancy’s and others with active imaginations among us to help citizens think tactically and be more aware of their surroundings and potential targets in their communities. In a war against a radical ideology that devalues innocent life, preparation is not paranoia.

Technorati Tags:
Steven Levitt, Freakonomics, Freakoterror, Terrorist Attack Plans, 2nd Amendment, Counterterrorism, Tom Clancy, Mall Shootings, Bruce Schneier, Deterrence, War on Terror

Russian Danger and Dollar Signs in Iran

This has been a week for news of surprise common sense actions of great importance by some who previously had demonstrated little such sense. First, congressional Democrats, after more than a year and a half of harsh criticism and accusations against President Bush, made a wise and potentially lifesaving decision by passing legislation authorizing intelligence agencies to utilize warrantless wiretaps to monitor terrorist communications with suspected counterparts in America. Since I addressed that legislation in detail in a previous post published by Reuters I will not do so here. The turnaround by the Democrats was pleasantly surprising, but of equal or greater importance for global security was the stunning action taken by Russia against Iran.

That story received only moderate media attention yesterday, apparently not important or morally shocking enough for sites like the Drudge Report to give it more exposure than tabloid images of Prince Harry looking less than royal seated provocatively in a chair dressed only in his underwear. Prince Harry’s status as a sex symbol may have generated high levels of Internet traffic, but developments in Iran’s status as a potential possessor of nuclear weapons somehow seemed slightly more newsworthy than pictures of the pretty-boy prince.

It was no secret that with the technological and material assistance of Russia, Iran has been constructing a nuclear reactor facility in Bushehr, Iran, ostensibly for peaceful civilian power generation purposes. The Bushehr reactor was slated for completion at the end of this year, which surely not coincidentally agrees with Israeli intelligence warnings that December 31 of this year will be the deadline after which diplomatic solutions must yield to more aggressive options to halt Iran’s nuclear program. Iran had confidently thumbed its nose at UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions, relying on Russia as its business partner to restrain other UN Security Council members pushing for more aggressive actions against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Until three weeks ago Iran appeared safe from any unanimous actions by the Security Council, with Russia’s veto vote securely in pocket due to the lucrative Bushehr construction contracts between the two countries. In its arrogance, however, Iran made a critical mistake: it failed to pay its bills to money-hungry Russia.

In retaliation for Iran’s falling behind in its Bushehr-related payments, Russia earlier this year brought construction of the reactor site to a screeching halt. Russia expressed no qualms at that time about the morality of allowing the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism to develop nuclear capabilities; the sticking point for Putin’s government was money, or more specifically the lack of it flowing from Iran to Russia’s government coffers. In a twist of irony that only Cold War veterans could appreciate, it was a moment of greedy, irresponsible, amoral Russian capitalism run amok. Russia was doing business and selling sensitive weapons and nuclear technology to any regime willing to pay, without any concern for political ideology or to what uses those weapons or technologies would be put. Yet, as reported publicly for the first time yesterday, three weeks ago Russia changed course in its dealings with Iran over Bushehr.

According to a confidential diplomatic source quoted by AFP, three weeks ago Russia delivered a message to Iran’s mullahs that carried more than the expected demand for timely payment of Bushehr construction debts. The message reportedly warned the mullahs that the nuclear fuel needed to complete and activate the Bushehr reactor would not be delivered until Iran satisfied international concerns, presumably through full inspections and monitoring, over ongoing uranium enrichment at the Natanz facility that appears to be of a military rather than civilian power generation nature. Of course, the Russian message also contained complaints over unpaid debts and other monetary concerns, but as AFP further reported, a second diplomatic source emphasized that “The Russians don't want to be seen as the ones helping the Iranians get a nuclear weapon.”

Despite other actions by Putin’s government to assert Russia’s power on the world stage, such as its latest territorial claim to the North Pole and the region’s natural resources, Russia demonstrated a degree of responsibility and cooperation on an issue far more critical than who should own rights to an undersea continental shelf supporting Santa’s workshop. Russia is the only nation capable of applying sufficient non-military leverage against Iran regarding its nuclear facilities and motives. Only Russia had the economic power to slow or halt construction of the Bushehr reactor or withhold the nuclear fuel necessary for power generation or uranium enrichment.

The importance of Russia’s decision to force Iran to yield to international concerns over military production of nuclear material cannot be overemphasized. Russia’s leverage with Iran reportedly has pushed back the potential completion of the Bushehr reactor until late 2008. Hopefully this setback will convince the Iranian regime to take Russia’s demand seriously, but the world should not count on Iran to act sensibly on an issue central to that regime’s pride and power projection.

Much can still change in this volatile situation. If Iran provided full payment to Russia in short order, there is always a risk that Russia might back down from its demand that Iran openly comply with the UN sanctions it has thus far ignored. The sources for the AFP report also have no indication that Russia will shift from its previous stance which supported Iran’s right to develop “peaceful” civilian nuclear power for electricity generation purposes only. The other members of the UN Security Council and obviously Israel oppose the very idea of Iran’s development of nuclear power for any purposes due to the undeniable links between Iran and Islamic terrorist groups as well as apocalyptic pronouncements against the United States and Israel by Iran’s current leaders.

Russia’s position on Iranian civilian nuclear power has thus far been irreconcilable with the other Security Council members, but its message to the mullahs at least temporarily demonstrated what may be a good faith effort by Russia to win goodwill in the West and keep nuclear weapons out of a radical regime’s hands.

Praising congressional democrats and Putin’s government in the same week for making wise decisions regarding domestic counterterrorism surveillance and blocking Iran’s potential production of nuclear weapons could almost lead me to consider, as two Brookings Institution fellows wrote of Iraq last week, that this is “a war we just might win.”

Technorati Tags:
Bushehr Reactor, Iranian Nuclear Program, Vladimir Putin, Russia, UN Security Council, Nuclear Proliferation, Drudge Report, Nuclear Power, Mullahs