RUTHFULLY YOURS

On October 22, 2014 CBS News, New York posted a brief report, “City Council Votes For Bills To Protect Jailed Immigrants From Feds.” This report illustrates the unholy alliance forged between many politicians and news agencies to skew the truth about immigration. The article begins with this excerpt:

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Bills passed by the City Council Wednesday aim to keep detained immigrants from being deported by the federal government.

The City Council voted in favor of the legislation 41-6 Wednesday.

As WCBS 880’s Rich Lamb reported, the measures, supported by Mayor Bill de Blasio, would prohibit correction officials and police from handing over detainees to immigration officials.

The report went on to note:

“The law will only allow the city to honor the detainer if the subject has been convicted of a violent or serious felony in the last five years or if the person is a possible match on the federal terrorist watchlist,” she said.

The bill would also shutter the federal immigration office on Rikers Island.

First of all, let’s consider that the title of the CBS article incorporates the phrase, “Protect the Jailed Immigrants From the Feds.” There are two key words that paint a deceptive image and both evoke a strong emotional response and virtually create the illusion that the efforts to impede the effective enforcement of our immigration laws against aliens who have been arrested for allegedly committing crimes is no less than heroic.

The term “protect” is a term that engenders a sense of an appropriate action taken to make certain that no harm comes to someone, especially an innocent person. Police departments around the United States adopted the phrase “to protect and serve” as their mission statement. In considering this infuriating news report, the question that must be asked is: “Who is being protected and who is being served?”

Our nation’s borders and our immigration laws are America’s first line of defense and last line of defense to protect America and Americans from aliens whose presence poses a threat to the safety and well-being of our nation and our citizens.

Our immigration laws are utterly blind as to race, religion or ethnicity and were enacted to achieve two primary goals: protect innocent lives and protect the jobs of American workers. While the CBS report focuses on how the majority of the members of the City Council are seeking to protect illegal aliens who have been arrested from being deported, the article neglects to mention that this proposed action would fail to protect Americans and others present in the United States by blocking ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents from being able to identify and take into custody aliens who are subject to being removed (deported) from the United States.

It would be wrong-headed to shield any illegal alien from detection by ICE (although ICE is no longer mounting a meaningful effort to enforce our immigration laws). However, in this instance we have the great majority of the members of the NYC Counsel seeking to prevent the removal of aliens who have been arrested by the NYPD and other law enforcement agencies.

The term “immigrant” as used in the headline is currently being used deceptively throughout the United States to describe all foreign nationals (aliens) who are present in the United States, irrespective of their status. The term “alien” has come to be (falsely) equated with a slur, not unlike the “n-word.” In reality, under the immigration laws of the United States, which are encompassed within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the term alien simply means, “any person, not a citizen or national of the United States.” There is no insult of any sort in that definition — only clarity. Clarity is something that must be avoided at all costs when a con artist attempts to swindle his (her) intended victim. This is no different from the dreaded and infamous “small print” contained in contracts designed to confuse the person signing the contract to get them to agree to terms that they would never knowingly agree to.

By using the term “immigrant” to describe all aliens present in the United States it then becomes easy to talk about the wonderful contributions that immigrants have made to the United States. After all, they remind us, “We are a nation of immigrants!” Of course this fails to note that among illegal aliens are criminals, fugitives from justice in foreign countries and others whose presence is harmful or even dangerous.

By hammering away at the lie that all aliens should be deemed “immigrants” immigration anarchists have set the stage to label as “anti-immigrant” anyone of wanting our borders to be secured against those who would evade the inspections process that is supposed to prevent the entry of aliens whose presence would pose a threat to national security, public safety, public health or otherwise be detrimental to the well-being of America and/or Americans. They go on to attack anyone seeking effective immigration law enforcement branding them “bigots,” “racists” and “nativists.”

In my effort to provide clarity to this issue I have come to say that the difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar. It is not anti-social or uncharitable for a person to lock his (her) doors at night to make certain that burglars or criminals do not enter their homes as they sleep. It is only prudent and commonsense.

In point of fact, our immigration laws not only establish the grounds by which aliens are to be prevented from entering the United States and the grounds under which aliens should be deported from the United States, but also establish the lawful means by which more than one million aliens legally immigrate to the United States, are granted Alien Registration Receipt Cards and are immediately placed on the pathway to United States citizenship. These laws also provide for the naturalization of hundreds of thousands of lawful immigrants each year, conferring United States citizenship upon them.

Furthermore, the most likely victims of crimes committed by transnational criminals are the members of the ethnic immigrant communities of the same origins of the criminal aliens. This holds true for all ethnic communities, not just from Latin America. As an INS agent I investigated and arrested many such individuals from countries around the world.

Therefore, how on earth can supporting the effective enforcement and administration of our immigration laws constitute an anti-immigrant position?

Let us briefly revisit the notion of “protecting immigrants” as noted in the headline. The more appropriate phrase should be “shielding and harboring.” Theses terms appear in the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that addresses alien smuggling.

Consider that under 8 USC § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens, a section of law that is comprehended within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), it is a felony to aid, abet, encourage or induce aliens to enter our country illegally or remain in our country illegally and a crime to harbor, shield or conceal such aliens from detection.

Here is an excerpt from that section of law:

Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) Offenses

Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts.

Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).

Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

Encouraging/Inducing — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who — encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

On February 25, 2014 Californians for Population Stabilization published my article “NYC Mayor Determined to Give Illegal Aliens ID Cards” that addressed the program being created by New York City’s Mayor Bill de Blasio to provide illegal aliens with identity documents, violating commonsense and the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commmission.

I focused on the nexus between immigration and the threat of terrorism and how the creation of “sanctuary cities” undermines national security in my September 24, 2014 article for FrontPage Magazine, ‘Sanctuary Cities’ or ‘Safe Havens’ for Terrorists?

What is truly incomprehensible is how New York Senator Chuck Schumer recently railed against those who have trespassed on important landmarks such as the Brooklyn Bridge and the new World Trade Center Tower. Consider the October 14, 2014 CBS News report on de Blasio heading to Washington to participate in meetings focusing on city security and counter-terrorism, “Mayor De Blasio Heads To D.C. For Meetings On NYC Security And Counter-Terrorism.”

The article noted that the meetings would be held the day after, “Sen. Charles Schumer proposed making trespassing on critical infrastructure like major bridges or important buildings punishable by up to five years in prison.”

Here is the brief report in its entirety:

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – Mayor Bill de Blasio is heading to Washington, D.C. Tuesday for meetings about city security and counter-terrorism.

De Blasio, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton and NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism John Miller are set to meet with the heads of Homeland Security and the FBI.

The meeting comes a day after Sen. Charles Schumer proposed making trespassing on critical infrastructure like major bridges or important buildings punishable by up to five years in prison.

The proposal was made in the wake of several recent trespassing cases in the city.

Over the summer, two German artists climbed the Brooklyn Bridge, switching the American flags with white washed versions.

Berlin-based Mischa Leinkauf and Mattias Wermke said they replaced the flags on top of the bridge with bleached-out versions as a tribute to public art.

“The stuntman placed aluminum pans over the floodlights to keep them from being seen and for awhile, it was scary,” Schumer said Monday.

A Russian tourist was then arrested in August after climbing the Brooklyn Bridge.

Yaroslav Kolchin was seen walking back and forth on the landing, taking photos with his iPhone, police said. They said once a police aviation unit was hovering at an altitude next to the tower, Kolchin began to descend safely down the same way he had climbed up.

He was met by police at the security gate, where he was taken into custody without further incident.

Also in August, an activist group unfurled a Palestinian flag on the span of the Manhattan Bridge.

In March, 16-year-old Justin Casquejo was charged after climbing to the top of the World Trade Center. He admitted in July to breaking a city misdemeanor law against scaling tall buildings without permission.

About a week after his trade center climb, three extreme-skydiving fans were arrested for a leap off the tower last year.

“While individuals like this may have meant no arm, their acts put commuters and first responders at risk,” Schumer said. “They also inspire copycats who may have much more evil plans in mind.”

Critical infrastructure is defined by the Patriot Act as systems and assets so vital to the U.S., that the incapacity or destruction to them would have a debilitating effect.

“That would be a bridge, a power plant, the air vents to one of our tunnels,” Miller said.

Miller and Schumer said the new legislation will help serve as a deterrent.

“When stunts like this occur, the New York City trespassing law has a maximum of one year and it’s often three months,” Schumer said. “That’s not enough punishment to deter this behavior. It’s time to change that.”

Schumer said this legislation is based on another federal law protecting railroads.

This is the same Schumer who, as a member of the “Gang of Eight,” has championed providing a pathway to United States citizenship for millions of illegal aliens who evaded the vital inspections process designed to prevent the entry of aliens who would pose a threat to public health, public safety and, indeed, national security by trespassing on the United States. There can be no greater example of a lack of mouth-ear coordination than that demonstrated by Mr. Schumer.

In case you missed it, this is the next to last paragraph of the news report, quoting Schumer:

“When stunts like this occur, the New York City trespassing law has a maximum of one year and it’s often three months,” Schumer said. “That’s not enough punishment to deter this behavior. It’s time to change that.”

Schumer’s own ears apparently are unable to hear the words he utters from his own mouth when the issue of immigration is raised. Clearly, he understands that undesired behavior can be deterred by tougher laws coupled with tougher enforcement, particularly where the crime of trespassing is concerned.

Schumer, however, is hardly the only politician to be afflicted with a lack of mouth-ear coordination. On September 27, 2012 New York City’s then mayor, Michael Bloomberg, was the focus of a New York Post article, “Bloomberg blasts Bronx DA for not prosecuting trespassing arrests.” It must be pointed out that Bloomberg continued the immigration sanctuary policies of the previous administration.

The continuing sanctuary policies were, in fact, the subject of a hearing conducted by the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on February 27, 2003 on the topic, “New York City’s ‘Sanctuary’ Policy and the Effect of Such Policies on Public Safety, Law Enforcement and Immigration.”

I was one of the witnesses called to testify at that hearing, more than a decade ago. As the saying goes, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

We are continually told that the immigration system is broken. The reality is that what is broken is the moral compass of this administration and all too many politicians. The administration lacks the will to effectively secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws and follow the advice Schumer provided concerning trespassing: increase the penalties for such crimes and effectively enforce the laws.

There is an old Yiddish expression that translated declares, “When the fish goes bad, it smells from the head!” The lack of moral leadership in Washington permeates our nation and is being felt from coast to coast and border to border.