Immigration Deform Bill is a National Security Risk
When it comes to the Gang of 8 immigration deform bill, night is day and up is down. The latest iteration of preposterous declarations comes from John McCain and Lindsey Graham in response to the Boston bombing and its implications for open borders. They had the unbridled impertinence to suggest that their bill, which will bring in millions of more temporary and permanent immigrants from all over the world in addition to granting citizenship to 11 million illegals, “will strengthen our nation’s security.”
Um…the last time I checked, potential terrorists don’t submit themselves to background checks. And even those who would ultimately come forward for a background check, will only do so to receive legal status. Those who don’t come forward, including all the terrorists, will still be allowed to remain in the country even if they are not eligible for legal status. As we noted last week, Section 245B(3)(A)( on pages 61-66) of the bill makes clear that not even the worst criminals are subject to deportation. In fact, the bill invites in hundreds of thousands of people who have already been deported to step forward and apply for legal status. Remember, in recent years we’ve mostly been deporting those who are real bad actors.
Worse, the bill (Section 3717) places the burden upon ICE to prove that a given alien should be detained:
“the immigration judge shall review the custody determination de novo and may detain the alien only if the Secretary demonstrates that no conditions, including the use of alternatives to detention that maintain custody over the alien, will reasonably assure the appearance of the alien as required and the safety of any other person and the community.”
That is just swell for our national security. Add in to the mix the fact that the bill contains a whole new section banning “profiling” on the part of employers and law enforcement, and that it creates a new ACORN-style foundation to support “innovative and creative solutions to barriers faced by those seeking naturalization,” and I’m sure we will have an easy time deporting people who present a security risk.
Nevertheless, the more serious problem for our national security is who we let in through our front door. It’s time to put the political correctness aside. On behalf of tens of millions of Americans of all stripes who are asking the question at their dinner tables: why the hell do we let in these people? Why do we continue to let in people from countries and regions that represent a security risk?
As we continue to debate prudent versus irresponsible immigration reform, I was always planning to address the national security aspect of the issue – long before the Boston bombing this past week. Thank God there have only been “a few” terror attacks carried out on American soil since 9/11. But few people realize how many attempted attacks were foiled before they came to fruition. According to the Heritage Foundation, as of last October there had been 53 attempted terror attacks since 2001. Almost every one of them was perpetrated by a Muslim who came here legally – through our front door – from a region of the world that clearly represents a security threat. In the case of the Boston jihadis, they were brought in as asylees a decade ago.
Our refugee and asylum laws were originally designed to protect individuals who fled to America and faced “a well-founded fear of persecution” were they to return to their country of origin. This was relevant in the ‘80s when anti-communists would flee the former Soviet Union. It is still relevant today with individuals who flee China. However, in recent years this classification has been abused to admit whole classes of people from the third world and volatile countries for a whole host of reasons, at the behest of powerful lobbyists.
So does the Gang bill tighten our refugee laws from high risk regions?
It does just the opposite. It expands refugee status in a number of ways, including for those “whose resettlement in the United States is justified by humanitarian concerns.”
Then there’s this doozy (page 557):
The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may, in his or her discretion, provide conditional lawful status to an alien who is otherwise inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien— ‘‘(A) is a stateless person present in the United States
So what is a stateless person? Someone from Chechnya? A Palestinian?
Who knows? Maybe it’s innocuous, but it’s one of the many provisions that are stuffed into the bill and not reported on by anyone on or off the Hill. It’s hard to tell give that we were completely shut out of the process until 2:25 AM last Wednesday. While Schumer shared the bill with Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee for weeks, McCain and Rubio shut out fellow Republicans, including the chairmen of Budget and Judiciary, from the process. Jeff Sessions, Chuck Grassley, and their top staff members found out about the details of the bill the same time I did. Yet, Pat Leahy is conducting a marathon hearing tomorrow with 20 guests before Republicans have had a chance to fully understand the bill.
When it comes to national security, it’s probably not a good idea to find out what’s in a massive immigration expansion and amnesty bill by passing it.