Encouraging Lawful Immigration and Discouraging Unlawful Immigration

By David S. Addington Heritage.org March 27, 2013 (Part II of II)

Amnesty Is Not the Answer to Unlawful Immigration. On occasion, proposals arise that would grant amnesty to aliens who have entered the country unlawfully, or who entered lawfully but whose authorization to remain has expired. The term “amnesty” is often used loosely with reference to aliens unlawfully in the United States. Sometimes it refers to converting the status of an alien from unlawful to lawful, either without conditions or on a condition such as a payment of a fee to the government. Sometimes it refers to granting lawful authority for an alien unlawfully in the U.S. to remain in the U.S., become a lawful permanent resident, or even acquire citizenship by naturalization, either without conditions or on a condition such as payment of a fee to the government or performance of particular types of work for specified periods. Amnesty comes in many forms, but in all its variations, it discourages respect for the law, treats law-breaking aliens better than law-following aliens, and encourages future unlawful immigration into the United States.

Presidents may issue pardons for offenses against the United States, whether issued to an individual for an offense or to a class of people for an offense they have in common.[9] Although the President may pardon for crimes, including immigration crimes, aliens unlawfully in the U.S., the pardon does not constitute a grant of authority to remain in the United States, and the alien would remain subject to removal.[10] Congress, however, has the power to enact laws that both forgive an alien’s past crimes and change an alien’s immigration status from unlawful to lawful.[11] For example, when Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 to deal with the large numbers of aliens unlawfully in the U.S. at that time, Congress included two broad amnesty programs.

The first IRCA amnesty program generally required the Attorney General to adjust to the status of lawful temporary permanent residence aliens unlawfully in the U.S. who had been in the U.S. since January 1, 1982, with subsequent adjustment to lawful permanent residence.[12] The second IRCA amnesty program generally required the Attorney General to adjust to the status of lawful “special agricultural workers” aliens unlawfully in the U.S. who performed 90 days of qualifying agricultural work during the 12 months preceding May 1, 1986, and who could qualify for immigrant status, with subsequent adjustment of their status to that of lawful permanent residence.[13] Over 2.5 million aliens unlawfully in the U.S. availed themselves of the IRCA amnesties to attain legal status.[14]

With respect to the IRCA amnesty programs, the House committee originating the legislation said “a one-time legalization program is a necessary part of an effective enforcement program . . . .”[15] When the Senate considered the final legislation, a Senator from Texas asked the floor manager of the legislation, a Senator from Wyoming, a question about amnesty:

. . . [O]ne of the things that has concerned me having looked at the problem on our borders, is that there may be those in other countries who will say that since we granted amnesty once maybe we will do it again. And rather than sign up to be on this list of 1.9 million people that have the dream of someday being able to come here, maybe people will just come on across the border thinking it will happen again.

So I ask my colleague, as one who has worked 6 years on this bill, and who clearly is going to have much to say about changes that will occur in the future, is it the clear position of the distinguished chairman that under no circumstances will there be another blanket amnesty in the future?

The Senator from Wyoming responded:

. . . I can assure the Senator from Texas that as long as I am involved in it that will be exactly the message that will be sent, that this is it. This is a generous Nation responding; instead of going hunting for you and going through the anguish of that in the cities and communities of America, this is it. It is one time.[16]

When Congress enacted the IRCA amnesty programs in 1986 for aliens unlawfully in the U.S., the population of aliens unlawfully in the U.S. was an estimated 3.2 million.[17] In January 2011, that population was an estimated 11.5 million.[18]

Grants of amnesty, regardless of the form of the reward they give to aliens who knowingly entered or remain the U.S., discourage respect for the law, treat law-breaking aliens better than law-following aliens, and encourage future unlawful immigration into the United States. If America suddenly awards legal status to aliens unlawfully in the United States, it will treat them better than aliens abroad who follow America’s immigration procedures and patiently await their opportunity to get a visa authorizing them to come to the United States. And, of course, if America suddenly awards legal status to aliens unlawfully in the U.S., it will, as the IRCA amnesty proved, spur more aliens to enter or remain unlawfully in the United States, in the confident expectation that Congress will continue enacting future amnesties that provide aliens unlawfully in the U.S. a shortcut to legal status. The government should pursue a measured set of approaches to a wide variety of immigration issues, but in all events exclude amnesty for aliens unlawfully in the United States.

Conclusion: Congress Should Encourage Lawful Immigration and Prevent Unlawful Immigration. For more than two centuries, America has encouraged and benefitted from lawful immigration. Congress should continue to search for appropriate ways to encourage lawful immigration, reducing the burdens of the immigration process on both the government and lawful immigrants, and making it easier for both America and the lawful immigrants to enjoy the economic and cultural benefits that result from lawful immigration. Congress also should continue to search for appropriate ways to prevent unlawful immigration and secure America’s borders. As Congress moves forward, it should not adopt failed policies of the past, such as amnesty, which discourages respect for the law, treats law-breakers better than law-followers, and encourages future unlawful immigration. When Congress implements step-by-step the proper policies, America will benefit greatly from the arrival on America’s shores of lawful immigrants who, as Ronald Reagan said, will find “a new and better life for themselves and their children in this land of liberty and opportunity.”

—David S. Addington is the Senior Vice President for Legal and Judicial Policy at The Heritage Foundation.

Encouraging Lawful Immigration and Discouraging Unlawful Immigration

By David S. Addington Heritage.org March 27, 2013 (Part I of II)

America recognizes the importance of lawful immigration. Such immigration provides economic and cultural benefits both to the United States and to the immigrants. In contrast, unlawful immigration challenges America’s ability to protect its borders and preserve its sovereignty. Congress should search for appropriate ways to encourage lawful immigration and prevent unlawful immigration, through careful step-by-step actions to address the wide variety of immigration issues, rather than through one-size-fits-all comprehensive legislation. Congress should not adopt failed policies of the past, such as an amnesty, which discourages respect for the law, treats law-breakers better than law-followers, and encourages future unlawful immigration. When Congress implements step-by-step the proper policies, American will benefit greatly from the resulting lawful immigration.

From its inception, the United States of America has recognized the vital importance of lawful immigration to the nation. Such immigration brings important economic and cultural benefits both to the United States and to the immigrants. Americans rightly incorporate into their lives and celebrate the values of America, including individual freedom, limited government, and free enterprise, and beckon others to join us. Lawful immigration greatly benefits both America and the lawful immigrants, while unlawful immigration presents challenges to America’s ability to protect its borders and preserve its sovereignty.

Welcoming Lawful Immigration. In 1776, the Declaration of Independence, in speaking of the tyranny the thirteen American colonies had suffered under King George III of Great Britain, said:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

The Declaration’s submission of facts about the king’s tyrannical conduct included that:

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for the Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

After the representative of George III stated in the Treaty of Paris in September 3, 1783, that “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States . . . to be free sovereign and independent states,” the victorious Revolutionary War commander in chief General George Washington wrote on December 2, 1783, to an association of Irish immigrants in New York City:

The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.

When the delegates of the states met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to draft the Constitution that conventions of the people of the several states later ratified, they included among the enumerated powers of the federal Congress the power “[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” which would set forth the conditions under which immigrants could become citizens of the United States. Thus, at its very beginning, the United States of America recognized the importance to the nation of lawful immigration.

America continues to recognize the vital importance of lawful immigration. As President Ronald Reagan said in 1986:

Since 1820, more than 52 million immigrants have come to the United States from all over the world. They have sought and found a new and better life for themselves and their children in this land of liberty and opportunity. The magnet that draws them is freedom and the beacon that guides them is hope. America offers liberty for all, encourages hope for betterment, and nurtures great expectations. In this free land a person can realize his dreams—going as far as talent and drive can carry him. In return America asks each of us to do our best, to work hard, to respect the law, to cherish human rights, and to strive for the common good.

The immigrants who have so enriched America include people from every race, creed, and ethnic background. Yet all have been drawn here by shared values and a deep love of freedom. Most brought with them few material goods. But with their hearts and minds and toil they have contributed mightily to the building of this great Nation and endowed us with the riches of their achievements. Their spirit continues to nourish our own love of freedom and opportunity.[1]

In contrast to lawful immigration, which benefits America greatly, unlawful immigration challenges the ability of the United States to protect its borders and preserve its sovereignty.

Congress Should Proceed Carefully, Step-by-Step, Instead of with One-Size-Fits-All Comprehensive Legislation. The complexities involved in encouraging lawful immigration and deterring unlawful immigration call for a measured set of approaches tailored to a wide variety of immigration issues, rather than comprehensive, all-or-nothing, and one-size-fits-all legislation.[2] Those approaches “can move forward on many fronts at the same time, focusing on some commonsense initiatives that begin to address the practical challenges of our immigration system.”[3] The U.S. should reform its immigration system through a careful, step-by-step process that welcomes lawful immigrants, encourages their full participation in American life, and expands opportunity. The process also must prevent unlawful immigration, encourage respect for law, secure America’s borders, and preserve America’s sovereignty.[4] The Heritage Foundation has described this step-by-step process for a problem-solving approach to immigration issues, such as reform of the lawful immigration system, visa reforms, lawful temporary worker arrangements, and strong border and interior enforcement.[5]

The Congress of the United States has the power to determine by law whether and on what terms citizens of other countries may enter the United States. The Supreme Court has held that the power to admit or exclude such aliens is an incident of the sovereignty and independence of the United States. The Congress may exercise that power, by enactment of civil and criminal laws, and has done so. Despite U.S. efforts to enforce its laws, substantial numbers of aliens are unlawfully in the United States.

Congress Has Broad Power to Address both Lawful Immigration and Unlawful Immigration. Congress possesses plenary authority to regulate entry of aliens into the United States. In 1977, the Supreme Court said:

This Court has repeatedly emphasized that “over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over” the admission of aliens. Our cases “have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”[6]

Congress has broad authority to enforce the policies it sets by law on whether and on what conditions aliens may enter the United States.[7] All civil or criminal proceedings must afford the requisite due process of law.[8]

IMMIGRATION – A GLOBALIST VIEW

By Darrell Robbins

Peter Sutherland is a big-time globalist. He's also a big-time immigration pusher.  

In the current Gang of Eight Amnesty debate, it is important to consider the issue from the globalist perspective.  

Why?  Because globalist influences on the debate are out of view, but may be a powerful force pushing for U.S. amnesty and other immigration changes.  

In a 2012 BBC article, "EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief," Mr. Sutherland made some interesting comments.  Among them are his claim that individuals not the receiving nations, should be the ones with the right to determine what country they live in.  Mr. Sutherland, for instance:  

"...called on EU states to stop targeting "highly skilled" migrants, arguing that "at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country."

The European problem, according to Mr. Sutherland, seems to be that European countries don't see themselves as "migrant societies."  They need to give up this notion, embrace multiculturalism, and abandon the idea of population homogeneity:

"He told the committee: "The United States, or Australia and New Zealand, are migrant societies and therefore they accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others."

The article then adds this zinger from Mr. Sutherland:
"And that's precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine."

Notice that he didn't say France should decide for itself if it wishes to flood its nation with immigrants.  Nor did he declare that Germany, Italy, Sweden, or any other European Union member, should decide what it wants to do regarding immigration.  He said the European Union, as a supranational entity and as a matter of policy, should be undermining the idea of homogeneity of its member nations in order to promote immigration.  

It's not an easy thing to analyze globalist writings and statements - as they tend to be a mix of truth and propaganda.  Sifting through the information in order to get a sense of what the real goals are, i.e., the ones that are central to the globalist fixation with supranational governing structures, is a difficult process.  But, it seems clear that promoting mass immigration into certain nations is one such goal.  Couple this with the globalist view of national sovereignty as an impediment to their project and we can surmise that immigration is being used as one mechanism to attack national sovereignty. 

In fact, in a 2008 article of an interview with Mr. Sutherland, the author refers to Mr. Sutherland as "a champion of a border-lite world."  

How many immigrants does Mr. Sutherland have in mind?

In the same 2008 interview with Mr. Sutherland, he gives us a view of the masses he is talking about:

"There's an inevitable need for many hundreds of millions of people to move from one part of the world to another, sometimes incited not merely by poverty but by poverty which itself could be the result of climate change. It is also realistic to expect that there will be huge movements of people because of the differences in GDP per capita. While globalization has lifted some parts of the world, there are others where it has had little or no impact."

An inevitable need for many hundreds of millions of people to migrate around the globe?

Mr. Sutherland did not specify how many "hundreds of millions" he meant or where exactly they might be headed - but it seems reasonable to conclude that many of this large non-specific number will be heading to the U.S.

Mr. Sutherland doesn't see this as a problem, because he has "never seen immigration and the multiculturalism of a society as a threat to the identity or values of the host community."

On the contrary, globalist insiders must know that these levels of immigration will certainly impact the nations that undergo such levels of mass migration - that's the point in the globalist worldview.  Supranational power structures can't grow sufficiently in strength when people have a strong sense of attachment to their nations and resist internationalist encroachments on their sovereignty.  Changing the demographics of a nation is one way to change the political perspective of that nation and to suppress and diminish the political role of those who oppose the increasing stranglehold of supranational governance over their nation.  

Directly addressing problems around the world, which are put forth as reasons for migration, seems a more reasonable and effective avenue than having people moving all over the place in such large numbers.  An approach that seeks to aid nations in solving their problems, while preserving their sovereignty, is one that is oriented towards finding effective solutions.  However, when creating supranational governing structures is the goal, then actually finding solutions to problems becomes secondary to the power project.  Aggregating more and more power into a handful of international organizations leads to a place far from the political roots of our nation - the roots designed to discourage tyranny.  If one truly cares about people and their well-being, about cultures, about history, about nations, and about finding solutions to the world's problems, one must reject the globalist power drive.  

Each nation should be free to determine what immigration policies are congruent with its national goals and interests. 

But who is Peter Sutherland and should we take him seriously?

According to the two articles already referenced, Mr. Sutherland is or has been:

- special representative on migration for the United Nations

- director-general of the World Trade Organization

- a European Union commissioner

- chairman of British Petroleum

- chairman of the London School of Economics

- non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International

- head of the Global Forum on Migration and Development

- attended meetings of the Bilderberg group

- former Attorney General of Ireland

To this impressive list, we should add that Mr. Sutherland is also a prestigious member of the Trilateral Commission - where he is also listed as having received 15 honorary degrees and an honorary knighthood in the United Kingdom.  The Trilateral Commission's short biography also tells us that Mr. Sutherland "was presented with the Robert Schuman Medal for his work on European integration."  That's an interesting award.  He has also been honored by the Trilateral Commission with its David Rockefeller Award.  Within the Trilateral organization, he is a former European Chairman and currently an Honorary European Chairman.  

I would say that we should take Mr. Sutherland very seriously.  

We should also take the globalist approach to the world and immigration seriously.  

Doing so will add a dimension not generally considered publicly in our immigration debates.  

Immigration Deformed

By Cal Thomas

There’s the story of a woman with five kids who was asked if she had to do it all over again would she have five children?

“Yes,” she said, “just not these five.”

That’s the way I feel about the immigration “reform” bill introduced by the Senate’s bipartisan “Gang of 8.” I’m all for an immigration bill, just not this immigration bill — at least in its present form.

One of the “gang” members, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., indicated the bill has problems that need fixing when he said in a recent interview: “Let’s try to fix it. Let’s try to change it, but to just say let’s defeat the whole thing; I don’t think that’s a productive approach either. I think this is a starting point that obviously we can and should improve.”

There is much to improve, maybe too much. The Daily Caller read through all 844 pages of the pending bill and found it contains “roughly 400 exemptions, exceptions, waivers, determinations and grants of discretion.” In fact, the Caller found, “The document mentions ‘discretion’ or ‘discretionary’ 41 times ... ‘judge’ or ‘judges’ 73 times ... determines is used 84 times.” This bill has more holes in it than a Texas border fence.

Responding to a report by Ronald Mortensen, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which analyzed the Senate proposal, the center’s executive director, Mark Krikorian, offered, “Illegal aliens will be rewarded for breaking laws for which American citizens are routinely punished.” He cites as one example the use of a fraudulent Social Security card, which, he says, would cause an American citizen to face up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, but, he says, “...under this bill the illegal alien would face a $1,000 penalty covering all his many offenses, a penalty which in many cases will be waived.” According to Krikorian, the individual would then be “issued a new Social Security number without any past bad credit or arrest records.” What’s with all the preferential treatment?

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL.), a member of the Gang of 8, said in a statement to Breitbart News, “The Gang of 8 made a promise that illegal immigrants will not be able to access public benefits. We already know that, once granted green cards and ultimately citizenship, illegal immigrants will be able to access all public benefit programs at a great cost to taxpayers. We have, however, identified a number of loopholes that would allow illegal immigrants to draw public benefits even sooner than advertised.” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AR.) disagrees. So let’s close up the loopholes and debate it on the Senate floor.

Additional public benefits for illegal immigrants should not be seen as far-fetched, given a Boston Herald report about the family of the accused Boston Marathon bombers, whose residency may have been legal, but whose behavior was not: “The Tsarnaev family, including the suspected terrorists and their parents, benefited from more than $100,000 in taxpayer-funded assistance — a bonanza ranging from cash and food stamps to Section 8 housing from 2002 to 2012.” These were able-bodied people. Why did they receive benefits? What loophole did the Tsarnaev family slip through?

Attorney General Eric Holder has taken the issue of breaking the law to new depths. In an April 24 speech to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Holder said that creating a “pathway to earned citizenship” is a “civil right.” If that’s so, why deny anyone from coming to America, even from nations that breed terrorists?

As it stands, the bill is unlikely to pass. That’s why Sen. Rubio is right about the need to fix it. If he were to introduce an amendment to ban an illegal from voting for 10 years, we might see Democratic support for the measure quickly fade. The Democratic Party appears interested in “importing” new Democratic voters. Illegal immigrants know this, which leads many of them to believe that even if they break the law to get here, they have a “right” to become American citizens. I don’t think so, do you?

Gang of Eight Bill is Amnesty
Eagle Forum May 9, 2013 Today the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin the process of marking up the Gang of Eight’s proposal that will grant amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.  Proponents of the bill argue that the bill is not amnesty because those legalized under it have to pay a penalty and wait ten years. But, that is only one aspect of the multi-faceted aspects of amnesty granted to illegal immigrants. Illegal Immigrants Immediately Eligible to Work in U.S. Those pushing for amnesty claim illegal immigrants have to get in the back of the citizenship line, but the bill allows them to line-jump the jobs line.  With so many Americans unable to find work, Congress should crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants.  Instead, the bill makes it immediately legal for illegal immigrants to work in the United States, and lets the employers who have knowingly hired them get away with it.  Penalty Paid is Low and Not a Penalty at All Under S. 744, illegal aliens can immediately register for Registered Provisional Immigrants (RPI) status when the President signs the bill. They have to pay $500 and the other $500 can be paid in installments over the next six years. That money goes into a fund that offsets the cost of the services provided to walk them through the process of receiving Amnesty. Thus, the penalty is not a penalty at all. Contrary to claims by the bill’s proponents: The Bill does NOT require amnestied illegals to pay all back taxes. Illegal aliens receiving amnesty under the bill must wait 10 years to become citizens, however, the bill contains multiple loopholes. Illegal aliens and their employers receive amnesty under S.744 for a long list of offenses for which U.S. citizens and legal immigrants would face stiff fines and long prison sentences. Click here to see an extensive report prepared by our friends at the Center for Immigration Studies of the extensive amnesty S. 744 gives to illegal aliens and their employers and the fines and penalties U.S. citizens and legal immigrants would face if they broke these laws. Illegals granted amnesty should have to wait ten years before they are eligible for federal welfare benefits, but as Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions points out in this report, they are immediately eligible for many state and local welfare programs, and there are considerable loopholes in the bill that enable them to access federal benefits even sooner. The Gang of Eight bill is thoroughly unjust and as the Heritage Foundation reported this week, will cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion.  Your Senators are being bombarded with visits from highly paid lobbyists and vocal Amnesty advocates. They need to hear from you and from all of your friends and family. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 We need you to keep the calls coming! Tell your Senators to vote NO on the Gang of Eight’s Amnesty bill today!

Boston Bombing Demands a Pause in Legislation

by Phyllis Schlafly Eagle Forum May 1, 2013

The Boston Marathon Bombing, where 3 were killed and 264 wounded, many with legs or feet blown off, continues to be a big media story, but we are still waiting for answers to many questions. How did our government miss so many clues that the Tsarnaev brothers were a deadly danger to Americans?

They came into the United States as visitors from Kazakhstan, where many ethnic Chechens live without persecution, then cooked up a claim to be refugees, which was a fraud. After a few years the father returned to Dagestan, Russia, where he now lives safely.

Once admitted into the United States, the entire family cashed in on generous U.S. welfare benefits, cash and food stamps. Those receiving taxpayer handouts included the two criminal sons, both of their parents, and ultimately Tamerlan’s wife and child.

Tamerlan can be said to have financed his radicalization with welfare handouts from our taxpayers. Those were the years when Tamerlan became a more devout Muslim, gave up drinking in order to devote himself to “God’s business,” and sought out jihadist websites.

When accused of domestic violence against a girlfriend in 2009, he had the benefit of a taxpayer-funded attorney to get his case dismissed. Welfare was terminated only in 2012 when his wife’s salary pushed their income outside of eligibility limits.

Why did our government ignore the federal law that requires immigrants, before they are admitted, to prove they will not become a public charge? For years, the sons did not have jobs or any visible source of income.

Meanwhile, Tamerlan’s mother began wearing a hijab and telling conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Towers, which she said Tamerlan had told her. She was accused of shoplifting $1,500 worth of clothes from the upscale Lord & Taylor, but flew back to Russia, so the judge issued a bench warrant for her arrest.

The government of Russia contacted our FBI and warned us that Tamerlan was a dangerous risk. The FBI investigated, but reported there was no problem.

In 2012, Tamerlan left for a six-month visit in Russia and Dagestan. Where did Tamerlan get the money for that expensive airline ticket? Wasn’t the FBI interested in where he went and who he saw, even after Russia told us that he joined “underground groups in Russia”?

What did Tamerlan do in Russia? Receive training in bomb-making, terrorist tactics, or handling weapons? Did he attend a radical mosque? Were the brothers directed by foreign operatives?

One of the government’s ridiculous excuses for not tracking Tamerlan’s flight to Russia was that the airline misspelled his name on passenger list. The Obama Administration is always blaming someone else for its own failures.

Apparently, the FBI wasn’t interested in doing another investigation when Tamerlan returned from his trip. Russia then took its warning about Tamerlan to our Central Intelligence Agency, but got no response there, either.

Tamerlan’s own web postings showed his sympathies with radical Islam, and in April 2013, Tamerlan’s YouTube video account included a playlist celebrating “Terrorists.” Because the FBI had closed his case, no one in our government was watching.

When the younger brother, Dzhokhar, was naturalized as a citizen, he would have been required to swear that he renounces “all allegiance” to any previous country and that “I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” What did our naturalization bureaucrats do to assure that Dzhokhar was not using the Koran-authorized practice of taqiyya, i.e., tell a lie in order to advance Muslim objectives?

Why didn’t our FBI recognize the signal that the older boy was named for one of the most brutal murderers in all history? The name Tamerlan is known throughout Asia as a 14th-century Muslim who called himself the “Sword of Islam” and murdered 17 million people, beheaded many and displayed their heads to showcase his brutality.

The Boston bombing requires us to stop thinking about new immigration legislation until we remedy our mistakes. The failure to protect us from the Tsarnaev brothers proves there are so many things radically wrong with our legal immigration process.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) that “We should not proceed until we understand the specific failures of our immigration system.” Paul’s letter cautioned, “National security protections must be rolled into comprehensive immigration reform” to prevent future acts of terror.

The failed FBI investigation of Tamerlan shows that our government does not have the capacity to do adequate background checks on 11 million illegal aliens. Amnesty may even facilitate terrorism. We need to take Ronald Reagan’s advice: Before we do more of what we are doing, let’s find out if what we are doing is part of the problem.

Immigration Bill Doesn’t Secure the Border

James Carafano  The Foundry Heritage.org April 29, 2013

Must Washington fix our broken southern border? You bet.

Will the comprehensive immigration reform bill help? You bet it won’t.

The number one flaw of the bill is it starts by giving amnesty to the unlawfully present population in the United States. As soon as the bill passes, those in the country contrary to U.S. immigration law are granted status to stay.

Amnesty immediately creates an incentive for illegal border crossings and overstays. Thus, the bill’s strategy would drive up the cost of securing the border. To make matters worse, the draft law states that anyone who was present in the U.S. before 2012 qualifies—creating massive opportunity for fraud, since there is no proof required that applicants have been here for several years.

While supporters of the bill trumpet its “border security” features, in reality, the law delivers nothing new—other than the promise of spending a lot more money and running up our debt.

The bill trashes fiscal discipline, exploiting “a loophole in the Budget Control Act (BCA) that allows Congress to spend more than allowed under the spending caps adopted in 2011.”

In other words, Washington is willing to draft a bounced check to justify an amnesty bill.

To make matters worse, there is very little likelihood that that Americans will get much for the next border security buck spent.

The Secretary of Homeland Security has repeatedly stated that our borders “have never been more secure.” In the past five years, the White House has never asked for this additional border security funding. Yet, this bill lavishes billions of additional spending on the department with no clear requirements on how the money is spent. At least $2 billion could legitimately be labeled the Secretary’s slush fund.

Supporters of the bill trumpet requirements to “certify” border security, yet its standards are in some ways weaker than existing law. Present law requires gaining “operational control” of the whole border, while this bill sets standards only for “high-risk” sectors. Since smuggling trails shift to where the security is not, even if the standards were attained in one area, the traffic would just go somewhere else.

In addition, the Department of Homeland Security has been trying unsuccessfully to define credible metrics for border security since 2004. Even if it had effective “triggers,” that does not guarantee a secure border. Border crossing conditions constantly change. Even if the goal is achieved, there is no guarantee it will stay that way.

We can do more to secure our borders. But we don’t need an amnesty bill and bogus border triggers to make our borders safe and sovereign. Nor does Washington need to throw more buckets of money toward border security.

Our government could cooperate more effectively with Mexico and the border states. Congress could modernize our legal immigrant and non-immigrant programs, including effective temporary worker programs. The government could enforce our workplace and immigration laws.

In short, the promise of border security in this case is merely an excuse for a bloated bill that would promise anything to push amnesty, regardless of cost or practicality.