Kent Lundgren
Chairman National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers
nafbpo.org
In years past it was recognized that a thoughtful immigration policy ought to protect the United States from those who would do us harm - and harm can come to us in a number of forms, some not immediately visible. For example, during the Cold War, Communists were not eligible to enter the United States except under very limited circumstances and their travel and activities were severely defined. Even long before Communism became an issue, our immigration laws barred the entry of anarchists or subversives.
Now, reflecting modern realities, the law says that terrorists, or terrorist supporters, or those coming to commit an act of terrorism are not eligible for entry. One would certainly hope not.
However, for laws like that to be effective, there must be a means of enforcement, and enforcement calls for identification of, in this example, terrorists. How are we to do that?
The visa process is, or was, anyway, a useful tool for that purpose. Briefly, a visa is a license to apply for admission to the U.S. at a port of entry. It does not guarantee that the holder will be allowed in, only that he may present himself to an immigration officer - without a proper visa, the immigration officer won't even consider letting the alien into the U.S.
In days past, someone wanting to come to the United States took his passport (a document issued by his home country that serves to identify him) to the U.S. Consul (a U.S. State Department official in that foreign country) and applied for a visa. In that application, he said who he was, answered questions about things he had done or not done (was a Communist, for example), and what he intended to do in this country. In a perfect world, the consul then verified that his passport was valid and all the other things that mattered, did a brief investigation of the applicant's background, and issued the visa, or not. As a practical matter, it was not a flawless process, but it was useful when done with diligence by U.S. officials - which has been rare since the 1970s.
However, while the visa process is still in place for some purposes, its value has been eroded by a number of factors, largely inattention by the nation and its consular staffs to its purpose. Visas are issued by the U.S. Department of State, and, taken as a whole, our State Department is embarrassed by having to tell a foreigner that he can't come to the U.S; they don't like saying "No". Furthermore, they
For reasons clear to anyone interested in national security, interior enforcement is a must. If anyone had been paying attention to that need, those "students" who brought us 9/11 would have been located when they dropped out of school and questioned about what they were up to. The fact they were no longer in school could have resulted in their removal from the country even if it had not been possible to prove that they were up to murder.
Even now, there are Islamic terrorist training camps in this country, staffed by aliens (who may have come here legally, but for illicit purposes), but there is no action being taken against them by immigration authorities. Those people should be found, identified, detained, and deported, but they are not. Instead, they are free to continue giving their lessons to our domestic idiots, would-be terrorists who will happily blow other Americans up. To be sure, the FBI may well have them under surveillance, even penetrated by informants, but they must gather evidence that can be used in court, perhaps even wait for some overt act, a dangerous thing. Instead, we should put our immigration laws to the use for which they were intended. Such interior enforcement was done well into the 1970s, but it was curtailed due to bureaucratic and political pressures; 3,000 people paid the predictable price on 9/11.
Without a strong interior enforcement posture, the border can never be secured. As long as aliens think they can roam the U.S. with impunity, doing what they will (be it work, or killing) they will get past any number of patrols and technology. No illegal alien should feel secure in his activities once he is here; he is breaking the law, he represents a threat, and he should be looking over his shoulder every second. In fact, he has nothing to fear, though, for interior enforcement has to all intents and purposes, been stifled in recent years, and gutted in recent months. As in the case of protecting our jobs, it seems clear that too many of our leaders just do not give a damn. Obama, Reed, Pelosi, Napolitano, and their Amen Chorus in Congress seek to stifle any meaningful efforts at controlling the presence of illegal aliens in this country. Pelosi even goes so far as to make the despicable statement that attempts to do so are un-American.
We are being betrayed by our leaders. We leave them in place at our peril, for they obviously do not see protecting us as part of their job descriptions. That must be changed, and soon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This editorial appears on April 6, 2009. The schedule published with our first editorial in this series on March 24 indicated that the editorial for today would deal with national security and public safety. Taken together, those two subjects comprise a body of thought too broad to be addressed in one piece. Therefore, we will look today at the national security element of the two, and tomorrow we will speak to public safety.
Schedule of Editorials - these will appear on our website, http://www.nafbpo.org , and our daily Foreign Media Report.
March 24 - Introductory Editorial
March 30 - American jobs for American workers
April 6 - National security and public safety (1st half)
April 7 - National security and public safety (2nd half)
April 13 - Public health and social impact
