Michael Cutler | Front Page Magazine Doing the bidding of the Open Borders anarchists.
Our work showed that ICE and CBP have made some progress, but much confusion still exists about roles, mission, responsibilities, performance measures and accountability. Reorganizing the bureaus now before the mission and strategic plans are fully developed and operational could further disrupt the mission and operation of these bureaus. More needs to be done to ensure that each element of the framework is put in place. If it isn’t done in proper sequence, mission, then planning, then structure, this could result in a case of ready, shoot, aim.Now consider the exchange between Congressman Steve King and Mr. Stana:
Mr. KING. And Mr. Stana, you referenced in your testimony that the mission for ICE is national security and not immigration enforcement. And can you reference a policy statement that establishes that? Mr. STANA. I wouldn’t say it is either/or. What I would say would be immigration in the context of national security. I would just reference that to the DHS strategic plans and then the ICE—well, ICE doesn’t have a strategic plan in final form yet, but in their interim plans and CBP plans, they mention the nexus to national security. It doesn’t preclude immigration efforts. Mr. KING. And is there any directive on the part of Congress that you know of that DHS would be reacting to in order to promote that kind of a policy, or do you believe that is an internal conclusion? Mr. STANA. I think what they are doing is taking the mission that was given to them statutorily and interpreting it in that way. I would point out, though, that of all the agencies that are mentioned in the homeland security legislation in 2002, only one was abolished, and that was INS, for whatever reason. And I know some of us have been in hearings for years and years and years, it goes back past the Jordan Commission—talking about how to deal with INS, and apparently one solution was just to dissolve it.I can still recall sitting at that hearing and fuming that 44 months after this nation’s worst terror attack, formulating a finalized strategic plan for immigration law enforcement was beyond the reach of our “leaders” at the DHS — an agency that is so dysfunctional that I have come to refer to it as the “Department of Homeland Surrender.” I was thunder-struck by the response Richard Stana provided when he said that of all of the federal agencies, for “whatever reason,” after the attacks of 9/11, only the INS was abolished. As it turned out, I did not have long to wait to voice my anger and frustration. Rep. King then asked me about attrition issues where ICE agents were concerned and I began by talking about the issue of loss of institutional memory, but then asked to be able to address the statements made by Stana. I explained how it was foolhardy to ignore the importance of routine immigration law enforcement to enhance national security. I strongly suggest you take the time to read the transcript of the hearing. In my judgment, the Bush administration, in creating the DHS, seized the opportunity to abolish the INS and slice it into various components, adding in other agencies and responsibilities and placing managers at the top if each chain of command who had little or no immigration experience to hobble any efforts to enforce immigration laws. The push for globalization and the importation of cheap labor apparently provided the motivation for Bush and others. Today, all too many politicians are guided by greed and avarice, not their oaths of office or commitment to our nation or its citizens. In order to curry favor and campaign contributions, they must “deliver.” While the 9/11 Commission made it clear that the visa process, which the terrorists easily exploited, needed to be tightened up, because of the pressures exerted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its affiliated members, the “Discover America Partnership,” the Visa Waiver Program, which included 26 countries on September 11, 2001 has been incrementally expanded to currently include 38 countries. The Summer 2015 Edition of The Social Contract includes my extensive article, “The 9/11 Commission Report and Immigration: An Assessment, Fourteen Years after the Attacks.” Our immigration laws, it must be noted, make absolutely no distinction whatsoever about the race, religion or ethnicity of aliens who seek to enter the United States. The laws were enacted to protect the safety and well-being being of America and Americans. As the title of my March 23, 2016 Frontpage Magazine stated, “Immigration Law Enforcement Is Not About Xenophobia But Commonsense.” The abysmal failures of the immigration system are hardly a secret. Politicians from both political parties frequently declare that the immigration system is broken — yet most of their proposals to “fix” the broken system would actually greatly exacerbate the problems. Their “solutions” and carefully parsed statements were deviously concocted to create the illusions of solving these problems, while actually doing nothing to impede the flow of cheap foreign labor, foreign tourists and foreign students. Their proposals often run directly opposite the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, especially the notion that since we cannot deport all of the millions of illegal aliens, we must provide them with lawful status even though we have no way of verifying their identities or backgrounds. Such a massive legalization program would do irreparable damage to national security. While the southern border must be made secure, the entire immigration system must have integrity — yet this is an issue that is almost never discussed by anyone. None of the terrorists of 9/11 ran the border. Most terrorists entered the United States through international airports. The lack of integrity to the immigration system enabled terrorists to enter the United States and commit immigration fraud – enabling some to be granted political asylum, lawful immigrant status and even, in some instances, United States citizenship just months before carrying out terror attacks. Cheap labor is not cheap after all, but it comes with an extraordinary price. SOURCE: FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE