No Illegal Left Behind Pt. 2: Justice Blind or a Blind Justice?

By Diane M. Grassi

“I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear faith and allegiance to the same.” – Oath of U.S. Citizenship

When the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was absorbed by the formation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, it also received a title change now referred to as the USCIS or the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. But the new agency designation did not relieve those who wish to enter the United States from abiding by the laws of the U.S., further upheld by the U.S. Constitution.

According to the USCIS a person is a U.S. citizen if ALL of the following are true: One of your parents was a U.S. citizen when you were born; your citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before you were born; at least 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after your citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

Absence of these criteria requires a number of steps starting with a “foreign alien” applying for a visa, establishing residency by applying for a green card followed by a five-year process leading to an application to become a U.S. naturalized citizen.

U.S. immigration law has gone through several changes and revisions evolving into the current 1990 Immigration Act, effective October 1, 1991. It represented the most comprehensive change in U.S. immigration law since 1965. Revised again in 1996 and still with continual proposals for changes in legislation in the wake of 9/11, it is unfortunate that the revisions to our immigration law have largely led to our downfall with respect to security and acts of terrorism. Lack of enforcement of those regulations which still have teeth in our immigration law will only lead to continuation of extenuating fiscal challenges and our future demise.

The first immigration law was passed by the United States Congress in 1862, restricting immigration to the U.S. Later in the 1800’s the U.S. Congress passed acts which prevented convicts, polygamists, prostitutes and persons suffering from contagious diseases to enter the U.S. And in 1917, Congress passed an immigration law that required a literacy test. Aliens unable to meet minimum mental, moral, physical and economic standards were excluded from the U.S. as well.

In 1921, a Congressional enactment created a quota system for immigrants, by which the number of aliens of any nationality admitted to the U.S. in a given year could not exceed three percent of the number of foreign-born residents of that nationality living in the U.S., and in 1924 the basic immigration quotas were changed to a system based upon the desirability of different nationalities.

Effective October 1, 1991, the U.S. immigration law changed considerably. These changes were the result of the Immigration Act of 1990, while retaining the basic principles of the earlier legislation, provided the most comprehensive change in legal immigration since 1965 and arguably at the expense of American citizens.

With the most lax immigration laws on our books and admitted non-enforcement by the former INS in the 9/11 Commission Report, they require no incentive for foreign aliens to go through the bureaucratic process when the floodgates remain open at our southern as well as our northern borders. And with the proposed Guest Worker and amnesty programs for “undocumented workers” being bantered about by the Bush administration, it becomes even less likely that legalities will be adhered to by either the USCIS or those of foreign alien status. With upwards of thousands of illegal aliens seeping through our Swiss cheese border on a daily basis from Mexico, which accounts for the majority of illegal aliens in the U.S., the intent of our fabled immigration law has become just that, a fairy tale.

To wit, a New York Supreme Court judge in Manhattan on 2/18/05 ordered that the state of NY refrain from taking away the driver’s licenses of “immigrants” who do not have Social security cards, stating that the Department of Motor Vehicles is not authorized to enforce immigration law or to make new rules without public notice.

The DMV began a license crackdown last year that was expected to result in the loss of driving privileges for as many as 300,000 illegal aliens in NY state this year and has already led to the suspension of about 7,000 licenses. The order, by Justice Karen S. Smith, was fortunately temporary, and reflected her preliminary opinion that “immigrant drivers” would suffer irreparable harm unless the crackdown was stopped while the court considers a class-action lawsuit brought on their behalf, and that the “immigrants’” suit was likely to prevail.

Filed last August against Governor George Pataki and Raymond Martinez, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, the suit was brought by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund on behalf of those illegal aliens living in NY who have been denied a driver’s license for lack of a verifiable Social Security number or an immigration document satisfactory to the Department of Motor Vehicles. No more suspensions are likely to occur until after a hearing set for April 7, 2005.

Elizabeth Forman, an assistant NY state attorney general representing the government, said no decision had been made about whether to appeal the order, which temporarily bars the state from denying the renewal of licenses because of immigration status, but does not affect its handling of new license applications. NY is among a dozen states that by law do not limit driver’s licenses to legal residents only.

In the mid-1990’s, to improve child-support enforcement, NY’s DMV added a requirement that applicants must provide a Social Security number. Then two years ago, NY state began requiring an original Social Security card for new driver’s license applicants, and last year began warning drivers that it would rescind the licenses for drivers who supplied non-valid Social Security numbers documentation. State officials said the actions were taken to combat fraud and terrorism in light of 9/11.

The ultimate irony in this case is that the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund is representing the plaintiffs fighting for the “legal” return of their driver’s licenses. According to U.S. immigration law, there is a provision which automatically gives Puerto Rican born residents immediate U.S. citizenship status. One would wonder if the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund will next work with the Mexican Consular in annexing Mexico to the U.S., in an effort to put to rest all of our annoying laws.

The participation or the obstruction of participation of various advocates, lobby groups, legislators, legislatures and courts in resolving issues surrounding illegal immigration, should be relative to the implementation of myriad regulations already on the books. The U.S. citizenry is a composite of legally born U.S. citizens and naturalized citizens who abided by the law in order to receive their benefit of U.S. citizenship status. But those citizens advocating the enforcement of our immigration law and its regulations are far too easy targets of hatred and labeled as “racist.” So the heart of this dilemma is an effort by our political leadership to enforce political correctness rather than performing their duty in doing what is inherently right.

Just the fact that illegal aliens are suing the state of NY for a “legal” right for the privilege of driving, on its face is laughable. But since a dozen states now allow such obfuscation of immigration law, it will be difficult in putting the proverbial cat back into the bag. The Real ID Act which passed in the U.S. House of Representations on 2/15/05 will have a far bigger battle in the U.S. Senate, and may be too little done too late in providing the prevention of issuance of driver’s licenses to those without proof of valid Social Security numbers.

Most importantly, just like we cannot win the War on Terror with political correctness we will never be able to reel in the necessary mechanisms for enforcement of immigration law unless real efforts are made to protect the interests of the American people. While studies and polls consistently cite the American public’s desire to at least close our borders while we remain at war, it would also present a window for our government to seriously tackle security issues raised by the 9/11 Commission with respect to our immigration policy.

Especially at this time in the history of the U.S., America needs to maintain its sovereignty and strive to become a melting pot once again where deserving immigrants assimilate and make a valid contribution to the American experience. Race baiting, political correctness, a skittish Congress and judges with an agenda will only serve to destroy the American Dream for those already here and for those aspiring towards it, and striving to do so legally.

NO ILLEGAL LEFT BEHIND

By Diane M. Grassi

Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security nominee, will most likely be sworn in after an expected full Senate confirmation within the next week. He will still have much of an uphill climb ahead of him in overseeing the relatively new agency created in 2002. Former Homeland Security Secretary, Tom Ridge, was given few guidelines in merging the INS as well as 22 other agencies including the Secret Service and the Coast Guard, in an effort to implement better border security, port security, protecting our railroads, highways, waterways and energy plants with great haste.

The HSA also works in concert with the Transportation Security Agency, also newly created in November of 2001 shortly after the 9/11 attacks. And as communities and cities nationwide still struggle with absorbing the added expenses of security and oversight, the proper allocation of funds for first responders in high risk areas is still being deliberated on Capitol Hill.

Although the public is no longer bombarded with the color code alert system, phased out by Secretary Ridge prior to his departure, there is no question that holes remain in our homeland security with our national sovereignty at risk. All too often it comes down to an overactive political pendulum in the name of party expediency, leaving the public to suffer.

Recently we learned the Mexican Foreign Consulate issued a comic book style “how to manual” for illegal “immigrants” titled “A Guide for the Mexican Immigrant” with blow-by-blow advice on circumventing the U.S. Border Patrol on our southern border and U.S. authorities within our interior. Added to that is the acceptance by counties in California of the ‘matricula consular’ as legitimate IDs in the U.S., only needed by people who are not legally in the U.S. in the first place. Relying on the Mexican Consular ID for purposes of identification is tantamount to admitting that the bearer is in the U.S. illegally, as it is not recognized as a legal instrument in the U.S. Every non-citizen other than an illegal alien, which is the proper legal term, is required to possess identity documents issued by the U.S. government such as a valid visa.
The effective enforcement of our laws already on the books is critical to our security and survival, especially as we prosecute the on-going War On Terror. We seem intent on shoring up the borders of Iraq and spend billions of dollars on airport security, yet our government seems to have a blind spot when it comes to the sanctity of our own borders. As such we are more vulnerable to the terrorists we are fighting in the Middle East if we do not defend our nation’s borders.

Alien smugglers compromise the security of our borders by facilitating the illegal movement of aliens across them without being inspected as required by law. The smugglers are often violent, employing snipers to take out Border Patrol agents and endanger the lives of the aliens they smuggle in and for that reason alone our border requires beefed up security.

Such illegal aliens who gain entry into the U.S. who are not lawfully admitted nevertheless wind up on the streets of our cities and towns. They are not screened as they enter the U.S. and thus we have no record of their entry nor do we have a record of their presence here. While the majority of the illegal aliens who gain access to the U.S. in this fashion do so with the intention of simply gaining illegal employment, unfortunately our porous border is a sieve allowing drug dealers, terrorists and assorted felons into the U.S. as well, evading the inspections process.

The public needs to be informed about the efforts being made or not being made to apprehend the people who violate these laws and to enhance the enforcement of our borders not to diminish such security while forfeiting the lives of our Border Patrol agents. We are long past the point of recognizing the enormous cost to our social services, healthcare, schools, jobs, infrastructure and prisons we all must collectively bear brought by our unenforced laws. An unaccountable Congress and presidential administration barely addressed the topic during the past presidential and Congressional election cycle.

But as recently as the president’s State of the Union address, he once again used the misguided phrase, “jobs that Americans don’t want,” to justify his looking the other way when upwards of 5,000 illegal aliens enter our southern border each day. His ideology is a fallacy and only helps to jeopardize the health of our economy as well as the health of our national security. His Guest Worker Program proposal will only exacerbate the problem.

While the unenforcement of immigration laws is a big part of the problem, employers as well as small businesses and individuals also continue to evade the law. The phrase, “jobs that Americans don’t want,” is a travesty and is more about cooking the books than one actually not wanting to stand behind a hot stove. Many landscapers, for example, pay a decent wage for work once predominantly held by legal residents, but many avoid the law by not paying the proper Social Security or payroll taxes to the government. Therefore, they can afford to pay a $10.00 an hour wage to an illegal alien, which for a U.S. student or young person is almost twice the minimum wage, and is not a bad wage or a bad job to hold. Americans competing with illegals for unskilled labor jobs do not have a chance if a small businessman is looking to obfuscate paying into the system. It has nothing to do with “lazy Americans” but is rather about greed and unaccountability. And after all, who supposedly did these “low paying” jobs prior to just ten years ago when the illegal invasion started to reach its peak?
The recently passed overhauled intelligence bill known as the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act was signed into law on 12/17/04 by President Bush. It called for adding 2,000 Border Patrol agents each year for a period of five years beginning in fiscal year 2006 but will now not be funded by the president’s budget proposal just given to the Congress. Therefore instead of adding 2,000 agents per year it will total no more than 200 agents per year.

The bill was passed in response to the 9/11 Commission Report’s recommendations and the Senate hearings which followed the issuing of the report. Sadly, before Tom Ridge left office on 2/01/05 he stated, “It would be an insufficient use of homeland security funds,” when referring to adding the 2,000 agents. Much like with his No Child Left Behind Act, the president received much criticism by many members of both the House and the Senate, because his own mandate lacks the proper funding for his keynote legislation in order to be effective.

House Judiciary Chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (WI-R), introduced the Real ID Act of 2005 or H.R. 418, which was successfully passed by the House of Representatives on 2/10/05. It readdresses the use of a driver’s license as a valid form of identification for a federal official. Sensenbrenner and Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA-R) were fighting for such language in the 2004 intelligence bill but it was eventually yanked. “It will establish tough rules for confirming identity before temporary driver’s licenses are issued” according to Sensenbrenner. In addition the bill calls for the rebuilding of a 3-mile border fence at Imperial Beach bordering San Diego County which had been torn down. Environmentalists are now opposing reestablishment of the fence for their own reasons. The bill also provides for a mechanism for the deportation of illegal aliens seeking asylum, if proven necessary. Although this added legislation looks like a real effort to right perceived oversights in the 2004 Act, it will have difficulty passing in the Senate, and still does little in the way of securing our borders.

And while a lot of glad handing continues on Capitol Hill, the president’s new budget proposal also would require the security of our ports to compete with other transit systems for security grants in contrast to the Maritime Security Act of 2004, which would have supplied the necessary funding for port security on its own through 2009, but was tabled by the Congress at the end of 2004.

Neither grandiose promises by the president or the Congress will fulfill priority funding for our nation’s security. It should not come down to what sells at the moment with promises of funding legislation without serious intent. Our security policy is a national issue first and one of the few areas where partisanship was to be checked at the door. Especially while still at war, while still hunting down the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks, our security laws should be immune to the conflicts imposed by political correctness, pork barreling legislation and back-pedaling justice.

And as the Republican Party fondly looks upon illegal aliens as a reservoir for cheap labor, and the Democratic Party looks to them as a future voting block, neither will take a stand, as party self-interests sadly take precedence over the best interests of the American people once again. Not until that seriously changes, our border policies and security will continue to be compromised and leaving us at unnecessary risk.

BACK-UP WARRIORS FILL UNRECOGNIZED ROLE

By Diane M. Grassi

For those who take real chances in their lives and who do so all in the interest of a better good are rightly and deservedly praised. Most recently the president, in his 2005 State of the Union Address starting off his 2nd term in office, thanked Congress “for providing our servicemen and women with the resources they have needed……and must continue to…….. give them the tools for victory.”

And as lip service and praise is given to our heroic troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the perceived success of the Iraqi people in their elections on January 30th, we are however provided a skewed view of another group of heroes who have often gotten overlooked, and in the capacity they have served our country in Iraq.

Many of our U.S. legislators will not admit that there is a need to officially reassess the structure of our armed services and our supply of available troops in light of the prolonged war in Iraq to make good on “providing our servicemen and women with the resources they have needed.” It would only be but healthy to do so in order to maintain our forces worldwide and to have the national guard available in the U.S. for matters of national regard and security.

Given that nearly 50% of the U.S. armed forces serving in Iraq are made up by the Army Reserve and our National Guard with deployments ongoing for up to 18 months, the 2005 yearly quota for recruiting reservists combined with reenlistments is down as much as 15%, and continues to decrease the longer the war goes on. How wise it is to depend so much on often aging reservists with growing families left behind in the midst of careers has been addressed on Capitol Hill, but not with any great fervor.

And shortage of troops has had a direct effect on another issue not being addressed, which is the “invisible” front line. There has been little media coverage as well as a lack of recognition to those who fill a void in those situations where there has been a shortage of combat soldiers serving in Iraq. And they are our female troops who are more and more found in the line of fire. Nearly 15% of those serving in Iraq are female soldiers who have included fighter pilots, combat helicopter pilots, as well as transport pilots. While not on the ground, but very much a part of the fall of Saddam Hussein, as well as with the ongoing transport of soldiers and supplies, they are flying above the front lines, often risking their lives.

But while not relegated to combat status, many female troops have recently been deployed with the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division for added “forward support companies” with supply and support services for infantry, armor and special forces and will find themselves on the “front lines” of Iraq, as terrorists do not acknowledge that line of demarcation between the front and back lines.

Prior to this acknowledged addition and admission by the Army this past November, female troops have been serving unacknowledged in this capacity since the beginning of the War in Iraq. Former POW’s Jessica Lynch and Shoshana Johnson and the death of Lori Piestawa were covered in the media as the exception to the rule, during their service in the supply line for the infantry, when caught in an ambush in 2003.

Presently, U.S. law prohibits women from serving in combat units. At issue is a separate Army regulation which also prohibits women from serving in front line support units. The Army claims the female troops in the 3rd Infantry are not “assigned” to the units but rather “attached” and therefore is following all laws and regulations. Since the Army is hiding behind its definitions, it stands by its decision in not advising the Congress, required by law, of its change to embed female troops with combat personnel. These roles until now were officially only held by male troops.

The traditional lines between combat and support functions have been blurred particularly by the characteristics of the War in Iraq. But the Army is also blurring the lines of the actual service these female troops are providing, while not having to credit them for it or provide the necessary training their male counterparts previously received. So often, with just basic infantry training, women are led to fend off attacks as well as protecting their comrades, much as if they were trained combat soldiers.

This is not at all a call for women to serve as combat troops. Advocates on one side are pushing for the status change of permitting women the right to engage as combat soldiers which is a different matter. Others believe this is an indirect way to unilaterally force women into combat situations, whether they want that assignment or not, whether capable or not and speaks to issues of proper training. Most important is providing our troops with the best training and equipment with the inherent ability to be as flexible as possible if need be. This is not an issue of gender but rather about one of sound policy-making.

That policy will ultimately fall upon the shoulders of the Pentagon and then hashed out by Congress most likely after the operation in Iraq. But let us not hail a policy which forbids women in combat while we use them in the air for battle operations and leave them on the ground without the appropriate training when caught in enemy fire. Given the volatile environment in Iraq which our soldiers must face, and many of them women reservists who are not active duty status, they are put further into harm’s way as we do not “train women for combat operations” according to the Army. That ultimately reflects upon the safety and security of all of our troops.

But putting policy aside for a moment, these women who have given their lives in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan - to date 32 with over 200 casualties - and those who continue to serve will never get the true recognition for the roles they play, mainly given the government’s continued denial that women do not serve in combat, and as a reminder to discourage such policy. Semantics aside, they are heroes nevertheless, and rather than covering up bad policy and skirting the real issues facing our forces in a post-9/11 world in the U.S. and abroad, it should be dealt with head on. There is no shame in doing so, but rather there is in denying our troops the best training and best chance to succeed, whether they be men or women. Let us not set up our women soldiers to fail, and then use them as scapegoats for failed missions.

Our security in the world and on our own soil depends just as much on sound policy and leadership as it does on state-of-the art weaponry. So let us give our troops the advantage of benefiting from both in order for them to successfully fulfill that mission.