Hunter, Sensenbrenner Hold Line: Military & Intel, Illegal Aliens & Driver's Licenses

It could happen any day now: A U.S. military unit heads into an urban combat zone in Iraq's Sunni Triangle. Its members believe they know where Abu Musab Zarqawi is hiding. Their mission is to capture or kill the most murderous terrorist this side of Osama bin Laden.

Their chance of succeeding--and getting back alive--will be enhanced by accurate and timely intelligence fed to them from overhead satellites.

Question: Who should control those satellites?

Should it be the military commanders of the troops heading into combat? Or should it be a civilian bureaucrat--removed from the military chain of command--sitting in a velvet-draped office in Washington, D.C.?

Right now, the military controls the spy satellites that collect "tactical" intelligence for use in combat. Meanwhile, the Central Intelligence Agency uses these very same satellites for collecting "strategic" intelligence (about things like those suspected Iraqi weapons-of-mass-destruction stockpiles that the CIA--while relying on the satellites--did not recruit a single Iraqi spy to track down and verify on the ground).

Licensed Hijackers

The National Security Agency, which intercepts, decodes and translates communications, the National Reconaissance Office, which operates the surveillance satellites themselves, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which analyzes and integrates the data gathered into maps and other combat-usable applications, are all part of the Department of Defense. Their budget requests are generated by the military, and their chain of command runs from the commanders in the field, through the secretary of Defense, to the commander in chief in the White House.

Liberal Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, wants to take authority over these satellites away from the military commanders and give it to a newly minted civilian bureaucrat, known as the National Intelligence Director, who will have ultimate administrative authority over all intelligence operations both military and civilian. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D.-Conn.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, wants to do that, too.

House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter (R.-Calif.) is standing up for American warriors in the field by standing in the way of Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman.

Hunter is right. Collins and Lieberman are wrong. This is the main conflict that has held up the "intelligence reform" bill that Congress is currently considering in response to the report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Now, consider another case. This one, sadly, already came to pass:

Nineteen al Qaeda terrorists board four U.S. jetliners. They identify themselves to the airlines using some of the 63 separate driver's licenses that had been issued to them by various U.S. states--and, in some instances, which they had secured with the help of illegal aliens who had already learned how to manipulate the lax practices of state departments of motor vehicles.

The terrorists hijack the jets and crash them into the twin towers at the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Northern Virginia, and a field in Western Pennsylvania. They murder more than 3,000 people.

In response to these attacks, thousands of U.S. troops are deployed to Afghanistan to root out the terrorist bosses of these calculated killers. A global war on terror is launched. Many billions of dollars are spent. Many brave, young U.S. fighters are killed or wounded in battle.

Almost three years after the September 11, 2001, attacks, a special federal commission set up to study why the U.S. was so vulnerable recommends that the federal government "set standards for the issuance of . . . driver's licenses."

Never mind that it took three years and a panel of muckity-mucks to arrive at this simple, commonsense application of the federal government's core constitutional function of securing the nation against foreign enemies and providing laws to regulate the immigration and naturalization of aliens. The fact is: The recommendation has not yet been implemented.

If another set of al Qaeda killers were to enter the United States this morning--this time walking illegally across the Mexican or Canadian border--many U.S. states would still give them driver's licenses.

This is another conflict holding up the bill in response to the commission's recommendations. House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R.-Wis.) is insisting that the bill actually carry out the commission's recommendation on setting national standards for driver's licenses. The House has proposed language that would effectively bar states from giving licenses to illegal aliens.

Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman are against this, too.

The majority of the Republicans in the House support the principled stand Hunter and Sensenbrenner have taken on the bill. House Speaker Dennis Hastert two weeks ago refused to bring a bill to a vote without the support of these two key chairmen. Liberals in the House, the Senate and the establishment press want to force Hunter and Sensenbrenner to surrender. But these two conservatives are standing up for America. President Bush should stand with them and insist that Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins surrender.

Statement Professor Kris W. Kobach, Associate Professor Of Law, University Of Missouri Kansas City

House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.

H.R. 2671, the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act of 2003 H.R. 2671

OCTOBER 1, 2003

New Section 114-The Issuance of Driver's Licenses to Illegal Aliens. As the Committee is no doubt aware, the issuance of driver's licenses to illegal aliens by some states jeopardizes immigration law enforcement, general law enforcement, and national security. The driver's license effectively serves as the basic identity document in America today. It is a de facto national identity card issued by more than 50 different jurisdictions. Driver's licenses allow illegal aliens to operate with ease in American society and escape the scrutiny that might otherwise occur in routine law enforcement encounters. On our northern border the driver's license operates as an effective substitute for a U.S. passport, allowing an alien who is persuasive in falsely asserting U.S. citizenship to cross the border freely.

Permitting illegal aliens to acquire driver's licenses also opens up opportunities for criminals, whether they be foreign nationals or U.S. citizens. States that allow illegal aliens to possess driver's licenses inevitably reduce the level of identity documentation that is required to obtain a license. The result is that criminals are able to use the lax standards to create false identities backed up by the imprimatur of a driver's license. Such false identities facilitate money laundering, credit card fraud, and check fraud. They also defeat the operation of the NCIC system, because criminals are able to evade arrest warrants by presenting fraudulently-obtained ''clean'' licenses during traffic encounters with local law enforcement officers. Worse, the driver's license becomes a useful tool in the hands of terrorists. Virginia issued licenses to eight of the 9/11 terrorists-licenses that likely were used to board the airplanes on that fateful day.

The most effective solution to this problem would be to make eligibility for federal highway funds contingent upon the states' denying driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Such funds should also be contingent upon states' setting expiration dates so that driver's licenses for legal aliens expire on the date that an alien's period of authorized stay terminates. The only documentation sufficient to qualify an alien for a driver's license should be a valid passport with a valid U.S. visa. This would allow state and local police officers to draw reasonable conclusions from an alien's possession of an unexpired driver's license.

"The author of a House bill that would give 600,000 state and local police officers the authority to enforce federal immigration law has called on immigrant-rights advocates who converged on Capitol Hill this week to 'stand up for immigrants, not criminals,'" the Washington Times writes. "While La Raza and that crowd storm the countryside to rail against the enforcement of immigration laws in this nation, the light of hope held by immigrants and others wanting to live in neighborhoods free from criminal aliens and their violent crimes just grew a little dimmer," said Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA).

WorldNetDaily: AG nominee member of La Raza

La Raza supports legislation such as the Civil Liberties Restoration Act, which would roll back policies adopted after Sept. 11 designed to protect national security. It supports the "DREAM Act," which would mandate states to offer in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens – thus providing them with benefits not available to U.S. citizens from other states.

The group opposes the "Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act of 2003
" and the "Homeland Security Enhancement Act" would give state and local police officers the authority to enforce federal immigration laws.

"While the safety and security of our communities and our country are of the utmost importance, new policies that would allow local police departments to enforce federal civil immigration law will hinder terrorist and other criminal investigations, and have a serious negative impact on Latino communities," La Raza explains.

The group also supports legislation to ensure illegal immigrants' ability to obtain driver's licenses.

National Council of La Raza: News: NCLR WELCOMES NOMINATION OF ...

Murguia also noted Gonzales’ ties to the Hispanic community throughout his career. "Alberto Gonzales served with distinction on the board of directors of one of NCLR’s oldest and most respected affiliates, the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans (AAMA) in Houston, Texas. Moreover, during his tenure as White House Counsel, he has been one of the most accessible members of the White House staff to NCLR and other Hispanic organizations," added Murguia.

Liberalism Implemented By Activist Judges

Arizona Republic) "A federal judge blocked the state of Arizona yesterday from implementing Proposition 200 at least for the next three weeks." Prop 187 all over again. "California judge David Bury granted a temporary restraining order after lawyers hired by The Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund argued that people will be harmed if the voter approved initiative is allowed to take effect. Attorney Hector Villagra said, 'Individuals are likely to be denied benefits to which they are legally entitled." This denies benefits to illegal immigrants just like Prop 187, exactly 187, an activist judge rolls in there and says, "The people don't know what they're talking about. They don't know what to do. Their vote was stupid." He didn't say it that way but that was the impending conclusion of his result, and so he threw it out. This has only been thrown out for three weeks. The state of Arizona responded that the will of the voters is entitled to be obeyed, but the judge, in his four-page ruling said the challenges have raised serious questions about the legality of the initiative.

The judge said, "It seems likely that if Proposition 200 were to become law it would have a dramatic chilling effect upon undocumented aliens who would otherwise be eligible for public benefits under federal law, even though the language of the initiative specifically exempts those programs mandated by federal law." This is the left for you, folks. This is judicial activism. This is how it happens. The people vote. It goes against the will of some liberal judge and the liberal judge throws it out saying, "It's unconstitutional," saying, "It will deny somebody benefits," as though the sole role of the federal government is to provide benefits to illegal immigrants in the country! Speaking of illegal immigrants, by the way, the new label has been coined by the people who hate labels. The left in this country who can't stand to be called "liberals" have come up with a new label: Anti-Immigrant.

President Bush to Nominate Ten Individuals to Serve as Members of ...

The President has nominated David C. Bury to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona.

Liberal Democracy vs. Transnational Progressivism: The Future of the Ideological Civil War Within the West.

The Key Concepts of Transnational Progressivism

The ascribed group over the individual citizen -A person's unique capabilities and outlook have less importance than his membership in the ascriptive groups (racial, ethnic or gender) into which he is born.
A dichotomy of groups: -Oppressor groups vs. Victim groups, with immigrant groups designated as victims The world divides into good and bad groups, with nonwhites, women, immigrants and homosexuals by their very nature in the former category.
Group proportionalism as the goal of "fairness" -"Victim" groups should be represented in all facets of life (executives, prisoners) proportionate to their percentage of the population.
The values of all dominant institutions must be changed to reflect the perspectives of the victim groups- Institutions must shed the outlook of the "oppressor" culture and adopt that of the nonwhite, female, immigrant and homosexual victims.
The Demographic Imperative - Democracy ceases to mean majority rule and becomes a matter of dividing the spoils among those ascriptive groups.
Deconstruction of National Narratives and National Symbols -Traditional notions of history "privilege" the oppressors and must be discarded. In the American case, for example, the conventional emphasis on European settlers is jettisoned in favor of a multicultural "convergence" of three civilizations - Amerindian, West African and European.
Promotion of the concept of Post-National Citizenship. - Instead of giving ultimate allegiance (defined as who you would die for) to the state, a vague loyalty goes to some form of global membership.
The Idea of Transnationalism as a major conceptual tool. States should cede their powers to higher bodies, such as the European Union or the United Nations. In this spirit, Israel's Foreign Minister Shimon Peres has called for a de-emphasis on sovereignty in his region and argued for a Middle Eastern version of the European Union.
Immigrant rights prevail: Immigrants should be able to relocate freely, impose their cultures on and offer only ambiguous loyalty to their new countries of residence. Long-established peoples in a region should accept "multiculturalism" with a smile.
City Journal Winter 2004 | The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave by Heather ...
City Journal Summer 2004 | The Immigrant Gang Plague by Heather ...

I can't agree with the writer concerning the drivers licenses. The following says it better than I can (plus it was easier to copy & paste than write the whole thing out):

From GOA:

Time to Make one Last Push Against the Anti-gun National ID Card
-- Please contact your Senators and Representative

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

December 3, 2004

It's "crunch time" for the 9/11 bill -- and the future of the
anti-gun National ID proposal attached to it.

Those who want to trade their constitutional liberties for a little
false security are aware of this. They were on ABC News on Tuesday
night, demanding National ID's for American citizens.

Gun Owners of America has been educating the public and rallying the
troops against this horrendous idea. GOA Executive Director Larry
Pratt and former Rep. Bob Barr teamed up to place an editorial in The
Washington Times right before Thanksgiving.

Among other things, the editorial notes how this National ID card
will be "a driver's license that, more than likely, will include a
radio identifier chip and some biometric data, allowing the
government to track individual Americans' movements with ease. Every
time we pass through a toll, or board an airplane, or enter a state
or federal government facility, that will be tracked and recorded."

Will microchips really be inserted into your new driver's licenses?
Well, H.R. 10 does not yet call for that, but the momentum is already
pushing in that direction. Realize that the passports which will be
issued by the end of 2005 will have microchips which can read
electronically from as far away as 30 feet.

And according to State Department documents that were released last
week, the Bush administration has opposed safeguards that privacy
advocates contend are needed to prevent identity theft or government
snooping.

In addition to being used as a method of tracking your movements,
these microchips can be, of course, infused with all kinds of
personal information -- such as your medical, financial and library
records, and, oh yes, even your gun owning status.

Those who love the Constitution, love liberty, and love America need
to be vigilant in fighting for their rights.

National ID cards will NOT keep us safer from terrorism. Israel has
a national identification card that uses biometric identifiers -- a
requirement that has hardly stopped suicide bombers from detonating
bombs in crowded areas.

And no one should think that these National ID cards will be
counterfeit-proof. Despite our best efforts and after using
anti-counterfeiting technology, bad guys have still managed to
counterfeit the new $20 bill.

Right now, no one knows whether the impasse on the 9/11 bill --
otherwise known as the Intelligence Reform bill -- will be broken, or
whether pro-Constitution negotiators have succeeded in finally
striking this abomination from the bill.

But we cannot assume that we have won, or that the bill will die.

Rather, we must make one final push -- and must fight every bit as
hard as those who hate our Constitution and want to take away our
liberties.

ACTION: Contact your senators and representative. Ask them to vote
against any Intelligence Reform conference report which authorizes
National ID cards or creates large government databases on the
private affairs of American citizens.

You can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by
visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm on the GOA website.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear

Those who would trade their constitutional rights for a false sense
of security deserve neither.

Provisions in the Intelligence Reform bill which authorize National
ID cards and create large government databases on the private affairs
of Americans do not enhance our security. They diminish it.

On November 24, 2004, GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt and former
Rep. Bob Barr teamed up to place an editorial in The Washington
Times. Among other things, their editorial notes how this National
ID card will be "a driver's license that, more than likely, will
include a radio identifier chip and some biometric data, allowing the
government to track individual Americans' movements with ease. Every
time we pass through a toll, or board an airplane, or enter a state
or federal government facility, that will be tracked and recorded."

I realize that this microchip requirement is not yet in H.R. 10, but
the momentum is obviously pushing in that direction. I'm sure you are
aware of the fact that the passports which will be issued by the end
of 2005 will have microchips which can read electronically from as
far away as 30 feet.

Let's be honest: allowing the government to track U.S. citizens is
not going to do anything to stop real terrorists. Israel has a
national identification card that uses biometric identifiers -- a
requirement that has hardly stopped suicide bombers from detonating
bombs in crowded areas.

Please vote against the conference report on any Intelligence Reform
bill which contains the National ID card or government database
provisions.

Sincerely,

I must say I have a problem with HOW Bush is trying to go about this...he is trying to force a Bill, without cleaning it up, and which includes some VERY BAD legislation -- which includes the driver's license issue with illegals. (still cannot believe he supports this madness)....

My opinion is that this is part of why Tom Ridge is quitting. He is not buying into a piece of crappy legistlation just to be getting it out. Bush is putting the big-time press on this to get it passed...not good.

The only person making logical sense is Sensenbrenner, et al. They ARE RIGHT --- just look at history. Every time the U.S. puts a major policy piece of legilation in place that is heavily flawed, it takes 30 to 40 years to get it rectified...we cannot afford that kind of time while illegals and other potential sources of terrorists and enemies have free reign to cross our borders, just to name ONE OF THE ISSUES IN THIS.

The bill is poorly engineered and contains an ungodly amount of MAJOR PORK... Washington is still drunk on tax money, spending like drunken sailors, and then complaining because we need "SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM" to replace the bucks THEY have stolen from same....Washington is out of control. Votes are more important than THE SECURITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE UNITED STATES...as well as protecting the significance of our laws, the significance of citizenship, our national security, our borders, and the inherent rights of legal, tax-paying citizens -- the one's who pay the overhead that Washington is.

Also, just out this article from NewsMax

Send FedEx Letters to Congress NOW!

You've probably heard that the 9/11 reform bill is being held up in Congress. Thanks to a determined group of conservative House members, the bill was stopped before it could be voted on, and a new "lame-duck" session of Congress is due to try again this coming week to get it passed.

But why did these conservative Congressmen stop the bill? According to Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, it's pretty simple: "The 9/11 reform bill is currently snagged by the Senate's refusal to address three critical issues: Should states continue to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens? Should we tighten our asylum system that terrorists exploited to such deadly effect? Have we ensured the military chain of command is not broken in our intelligence restructuring?"

This isn't a small matter. The military chain of command is a life-or-death issue for our war fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan. Getting this issue wrong, just so we can say we passed a 9/11 bill, could have DEADLY consequences. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), the House Armed Services Committee Chairman, and many military leaders have articulated a lot of the same concerns that Sensenbrenner shares about the current bill in this area.

Intelligence-reform efforts will be wasted if Congress fails to address other security loopholes that the 9/11 hijackers studied to hatch their deadly plans. Once the 19 hijackers arrived here, they were able to secure 63 validly issued driver's licenses. Using these licenses, they were able to blend in and eventually board U.S. planes. Learning from this, the 9/11 Commission Report -- which this legislation is based upon -- recommends that the federal government "set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and other sources of identification, such as driver's licenses. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft." The House sought to implement this recommendation with tough security standards for driver's licenses. The Senate, so far, has largely rejected this approach.

What's so controversial about setting strong standards to stop another terrorist like Hani Hanjour from receiving a driver's license?

The House Republicans also sought to address asylum abuse, especially loopholes that terrorists use. The mastermind of the first World Trade Center attack, and an Egyptian immigrant who killed two people at the Los Angeles airport in 2002, both exploited our asylum system to remain in the U.S. Yet the Senate wants to "study" asylum abuse, and not take action!

Passing the current bill, which FAILS to comprehensively address the problems exposed by 9/11, will simply not do enough to prevent another 9/11. Congress CAN get a good bill -- one that addresses intelligence reform, terrorist asylum abuse and security for driver's licenses -- ONLY when the Senate decides it's willing to tackle these vital issues.

The fact is this -- the Senate is refusing to consider vital border security and immigration provisions in the 9/11 overhaul. The current bill is incomplete and needs work -- work that House Democrats and the Senate are refusing to do. Rep. Sensenbrenner is fighting for better security standards for drivers licenses, and he doesn't believe our national security is improved by issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens.

That makes sense. Page 390 of the 9/11 Commission report states, "The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers licenses. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft."

Sensenbrenner and many dedicated House Republicans are working for a comprehensive approach to preventing another 9/11, instead of a limp, scaled-back bill that focuses only on restructuring the intelligence bureaucracy. What good is better intelligence if we don't control our borders and issue drivers licenses to people whose real identity is suspect? Border security and immigration are an integral part of homeland security -- the Senate needs to address these issues NOW.

We must NOT let the GOP leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives push through a poor bill, just because we "need something now". We need something GOOD. We need to make our voices heard LOUD and CLEAR immediately, before these leaders make a serious mistake and ramrod this bad bill through.
As usual, you can also send a message at no charge to your own Congressman and Senators, telling them to vote for REAL 9/11 reform:

http://www.rightmarch.com/120204.htm

`snip`
www.newmax.com

For your MI ping list. This is an attempt by the left wing and so called moderates to effectively kill any real military intel.

Question: Who should control those satellites?

Should it be the military commanders of the troops heading into combat? Or should it be a civilian bureaucrat--removed from the military chain of command--sitting in a velvet-draped office in Washington, D.C.?

Right now, the military controls the spy satellites that collect "tactical" intelligence for use in combat. Meanwhile, the Central Intelligence Agency uses these very same satellites for collecting "strategic" intelligence (about things like those suspected Iraqi weapons-of-mass-destruction stockpiles that the CIA--while relying on the satellites--did not recruit a single Iraqi spy to track down and verify on the ground).

Licensed Hijackers

The National Security Agency, which intercepts, decodes and translates communications, the National Reconaissance Office, which operates the surveillance satellites themselves, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which analyzes and integrates the data gathered into maps and other combat-usable applications, are all part of the Department of Defense. Their budget requests are generated by the military, and their chain of command runs from the commanders in the field, through the secretary of Defense, to the commander in chief in the White House.

Liberal Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, wants to take authority over these satellites away from the military commanders and give it to a newly minted civilian bureaucrat, known as the National Intelligence Director, who will have ultimate administrative authority over all intelligence operations both military and civilian. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D.-Conn.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, wants to do that, too.

House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter (R.-Calif.) is standing up for American warriors in the field by standing in the way of Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman.

Hunter is right. Collins and Lieberman are wrong. This is the main conflict that has held up the "intelligence reform" bill that Congress is currently considering in response to the report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.