Bush administration again lies about border security: Debra Burlingame

9/11 Families for America ^ | June 16, 2006 | Tim Sumner

[Sergeant Tim]

Last night, Constitutional expert and talk-radio host Mark Levin spoke with Debra Burlingame about the now revived ‘Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.’ The proponents of the bill in Congress and the administration are lying to the American people. That is not new news:

Debra Burlingame: “This amnesty bill is really a boom to the enemy. I guarantee you that al Qaeda has their guys lined up to get their amnesty, the ones already here and the ones who will come here. They will defraud this system to get their Social Security cards… How do we know that? There is a history for it. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, there were more than 10 people associated with and convicted in that. Three of them got amnesty by claiming the were agricultural workers under a … special agricultural workers program that was part of the 1986 amnesty. Thank you very much, Ted Kennedy.

“The CIA shooter who murdered two people outside Langley [CIA HQs], he applied for amnesty in 1986 and was declined. He stayed anyhow because we had no way of knowing that he was still here. We didn’t have an entry and exit and entry system. So, Congress ordered one up in 1996 and … we haven’t got it still. In fact, last fall [Secretary of Homeland Security] Michael Chertoff said building one would be cost prohibitive, it would cost billions of dollars and would take more than ten years. One of the things they are saying about this bill is, it is going to have an entry and exit system. That’s a lie. These people will not go home and we will have no proof whether they did or not.”

Mark Levin: “They are still litigating in the courts whether or not it is Constitutional for our government to require people who leave the country to report that they are leaving the country.”

Debra Burlingame: “…Michelle Malkin has a phrase, “It is not over, legally, until the alien wins.” I went through this bill … I went directly to border security because that was what interested me most. Every single provision has this phrase before you get to the details, “Subject to the availability of funds.” ... That's what they do when they pass these bills, they hold back the funds.

"What documents are they going to accept to prove identity with these millions and millions of people? In 2002, this was five years ago and the problem has gotten worse, the GAO did a report and they found “rampant and pervasive document fraud.” There is a backlog of Green Card cases, this in 2002, they had a backlog then of four million cases, an increase of 50% over six years and the report said, “The staff is rewarded for timely handling of petitions,” rather than scrutiny on the merits. How is this going to happen now if suddenly they are inundated with 12 to 20 million applications…”

Mark Levin: “They can’t do it. It is absolutely impossible. They can’t do it and they won’t do it.”

Debra Burlingame: “And they know they can’t do it. They are lying to the American people.

"Meanwhile, I had someone very high up in this administration tell me when I asked him, point blank … this before I was able to read the whole thing because they snuck this in and wanted to get it passed in 48 hours without anyone reading it … will this bill have authority for state and local law enforcement to enforce these laws... “Absolutely,” said this member of the Bush administration. Three days later, when all those amendments were being poured out on to the floor of the Senate, out came an amendment giving state and local law enforcement the ability with probable cause to scrutinize the legal presence of a suspect if they have probable cause to believe a person is here illegally. That was roundly voted down. So this person was not only not telling me the truth, when someone tried to put it in there, it was voted out.

"This is undemocratic, what they are doing. And we know that people -- however they feel about how these people should be managed that are here -- 80% polled say give us border security first and they are not doing it."

Mark Levin: "Why won't they do it?"

Debra Burlingame: "I think a clue is when you look at President Bush, who announced his phoney gesture of good faith, four-point-four billion dollars for a fence ... they are going to build half of what they enacted last year, he was addressing a construction trade association, the biggest users of cheap labor. I think they want an endless supply". [Editor -- This transcript above is of the first half of the interview. The entire interview can be heard at the bolded link.]

Congress and the Bush administration have used “subject to the availability of funds” to not fully implement the border security provisions of every bill they have passed and signed into law since 9/11.

The 'Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act' authorized 10,000 new border agents, 40,000 additional detention beds, and 4,000 new immigration enforcement agents yet all three were funded well below 50% of authorization. In fact, the Bush administration attempted to provide a mere 210 new border agents for FY 2006 yet was eventually forced to fund 700 new agents for both FY 2006 and 2007.

Congress overwhelmingly passed the REAL ID Act and President Bush signed it into law on May 11, 2005. Its implementation was waived until the end of next year and the administration has yet to speak out against its proposed repeal. While Peter Gadiel says, “The CATO Institute and ACLU have successfully lobbied states to not implement the provisions of the ‘REAL ID Act’,” due to “privacy concern,” the federal government has provided them further cover by authorizing less than half the needed funding

Concerning the current immigration bill's entry and exit system proposal, “In December 2006, the Bush administration decided to shelve plans to develop a facial or fingerprint recognition system to track whether international visitors leave the country on time via one of the country's many land ports of entry, although such a system is being deployed at international-gateway airports.”

Many states have authorized Mexico’s matricula ID card to be used (to varying degrees) as official proof of a person’s identity, even though one can easily be obtained on a street corner. When issued by Mexican consulates, the breeder documents accepted are highly suspect. A Mexican official has said, “[T]hey rely on the expertise of the staff in the 47 consulates to visually authenticate the documents,” yet standards vary from consulate to consulate. In addition, there probably never will be a single database for these cards. Despite these inherent security weaknesses, they are often used as picture ID to board commercial aircraft and have been used to enter federal buildings. The Bush administration has conspiring with Mexico to further a “silent amnesty” policy by allowing matricula ID cards to be used in lieu of passport and visa requirements.

We must end their lies by demanding that they secure our borders first.

[omnivore]

"Meanwhile, I had someone very high up in this administration tell me when I asked him, point blank … this before I was able to read the whole thing because they snuck this in and wanted to get it passed in 48 hours without anyone reading it … will this bill have authority for state and local law enforcement to enforce these laws... “Absolutely,” said this member of the Bush administration. Three days later, when all those amendments were being poured out on to the floor of the Senate, out came an amendment giving state and local law enforcement the ability with probable cause to scrutinize the legal presence of a suspect if they have probable cause to believe a person is here illegally. That was roundly voted down. So this person was not only not telling me the truth, when someone tried to put it in there, it was voted out."

LOL! It's all a mis-understaaaaaanding. You see, when the administration spokesmouth said LEAs could enforce "these laws," they meant that LEAs could enforce the new laws and regulations that would be promulgated upon the passage of the bill itself, meaning, they could enforce the non-investigation of suspects who they have reason to believe are illegals. So, for instance, if a local LEA tries to investigate the status of a non-English-speaker who was arrested for some random offense, the state or fed LEAs would "enforce the law," by going after the local LEA for violating the law. Very simple, don't you see? There are enforcement provisions. Just not the ones you want.

PS I can't claim to care a lot either way about this whole issue in particular. But it does drive me crazy when people in government aren't honest and straight with the rest of us. You would think if they had any actually good arguments for the bill they're pushing, they would have mentioned them by now. Instead all they do is hurl abuse and spread lies. That tells me a lot about them right there.

[restornu]

What is scarier more than anything is if they are caught up to doing harm they will be tried in the court system and not as combatants

[nicmarlo]

So, for instance, if a local LEA tries to investigate the status of a non-English-speaker who was arrested for some random offense, the state or fed LEAs would "enforce the law," by going after the local LEA for violating the law. Very simple, don't you see?

Yeah...it's as clear as mud. It's a whole lot of twisting and turning for appearances....which is nothing more than bald deceit.

PS I can't claim to care a lot either way about this whole issue in particular. But it does drive me crazy when people in government aren't honest and straight with the rest of us. You would think if they had any actually good arguments for the bill they're pushing, they would have mentioned them by now. Instead all they do is hurl abuse and spread lies. That tells me a lot about them right there.

Well, I do care about this issue. I suppose there wouldn't be the "concern" if they were the upfront, honest, lawmakers they were hired to be, and paid to be, working for US citizens....as you said...instead, they have nothing but contempt for those who pay their salaries and they give themselves perks and benefits by taking our money...and then spit on us.

[GFritsch]

I believe the WND article was a factful compendium of various facts and figures tossed about by the few honorable reporters left at the LA Times.

When a fact is put forth to a left-wing editor as inconspicuously as possible, it will escape him as most left-wing editors are nitwits.

Had we time on our hands I'm certain that an exhaustive search would reveal exactly those facts.

[sono]

W is in a match race with Dingy Harry - first one to an approval rating of zero wins.