Posted on 01/06/2003 8:33:03 AM PST by Sabertooth
It's hard not to feel sorry for Mohammed Asghar, a Lahore jeweller who woke up the other morning to find his picture in the paper along with the news that the FBI were looking for him. Not a good way to start the day. The FBI didn't know they were looking for Mr. Asghar. They thought they were looking for Mustafa Khan Owasi, under whose name they released the photograph of Mr. Asghar. Mr. Owasi is one of five highly suspicious men Americans were urged to be alert for in the run-up to New Year's Eve. They may or may not have entered the United States using false British passports, or Canadian, or some other form of documentation. But what we do know is that they're Arab, unless they're Pakistani or some other nationality, and that they crossed over the Ontario/New York border, or possibly the British Columbia/Washington border, or via some other route entirely. Or they may not be in North America at all. But, if they are, they look like the guys in these photographs, except for the one of that jeweller in Lahore who's never been to the United States. So, wherever you are on the planet, keep your eyes peeled for five guys who look like the sort of guys who, if they were going to use fake picture ID, would use the kind of fake picture ID with a picture of this particular jeweller from Lahore on it. I'm all for lulling the enemy into a false sense of security, but, if you're going to bluff them into thinking you're clueless, I think the FBI have to be a bit less obvious. Anyway, Mr. Asghar thinks his identity may have fallen into the wrong hands a couple of months ago when he decided to take a trip to Britain. As one does when planning a vacation, he got himself a full set of false travel documents. Unfortunately, immigration officials in Dubai spotted they were phony, and sent him back to Pakistan. Although he concedes a fake copy of his fake ID could have been passed to some other fellow, Mr. Asghar denies he has any links to terrorism. "I don't know who misused my travel documents," he says, indignantly. This has caused great mirth among some Americans: How dare some other fellow misuse my fake documents! They're for me to misuse! It's true that Lahore is a hotbed of false document manufacturing. But, on the other hand, so is the United States. Millions of Americans have fake ID. To name one example, Jenna Bush. Here's another: Salvador Martinez-Gonzalez. Mr. Martinez-Gonzalez is an illegal immigrant who spent two happy years working at the White House, setting up tents for receptions and other events in the grounds. He was arrested on December 2nd while attempting to re-enter the U.S. from Mexico. Touchingly, among the items found on his person were snapshots of him with Bill Clinton, Vice-President Cheney and other luminaries. The Secret Service huffily insist he didn't wangle his way into the joint with false identification. Their position is that he used "legitimate identification he'd purchased from someone else." So that's OK. They also say that he posed no security threat. Given that his photo album shows him standing right next to the President, if he posed no security threat it's mainly because he chose not to, rather than because of anything the Secret Service did. He got far closer to the big guy than most of the world's Prime Ministers ever get, and with a bag of tent hooks and other sharp instruments. As CNN's Candy Crowley pointed out, when she applied for her first White House press pass, she had to undergo a six-month background check, which included the Secret Service asking her neighbours if she did drugs. That's for the privilege of being miles from the President, sitting at the back of the briefing room getting ignored by Ari Fleischer. But, if you want to operate a nail gun in the Rose Garden, feel free to walk right in. America is nothing if not a land of contrasts. But generally speaking a good rule of thumb is this: where no formal verification of identity is remotely necessary, you'll be asked for a ton of it; where it might conceivably be useful, you'll breeze through. If they ever do push through this mandatory Federal Identity Card, you can bet you'll be required to produce it if you want to enrol your three-year old in the Thomas The Tank Engine Junior Engineers' Club at your neighbourhood toy store, entitling you to 5% off your tenth purchase of Thomas-related items. But you'll never be asked for it if you want a baggage-screening job on Air Force One, and, even if you are, you'll be able to buy one for 30 bucks from a guy in a parking lot. Maybe the Secret Service are right and all the fellows with "legitimate identification purchased from someone else" pose no security threat. But, in her riveting exposé of the immigration bureaucracy, Invasion, Michelle Malkin does a superb job of connecting the particular lapses of September 11th with the broader "undocumented" culture in the U.S. One vignette is especially choice: A month before their rendezvous with destiny, two of the 9/11 killers drove to Falls Church, Virginia, to the parking lot of a 7-Eleven where "undocumented" Hispanics congregate in search of casual labour. The terrorists were in search of ID, and it pretty much fell into their lap. Luis Martinez-Flores, an illegal from El Salvador who's been in America since 1994, approached their car and offered his services. He accompanied them to the nearest Department of Motor Vehicles office, supplied the al-Qaeda guys with fake addresses for the residency forms and certified that they lived there. The ID was processed on the spot, and afterwards the trio drove back to the 7-Eleven where Hanjour and Almidhar withdrew a hundred bucks from the ATM and paid off Mr. Martinez-Flores. Newly certified as lawful residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Osama's boys returned to the DMV the very next day to walk two of their fellow terrorists through the same process. These were the photo IDs with which all four boarded Flight 77 -- the one that crashed into the Pentagon. Virginia's non-system was by no means unique: 13 of the 19 murderers had Florida licences, though none were residents thereof. Want to make it harder for terrorists to acquire the bona fides of a solid citizen? Good luck. Across America, an alliance of immigration advocacy groups, state bureaucracies, local school boards, law enforcement, the Democratic Party and a substantial chunk of the Republican Party (including the President) is wedded to the notion that the best way to deal with the country's vast army of the "undocumented" is to turn a blind eye when they come to the DMV wicket -- and that way they'll all gradually acquire their documents, and be eligible for welfare, education, health care and ultimately to vote for the Democrats in large numbers and (so Bush dreams) for the Republicans in small but significant numbers. To facilitate this, the state now willingly processes a vast amount of paperwork it knows to be at best incomplete and at worst utterly false. If this was ever a good idea, it isn't since September 11th: If five al-Qaeda Pakistanis on British passports really did slip across the border -- well, OK, not "slip," that makes it sound as if it requires some skill -- but, if they really did get across the 49th parallel, all they have to do is hook up with America's "undocumented" support network and the Tennessee DMV will do the rest. Meanwhile, conservatives who are churlish enough to complain about all this get damned as "racist," even by some in their own party, who tut that objecting to what happened in Virginia will make it even harder for Republicans to reach out to minorities. One can respect those who are anti-immigration or pro-immigration, but to be pro-illegal immigration is to collude in the corrosion of civic infrastructure. Rewarding the "undocumented" undermines the legitimacy of the state's official databases -- driver's licences, passports, Social Security -- and makes it more likely they'll turn to tracking you on unofficial, shadowy ones. But, 16 months after 9/11, enlightened opinion is as stubborn as ever on this issue. Which has done more harm to America? Fake documents from Lahore or fake documents from Falls Church? Mohammed Asghar is right: It's outrageous that someone misused his false ID. On the other hand, the lucky beneficiary may already be working as a White House under-gardener.
So long as we think some fake IDs, such as the one at right that President Bush's daughter Barbara was caught using, are ok (see FR threads on how "everyone does it"), we are going to have illegals and criminals getting fake IDs.
Until we take all fake documents seriously, we will continue to have problems with illegals and criminals.
You cannot have one policy for the underage drinkers and another for the illegals and criminals, and expect that it can be maintained.
LOL!
But generally speaking a good rule of thumb is this: where no formal verification of identity is remotely necessary, you'll be asked for a ton of it; where it might conceivably be useful, you'll breeze through. If they ever do push through this mandatory Federal Identity Card, you can bet you'll be required to produce it if you want to enrol your three-year old in the Thomas The Tank Engine Junior Engineers' Club at your neighbourhood toy store, entitling you to 5% off your tenth purchase of Thomas-related items. But you'll never be asked for it if you want a baggage-screening job on Air Force One, and, even if you are, you'll be able to buy one for 30 bucks from a guy in a parking lot.
More painful truth. But anybody who objects gets the usual "Agggh we're at war!" and so on. Never mind that this nonsense won't make us any safer--the sheeple will feel safer.
Wrong wicket. This is a wicket that almost all Americans go through to get what is now standard identification. I've known blind people who get "drivers" licenses with the restriction that they're not allowed to drive, so that they can have acceptable ID for writing a check. Whether or not such a source of standard ID is a good or bad idea, making it hard to get a driver's license will get a lot of people legitimately annoyed.
There are two problems here: 1. Keeping dangerous people out of the country, legally and illegally. 2. Keeping illegals from getting welfare benefits.
Second problem first, the problem isn't getting identification. It's the range of unnecessary services that the country provides. Decrease or eliminate government welfare provisions and illegals won't be taking as much of them. Get the government out of health care there will be fewer illegals getting such benefits.
As for keeping dangerous people out, we need better security at the borders and better screening of people who are allowed in. My libertarian streak tells me that anyone who wishes to come to this country to work for a living should be allowed to. But my streak for keeping the country secure tells me that those coming in should have to be checked, carefully, before they are allowed in and those who try to sneak in without going through such checks should be stopped.
Making it hard to get in, except through proper procedure will make things difficult for would-be terrorists. Making it hard to get government benefits, will make things difficult for people who come to the U.S. to collect benefits without work. Making it hard to get a driver's license will make things difficult for all of us.
If this was ever a good idea, it isn't since September 11th: If five al-Qaeda Pakistanis on British passports really did slip across the border -- well, OK, not "slip," that makes it sound as if it requires some skill -- but, if they really did get across the 49th parallel, all they have to do is hook up with America's "undocumented" support network and the Tennessee DMV will do the rest.
Well, if you're an enthusiastic Bush supporter, then your preferred policies are closer to Tommy Daschle than mine.
Why don't they just apply for a state issued ID card instead of a driver's license? In every state that I've lived in, that state's Department of Motor Vehicles issued both driver's licenses and ID cards.
Other than that each should honor their oath to uphold the laws of the United States. As if that mattered to any of them.
I don't think things are going to change that much regarding immigration. The fact that the Liberals and the media favor immigration may in part explain the failure of the GOP to speak out and do something against it in fear that the media would accuse them of being mean, heartless, and exclusive. We have seen how the GOP and the public have behaved at the media censure of Trent Lott. On the other hand, going against public opinion may also be a detriment for the Republic Party come 2004. So far, doing nothing hasn't had many consequences because, even thought the majority of people want immigration reduced, they haven't retaliated against their members of Congress when they have failed to comply.
According to Marine Inspector, at least 5,000 illegal aliens are entering our country everyday, since Bush took office.
That's unconscionable.
I'm not giving Bush and the other RINOs another 18 months to do what they know should have been done more than 18 years ago.
He doesn't have any time to waste in my book.
No. The President you love and adore has made it nearly impossible for the INS to go after illegal aliens. And the last thing he wants is to bring more light to his complete failure on the issue of illegal aliens.
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.