America's fake identity crisis (Mark Steyn)

National Post ^ | January 6th, 2003 | Mark Steyn

[Victoria Delsoul]

Yep. Good point.

[Centurion2000]

bump

[Mo1]

Fair enough?

Sounds pretty fair to me

[Mo1]

For once, would SOMEONE from the Tancredo crowd please quit bashing Bush for a moment and tell me exactly WHAT that guy proposes as a SOLUTION to the problems of: 1) Illegal immigration (and explain the impact on our budget of such actions, such as use of the military)

I am not sure .. especially after I saw a news clip of Tancredo helping to raise money for the illegal mexican boy and his family to help pay for the boy's medical expenses

I always thought Tancredo was against any and all illegals not matter what

[Mo1]

2. Keeping illegals from getting welfare benefits.

That will stop the illegals from coming here .. granted it won't stop all of them but it will stop a number of them

Why else do many of them risk their lives coming here .. cause it's a better life here and they don't have to pay for it ..

Problem is I don't know how this will happen without the Courts jumping in and throwing any law like that out .. If I understand correctly CA tried this and the Courts threw the law out and made CA pay for the illegals also

[Mo1]

No. The President you love and adore has made it nearly impossible for the INS to go after illegal aliens

Impossible?? how??

The laws are on the books .. why doesn't the INS and the INS Judges follow the law??

[Marine Inspector]

Impossible?? how??

Not only do we have laws, we have policy, and while the clowns in charge can't change the laws, they can change the policy on how those laws are enforced and make policy which makes it nearly impossible to enforce the laws.

Here is just one example: Prior to 9/11 a CI (criminal investigator) could snatch up any illegal alien he found or knew about.. Now, under the new policy, a CI has to write a detailed Operations Order. The Operations Order must be approved by his supervisors and then forwarded to Regional Headquarters. Regional Headquarters must then approve the Operation Order and in some cases it must then be Forwarded to INS HQ for further approval. This takes days, effectively encouraging the CI’s not to go after illegal aliens, as it takes hours of paperwork and days of waiting for approval.

In our cases (Inspectors) at the Ports of Entries, it is the same. Prior to 9/11 it was much simpler and less paperwork to detain and remove an illegal. Now, under the Bush administrations new policies, we need higher approval and more paperwork. It makes it so we don’t want to catch any one. Before, we were happy to catch the illegals, now we just moan ands groan, knowing we have hours of paperwork, just to wonder if the high ups will let us remove the illegal alien.

[Mo1]

Here is just one example: Prior to 9/11 a CI (criminal investigator) could snatch up any illegal alien he found or knew about..

If I recall before 9/11 some in the INS didn't do a very good job stopping illegals .. and if I recall after 9/11 some didn't do a very good job stopping the visa approvals being issued to some of those highjackers .. and it doesn't explain how the DC snipper got a pass from the INS Judge ..

Now, under the new policy, a CI has to write a detailed Operations Order. The Operations Order must be approved by his supervisors and then forwarded to Regional Headquarters. Regional Headquarters must then approve the Operation Order and in some cases it must then be Forwarded to INS HQ for further approval. This takes days, effectively encouraging the CI’s not to go after illegal aliens, as it takes hours of paperwork and days of waiting for approval.

As for this paper work is sounds like it's a paper trail to cover their butts, and if some of these inspectors can't wait a couple of hours OR a couple of days for approval then they need to find another job

It makes it so we don’t want to catch any one. Before, we were happy to catch the illegals, now we just moan ands groan, knowing we have hours of paperwork, just to wonder if the high ups will let us remove the illegal alien.

And that is the SADDEST excuse of NOT doing their job .. Sounds like something a union member would say.

I'm NOT saying all INS employees fail to do their job .. I am sure many like yourself care very deeply in doing their job and stopping these illegals ... but to say they that that aren't doing their job because they have to wait for paperwork is a load BS IMO

With that said, I don't deny that more needs to be done on the is issue from the Bush Administration and the INS Department Heads

[Ajnin]

There have been several changes that have been good for our side of the immigration issue. These changes of course have been very small and in some cases are still tethered to political correctness. The changes that I have seen in my own Sector inidicate that the powers that be want to do something about illegal immigration. There is still quite a bit of aversion to taking risks, however.

[swarthyguy]

Brickbats, trivialities and tangents to you soon....

The truth hurts especially if you're saying the emperor has no clothes...

[VietVet]

Well, I am not Rep. Trancredo, but here is my suggestion:

Illegal Immigration: without significantly changing the laws as to *what* is illegal, start enacting and imposing some criminal penalties for these actions: fines set high enough to confiscate any economic advantage an illegal might have gained; prison time; immediate deportation after the end of incarceration without further hearings and other legalistic shenanigans; exponentially increasing penalties for repeat offences.

Legal immigration: some indexing of immigration quotas to economic needs. That is, when unemployment goes up, immigration quotas come down. Severe penalties for those firms or individuals who hire or assist illegals to obtain jobs. Active enforcement of the expiration dates on visas, and yes that means sending someone to pick them up and escort the now-illegal aliens to the nearest port of embarkation. Penalizing those local juristictions which refuse to cooperate with the BP/INS; at least deny them federal funds!

Terrorism: This is a rough one. Terrorism is an act of war; terrorists are enemy combatants. Moreover, they are enemy combatants who have or are in the process of commiting war crimes. As enemy combatants in wartime, they have no civil rights, but they do have legal protections under international law. Also under the international laws of war, they can be prosecuted and if convicted, punished, for their war crimes, and this does not have to be in a civil court with our constitutional protections, but can be in special tribunals, such as those which were convened to prosecute the German and Japanese accused of war crimes after WWII. The main problem is in separating the terrorists from civilian population (us) so that the extraordinary measures that we have to take against them do not impact us. At the bare minimum, this would require some as-near-foolproof-as-we-can-make-it ID system, so we can tell us from them, and frankly, that *will* impact on certain rights and privileges which we have taken for granted.

Life is a series of compromises.

VietVet

[alwaysconservative]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply! I have to get to work now, so I will have to wait until later to give you a more detailed response.