In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings, our political leaders will devise policies and proposals to ensure such an atrocity never happens again. One of the things that will be examined is our immigration system. The so-called “Gang of 8″ introduced their immigration reform bill last week. Unbelievably, some of the bill’s proponents are calling for it to be rushed through the Senate. Perhaps after we passed Obamacare and the fact we’re discovering yet another “unintended” consequence nearly every week, maybe this should be a lesson for Congress to thinkover and scrutinize this very important piece of legislation.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the loudest voices for this pish. In an interview on CNN, he said:
“I think now is the time to bring all the 11 million out of the shadows and find out who they are,” Graham said. “Most of them are here to work, but we may find some terrorists in our midst who have been hiding in the shadows.”
He highlighted the example that the current system failed to recognize that the 19 hijackers behind the 9/11 attacks had overstayed their visas.
“We’re going to fix that,” Graham said. “In our bill, when you come into the country, it goes into the system, and when your time to leave the country expires and you haven’t left, law enforcement is notified.”
“What happened in Boston, and international terrorism I think, should urge us to act quicker, not slower, when it comes to getting the 11 million identified,” he added.
Senator Graham’s comments raise the point that border security should be addressed as soon as possible so the country’s borders can be as secure as possible against external threats. In addition, measures should be taken to encourage the 11 million or so illegal aliens to come forward via a legalization program that would help to potentially identify terrorists and criminals living and operating in this country. However, the question is: would terrorists and criminals come forward willingly to identify themselves?
More importantly, must there be a rush to enact a horribly flawed bill? Wouldn’t it be best for the country to enact a bill that has been carefully considered after a long debate?
Why must the posture be “don’t let a crisis go to waste?”
However, if you listen to some of the proponents of amnesty, they will assert that border security should not even be addressed in an immigration bill. Take, for example, Doug Mataconis who wrote:
The only reason that “border security” is an issue in the immigration reform debate is because it’s fairly clear that there’s no way that a reform package can make it through Congress without Republican support, and there’s no way it’s going to get Republican support if it addresses border security in some manner. Ideally, border security would be seen for what it is, a national security issue, and not tied up in a debate over reforming a broken immigration system. The same goes for any issues related to terrorism. Just as “border security” has become wrapped up in the immigration debate for political reasons, it’s entirely possible that the same thing will happen with the terrorism issue.
There is no separation of immigration reform and national security, despite what the most extreme amnesty supporters claim. Enemies of this country can sneak in and do significant damage in this era of terrorism and can cause significant deaths and injuries. While there are other concerns involved with immigration reform such as the economy and yes even basic dignity; there is no denying that there is a national security component to immigration.
One of the most important functions of government is to secure the nation’s borders.
One way of doing that is to control who enters a country in the first place. Consequently, border security and immigration policy go hand-in-hand with national security. You cannot separate the two. You cannot maintain national security without having a secure border and a way of keeping track of who enters the country because just omen person ego enters the country illegally can do major damage to this nation in this era of terrorism.Talk with the Native Americans who were the last ones to have an open borders policy — and ask them how that worked out for them.
Senator Rand Paul has proposed that the Senate should slow down consideration of the “Gang of 8″ bill in light of the Boston bombings.
“We should not proceed until we understand the specific failures of our immigration system,” Paul wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
Paul also said the Senate needs to thoroughly examine whether there was an intelligence failure, especially in light of the intelligence reforms after 9/11, that led to the attacks. He stressed that the Senate must look carefully at the country’s refugee programs that have been a “problem” and give heightened scrutiny to immigrants coming from high-risk areas. He noted the example of two Iraqis who had been living in Bowling Green, Kentucky and are serving extensive prison sentences for participating in terrorism activities.
Paul requested that Senators examine “the facts in Massachusetts to see if legislation is necessary to prevent a similar situation in the future”. He urged Congress to ensure that national security protections are “rolled into comprehensive immigration reform” before proceeding to “make sure the federal government does everything it can to prevent immigrants with malicious intent from using our immigration system to gain entry into the United States in order to commit future acts of terror.”
This seems a reasonable approach to the matter. Let the investigation about the bombers continue so we can actually gather any relevant facts before making a decision on an issue as important as immigration reform. This is a novel concept, especially in the age of “pass it so we can find out what’s in it”.
Do you agree that the U.S. needs to slow down consideration of immigration reform in light of the Boston Marathon bombings?
Let us know in the comments.