Hi Gang:
The United States Department of Justice clearly has the state of Arizona in its legal sights!
I have provided you, below, with a copy of a news article that appeared in Sunday's Washington Times about the legal challenge being mounted by the United States Department of Justice in an effort to block the state of Arizona from enforcing an immigration law that was promulgated by the leaders of that state.
Yesterday, Sunday, July 11, 2010 Bob Schieffer on the CBS News program “Face the Nation” interviewed Eric Holder, the Attorney General on a number of issues including two subjects that are of particular relevance to the immigration issue in general and with the Arizona situation in particular.
I have provided you with a link to a video of Bob Schieffer's interview of Attorney General Holder as well as with a copy of the transcript of that interview, in its entirety, below.
The first issue that was covered during the interview was the Russian spy case that resulted in the seemingly speedy resolution of the identification of the ten Russian agents who were operating in our country on behalf of Russia. Purportedly they did not pass any classified material to Russia. Holder said that the United States government opted to simply exchange these agents for four people who had been arrested in Russia for assisting the West with intelligence gathering. Holder also said that there were a number of reasons that the government decided to not prosecute the Russian agents because it had been determined that one of the individuals, an unidentified male was preparing to travel to France and there were concerns that he might head from Russia from France and thwart efforts to remove him. Holder also made some extremely vague references to other reasons why no criminal charges had been sought against the spies.
(Actually I had a hunch that perhaps the issue for the administration was to terminate the ten year old investigation for another reason- to prevent any of the individuals who had been meeting with the Russian spies from being identified. Remember that early news reports indicated that a major financier for an unidentified political party had been one of a number of individuals who had met with at least one of the ten spies. Let me make this perfectly clear- this is just pure speculation on my part- but you have to admit- this would not be beyond the realm of possibility- would it?)
Is anyone willing to bet if the names of those who met with the spies in the United States will ever be released?
The spy case is of particular interest to me because we must remember that at least some of those spies had children who were born in the United States. This is not unlike illegal aliens who have children who were also born in the United States. Here is a quote from the transcript I have attached below that deals with this specific issue:
BOB SCHIEFFER:
One question that we've gotten a lot of e-mails on and a lot of calls at CBS News: What happens now to the children?
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER:
The children have all been repatriated. We did so consistent with what their parents' wishes were, and to the extent that we had children who were, close to majority or majority, they made their own decisions as to where they wanted to go. So the children have all been handled, I think, in an appropriate way.
BOB SCHIEFFER:
Because some of those children, because they were born here, would actually be U.S. citizens.
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER:
Right. And to the extent that they had the ability to make choices, they were old enough to make them they made their decisions and they've gone back with their parents.
Think about that brief exchange about the fate of the children born to Russian spies. Commonsense prevailed here. The sort of commonsense that evaporates whenever the administration and advocates for open borders and immigration anarchy that would undoubtedly result if “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” was to be enacted.
It is to be presumed that a number of the United States citizen children, especially the younger ones, had no idea about the duplicitous nature of their parents' lives and were therefore not to be blamed for the violations of law committed by their parents. However, the parents were sent packing and they were given the option of either having their children accompany them on their voyage to their home country or remain in the United States with other care givers.
If the same situation involved illegal aliens, even illegal aliens who had been convicted of committing felonies- the outcry from the so-called immigrant rights groups to not take the children from their parents would have been absolutely deafening!
Next I want to remind you that the spies had been highly effective at insinuating themselves into the United States in furtherance of their goals to gather intelligence and potentially recruit assets in the United States. In order to do this they created false identities for themselves (“legends” in the vernacular of the world of intelligence operatives).
This is precisely the same way that criminals and terrorists seek to create alternative identities for themselves as an “embedding” tactic as described by the 9/11 Commission in describing the way that terrorists seek to hide in plain sight.
The next part of Mr. Holder's interview dealt specifically with the law suit his agency, the Department of Justice has filed against the state of Arizona and Governor Brewer.
Mr. Schieffer asked why racial profiling was not a real issue in the law suit and Holder tapped danced his way around the question and left the door open to the idea that the Justice Department would watch for evidence of such profiling if the law is enforced.
Holder then talked about pre-emption. The idea that the law of Arizona interfered with a host of issues that are the pure domain of the federal government where the enforcement and administration of the immigration laws are concerned. Herein lies some really interesting double-talk. Consider this segment from the interview that includes the entire discussion of the federal government's lawsuit against the state of Arizona:
BOB SCHIEFFER:
Let's turn to the other big story of the week. You filed suit to ask a judge to overturn Arizona's new immigration law. It has put Republicans in a rage. Here's what Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said. He said, “Suing the people of Arizona for what the federal government has utterly failed to do will not help secure our borders.”
Senators Kyl and McCain, the Arizona Senators, say, “Attorney General Holder speaks to the federal government's responsibility to enforce immigration law, but what are people of Arizona to do when the federal government fails its responsibility?” So why did you file this lawsuit?
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER:
I understand, first off, the frustration of the people of Arizona and the concerns that they have with regard to the amount of illegal immigration that occurs. But the solution that the Arizona legislature came up with is inconsistent with our federal constitution. It is responsibility of the federal government to decide immigration policy. And what the Arizona con– the Arizona legislature came up with was a statute that is inconsistent with the federal constitution. It's preempted by the federal constitution. On the basis of preemption, we decided to file a lawsuit. We have an immigration policy that takes into account a whole variety of things; international relations, national security concerns, and it is the responsibility of the federal government, as opposed to states doing it on a patchwork basis to decide exactly what it is our policy should be with regard to immigration. And it was on that basis that we filed a lawsuit.
BOB SCHIEFFER:
You've heard the same criticism that I have. Some are saying that it's just all politics, what you're trying to do is to brand Republicans as anti-immigration, or in fact anti-Hispanic, before the elections in November.
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER:
Not true at all. The basis for this was a legal determination by those of us at the Justice Department that the law was inconsistent with the constitution. And there, I think one has to also understand that there are a substantial number of Republicans and people in law enforcement who thought that the decision that we made to file this lawsuit was, in fact, the correct one. So it is not a monolith. It’s not a Republican monolith here where people are saying in the Republican Party that this was an inappropriate decision.
BOB SCHIEFFER:
When the Arizona law was first passed, both you and the president expressed concerns that it would lead to racial profiling because it allows the police, if they think someone might be in this country illegally it gives them the right to stop them and they have to produce papers to show that in fact they are citizens. Yet, your lawsuit doesn't talk at all about racial profiling, or if it even mentions it it's just barely. It just talks about the federal government is being preempted from a duty that is has to perform. Why did you choose to go that route?
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER:
Well, we wanted to go out with what we thought was our strongest initial argument and to focus on what we thought is the most serious problem with the law as it now exists. It doesn't mean that if the law, for whatever reason, happened to go into effect that six months from now, a year from now, we might not look at the impact the law has had and whether or not– see whether or not there has been that racial profiling impact. And if that was the case we would have the tools and we would bring suit on that basis.
BOB SCHIEFFER:
Are you saying, though, that states and local governments have no responsibility when it comes to enforcing immigration policy, that that's solely the responsibility of the federal government?
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER:
States and local governments can certainly help the federal government enforce immigration laws. What we're saying is that they cannot pass laws that are inconsistent with the federal laws, or do things that contravene federal policy when it comes to the enforcement of our immigration laws. And the Arizona statute, if you look at the guts of it, really puts in place a whole variety of things that are inconsistent with what we have decided to do as a federal government. And it is on that basis that we decided to file a lawsuit.
Arizona's law simply parallels the federal statutes concerning the requirement of alien registration. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing about the Arizona immigration law that establishes policy. There is nothing about the Arizona law that deals with international relations of national security. The law simply requires, as does the feral law, that any alien present in the state of Arizona who is 18 years of age or older carry proof of alien registration. The point being that this proof would actually enhance national security. Any alien whose presence in the United States is unknown to the federal government may pose a threat to the security of our nation and the safety of our citizens. The effect of this law would be to help the United States government to be made aware of the presence of illegal aliens whose presence in the United States is presumably unknown to the federal government if they don't have proof of “alien registration.”
I would defy anyone, including Attorney General Holder to explain how notifying the federal government about the presence of illegal aliens in our country would be harmful to national security! If these aliens are illegally present and “undocumented” the federal government has no official way of being aware of their presence in our country, let alone what they may be up to!
Remarkably, Mr. Holder also made the following statement:
BOB SCHIEFFER:
Are you saying, though, that states and local governments have no responsibility when it comes to enforcing immigration policy, that that's solely the responsibility of the federal government?
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER:
States and local governments can certainly help the federal government enforce immigration laws….
Stop and give that statement some serious thought. The Attorney General says that state and local governments can certainly help the federal government enforce immigration laws?!”
How do cities and states that subscribe to the insane practice of creating “sanctuaries” help the federal government enforce the immigration laws?
If you want to make a case for pre-emption reason would dictate that blocking the federal government from access to such vital information would have a negative impact on national security. The creation of a “sanctuary city” would, in my humble opinion entice illegal aliens to run our nation's borders with the goal of reaching those cities where these illegal aliens would be safe from discovery by the federal government. Let us go bac
k to the immigration statutes that deals specifically with this very issue Title 8, United States Code, Section 1324. In fact, this is not only a matter of pre-emption- it is a matter of violating the federal laws that deem it a felony to engage in the foregoing activities:
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3)
The entire point to the creation of a “sanctuary city” is to conceal illegal aliens from the federal government!
Here is the entire statutory section concerning these crimes:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01907.htm
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
Alien Smuggling — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing that a person is an alien, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien.
Domestic Transporting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law.
Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.
Encouraging/Inducing — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who — encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.
Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.
Bringing Aliens to the United States — Subsection 1324(a)(2) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), enacted on September 30, 1996, added a new 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3)(A) which makes it an offense for any person, during any 12-month period, to knowingly hire at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that these individuals are unauthorized aliens. See this Manual at 1908 (unlawful employment of aliens).
Unit of Prosecution — With regard to offenses defined in subsections 1324(a)(1)(A)(i)-(v), (alien smuggling, domestic transporting, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or conspiracy/aiding or abetting) each alien with respect to whom a violation occurs constitutes a unit of prosecution. Prior to enactment of the IIRIRA, the unit of prosecution for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2) was each transaction, regardless of the number of aliens involved. However, the unit of prosecution is now based on each alien in respect to whom a violation occurs.
Knowledge — Prosecutions for alien smuggling, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) require proof that defendant knew that the person brought to the United States was an alien. With regard to the other violations in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), proof of knowledge or reckless disregard of alienage is sufficient.
Penalties — The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. In addition, significant enhanced penalties are provided for in violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) involving serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy. Moreover, if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years. The basic penalty for a violation of subsection 1324(a)(2) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(A). Enhanced penalties are provided for violations involving bringing in criminal aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i), offenses done for commercial advantage or private financial gain, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), and violations where the alien is not presented to an immigration officer immediately upon arrival, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). A mandatory minimum three year term of imprisonment applies to first or second violations of § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i) or (B)(ii). Further enhanced punishment is provided for third or subsequent offenses.
COMMENT: Further discussion of offenses defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a) is set forth in Chapter 3 of Immigration Law, published as part of the Office of Legal Education's Litigation Series, and as part of the USABook computer library.
[cited in USAM 9-73.100]
Rather than chastising a true political leader- Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and members of her state's legislature, the President of the United States needs to take his oath of office serious and secure our nation's borders and do whatever is necessary to make certain that there is real integrity within the immigration system where immigration benefits and the enforcement of the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States are concerned!
It is time for the politicians in Washington to live up to their oaths of office as well!
It is unacceptable that the citizens of this nation be alienated by their own government especially where border security and the enforcement and administration of our nation's immigration laws are concerned!
A country without secure borders can no more stand than can a house without walls!
November 2nd cannot come fast enough!
We the People, throughout this nation must seek opportunities to make it clear to our political “representatives” that we understand their game plan and won't tolerate it!.
I believe our nation's is greatly benefited by the rich diversity of our people which is why I could never imagine living anywhere except New York City, arguably the most diverse city in our nation if not, in fact, the world. However, my idea of diversity most certainly does not include members of MS-13, the Mexican drug cartels and members of al-Qaeda!
If reading this makes it difficult for you to sleep now- perhaps you could do something worthwhile- perhaps you might spend a couple of your sleepless hours writing letters to your elected representatives this evening and remind them that Election Day is just months away!
We the People can add to the consternation of these politicians who are failing to live up to their oaths of office by contacting them and making it abundantly clear that election day is coming and they should think of election day as their personal “Day of Reckoning!”
Our government must live up to its obligation of protecting its own citizens and, indeed, all who are present in our country from the criminals and terrorists who would threaten our lives and the survival of our nation and our way of life. In the end, the government is actually those who are elected to act as our “leaders.” Those who fail to truly lead and look out for those they are supposed to represent, need to be sent packing this coming Election Day!
If our country is to survive and if our children and their children are to get their share of the “American Dream” the citizens of this nation must take their citizenship seriously!
We the People must be the best citizens we can be, citizens who are worthy of the gallantry demonstrated by our valiant men and women in the military, law enforcement and firefighters, who routinely go in harm's way in defense of this nation and our citizens.
My goal in writing this and other commentaries is to point out our nations many failings before more victims pay the ultimate price for the incompetence and ineptitude of our government.
The first step in problem-solving is to first identify the problems and vulnerabilities and then devise strategies to overcome them.
Any politician who refuses to work to secure our borders and create an immigration system that has integrity is either corrupt or too dumb to keep his (her) job. Any politician, irrespective of party affiliation who favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the outrageous betrayal that this would represent given the national security implications that this program would have, should be shown the door at the next election!
If you find yourself to be in agreement with this commentary, I ask that you forward it to as many of your friends and family members as possible and encourage them to do the same. We need to create a “Bucket Brigade of Truth!”
Later this year, each and every member of the House of Representatives is up for reelection. Later this year more than one third of the members of the United States Senate will have to face their constituents. They need to be reminded that they work for us, We the People!
However, the practice of good citizenship does not end in the voting booth, it only begins there.
The large scale apathy demonstrated by citizens of this nation has emboldened elected representatives to all but ignore the needs of the average American citizen in a quest for massive campaign funds and the promises of votes to be ostensibly delivered by special interest groups. There is much that we cannot do but there is one thing that We the People absolutely must do- we must stop sitting on the sidelines!
The collective failure of We the People to get involved in make our concerns known to our politicians have nearly made the concerns of the great majority of the citizens of this nation all but irrelevant to the politicians.I implore you to get involved!
If this situation concerns you or especially if it angers you, I ask you to call your Senators and Congressional “Representative. This is not only your right- it is your obligation!
All I ask is that you make it clear to our politicians that we are not as dumb as they hope we are!
We live in a perilous world and in a perilous era. The survival of our nation and the lives of our citizens hang in the balance.
This is neither a Conservative issue, nor is it a Liberal issue- simply stated, this is most certainly an AMERICAN issue!
You are either part of the solution or you are a part of the problem!
Democracy is not a spectator sport!
Lead, follow or get out of the way!
-michael cutler-
Verbatim transcript of interview:
Video of the interview conducted by CBS News' Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” on July 11, 2010: