Long before Sept. 11 the immigration process was slow and full of loopholes. Now it?s worse. In an age of terrorism when the government should be highly motivated to enforce its laws, protect its citizens and reward legal aliens, it prefers to enforce elitist agendas, protect criminal aliens and penalize legal aliens with more red tape.
In May, the Senate passed a so-called immigration reform bill, bursting with all sorts of rewards for illegal aliens ? a guest worker program, in-state tuition, tax forgiveness, Social Security benefits based on fraudulent employment, an easy road to American citizenship ? and token language about border enforcement. By registering, paying a $2,000 fine, clearing a criminal background check (does being in the country illegally qualify as criminal?), and passing an English language test, a person who flouted immigration laws can remain in the country and become legal. These and other requirements, said President George W. Bush, are necessary to reform immigration.
Although I hate to insult your intelligence further, indulge me for a moment. First, amnesty, coupled with lax border enforcement, will attract more illegal aliens, adding to our current woes. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, President Ronald Reagan?s 1986 amnesty plan did just that.
Amnesty begets more problems. Loren Gartee, whose wife is from the Philippines, can testify. “[It] took almost a year to get the K-1 Fiancée Visa because of the backlog from the last amnesty.” Gartee says the process should have taken four to six months. After more than two years, his wife was granted permanent status.
Second, true immigration reform requires streamlining the process for people already in line to become citizens, closing loopholes exploited by terrorists and other criminals, and protecting the borders.
I?ve heard from people conspicuously absent from President Bush?s “We are a nation of immigrants” speeches and mainstream news stories ? legal aliens and naturalized citizens. Despite a bureaucratically slow process, each went through legal channels and was deeply grateful for being in America and becoming an American. This stands in sharp contrast to the stunning spectacle of foreigners in American streets in recent months demanding rights granted to citizens.
Legal immigrants should be top priority in any debate on immigration reform. David Fleeger, whose Tanzanian wife obtained a green card after the usual red tape, said:
“We find it ironic that the president and the Senate are proposing a ?guest worker? program for the individuals who broke our immigration laws, while those who have come here legally are harassed by bureaucratic incompetence. Leaving aside the fundamental immorality of rewarding lawbreaking by granting amnesty to illegal aliens, there is this question to deal with: If the INS cannot properly process the legal immigrants we have now, how are they going to handle several times that number under proposed legislation?”
Olivier Paris-Leclerc, a 25-year-old naturalized American citizen from France, echoed a common refrain. “I waited 12 years, but now Bush wants to give illegals the right to become a citizen if they came illegally, after just two years in the country,” he said.
Vicki Hill, whose German husband became a naturalized citizen, experienced frustrating moments like this:
“In 1998, he received by mail information telling him to be at the Federal courthouse on a certain date for his naturalization ceremony. We joyfully took our sons out of elementary school for the day to witness the big event. Upon arriving there, we discovered that my husband was one of many turned down that day. The reason? His fingerprints had expired! The INS rules stated that fingerprints had to be taken within the past 18 months ? and it had taken the INS 20 months to process his paperwork ? .”
The inherent unfairness and bureaucratic pitfalls of the amnesty bill are trivial compared to national security vulnerabilities of the existing immigration process. Michael J. Maxwell, former director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of Security and Investigations, testified before the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation in April about those vulnerabilities.
Maxwell spoke about the backlog of complaints against USCIS employees (almost 20 percent alleging criminal activity, including espionage and links to terrorists), the backlog on employee criminal background checks (which means those employees don?t have the necessary security clearance to process immigration applications but do so anyway), the lack of resources to investigate complaints, and USCIS leadership?s refusal to act on identified threats with “significant national security implications.”
When Maxwell refused to follow the leadership?s orders to ignore national security dangers, although hired to address them, the leadership retaliated. Those are serious charges. In the next column, I?ll elaborate on Maxwell?s testimony, its implications for the immigration reform debate and the safety of us all.
La Shawn Barber is a member of The Examiner?s Blog Board of Contributors and blogs at www.lashawnbarber.com. This is the second of a three-part series on immigration.
