What’s Being Overlooked in the Immigration Debate

What’s Being Overlooked in the Immigration Debate
USA Robert E. Meyer
June 23, 2007
 

I have heard it said that big problems are really just little problems that were neglected when they were small. Never was a truer word spoken in regards to the current immigration imbroglio. Years of neglecting the problem have made it nearly insurmountable now.

Since there is a voting block to lose in the process of making one false move on the immigration front, many Republicans have taken a surprising stance in opposition of their constituents. But one thing is abundantly clear: conservatives can’t win this issue trying to imitate the positions of liberals.

Liberals have attempted to strike their philosophical touche by claiming that those who support cracking down on illegal aliens, would take care of the problem at ground zero on the demand side if they were really concerned about stopping illegal entry into the U.S. This means enforcement against companies that hire illegal aliens out of willful expedience. If there are no employment opportunities, then they will not come, so to speak.

There seems to be a major push for granting a quasi-amnesty for the illegal aliens in this country. Various reasons are given for such compliance. Those coming over the border from Mexico and Central America will do jobs that fifth-generation Americans wouldn’t do during their worst nightmares, we are told. We are reminded they are hard working people. We are told they will help to prop up the Social Security system, etc. Politicians also remind us of the impracticality of rounding up 12 million plus illegal aliens and sending them back over the border. All of these points may be well and true, but do they justify breaking and ignoring current law? If I was in their shoes, would I do the same. Perhaps, but what other country would tolerate it? What other country could withstand the humanitarian onslaught stretching their social safety net?

Many of the political leaders want a comprehensive immigration bill. Those opposed to the current congressional legislation see the need to emphasize a policy puts national security first, even if the immigration fiasco is dealt with in various stages. That means a serious plan to seal the borders is priority one.

I believe President Bush is wrong on immigration. Sen. Ted Kennedy was dead wrong when he backed the grandfather and patriarch of our current immigration bill in 1965, saying that the things which are now happening, would never occur because of that legislation. President Reagan was wrong when he signed the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, thinking that the provisions of it would actually be obeyed, and that it would be a once-and-for-all amnesty event. And considering the past, why should we believe the currently proposed legislation will be enforced in its entirety either?

The temptation for those who are unable to articulate good arguments in favor of the amnesty-leaning position, is to simply demean the opponents by calling them racist, or hate mongers.

Concerning the local level, some leaders in the church have been among the greatest facilitators in this matter. David Zubik, the Bishop of the Green Bay diocese impugned those who would be unwilling to accept illegal immigration with outstretched arms.

In his latest installment of trying to shame those who oppose our governmental policy of unilaterally ignoring their own laws, Bishop Zubik compared his opponents favorably with the racial sensitivity of Archie Bunker. A defender of the Bishop, in knee-jerk fashion, suggested that those who disagree with his position are disseminating hatred. This is primarily in reference to the support of a proposed local ordinance that would penalize businesses who hire illegal aliens. Again, the reason for local action is due to negligence and indifference of the issue at the federal level.

On the other hand, the chief problem is a misunderstanding by Zubik, regarding the issue of biblical jurisdiction, between the civil and ecclesiastical spheres. As a result, he expects the state to do the charity and relief job the church and its members ought to be doing.

The role of the church is to provide help to those in need, and there is no international boundary on that mission. Christians should help people less fortunate though voluntary work and donations. However the church should not circumvent existing immigration laws, or deliberately promote illegal immigration. It is easy to have mixed feelings as one contemplates the biblical demand to aid the sojourner and alien. But when does the “flight of refugees” become an invasion that threatens the country’s future, security and stability? Why are there no statesmen condemning the political corruption and economic travesty that causes so many to want to flee their native lands? Any thoughts of fairness in terms of reciprocity would be quickly dispelled by viewing Mexico’s formal immigration policy laws.

We often hear the “anti-imperialists” ask if everyone has to be just like us. Well, as a matter of fact, they don’t. But for all America’s shortcomings, we see the tragedy that occurs because many countries aren’t a little more like us in economic prowess and opportunity. If we are going to export anything, it ought to be the better angels within our system of government and ethic of liberty.

How many people can a lifeboat hold before it sinks or capsizes and all inhabitants perish? Notice that the lifeboats on the Titanic rowed a ways from the sinking ship. This was not because the people who weren’t in the lifeboats were not worth saving. The problem is that a lifeboat may support 60 people, but if 200 scramble to get on board out of desperation, perhaps it will sink, and nobody will survive.

While many illegal aliens contribute to the American economy, others put a fatal stranglehold on the resources of our social safety net. This is not compassion for naturalized citizens who are then deprived. The last time I saw my older brother before he died, he asked me why this country gives away so much to aliens, while denying the same help to its citizens. He had a small nest egg which he had to spend down before getting the medical assistance he needed for his poor health. Of course, in his case, it would still have been welfare, but he did have a point about the priorities of multi-generational Americans vs. those coming over the border covertly.

If all the illegal aliens were naturalized by a swift act of a fiat, the next wave of protests would be about substandard wages and poor working conditions, and the importation of relatives and family. We would then be the bad guys for keeping families apart.

It is time to teach other countries how to fish in their own ponds, because the whole world can’t come to America. Hopefully they are willing to be taught.

Special Operations to the Rescue

Special Operations to the Rescue
Terrorism Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely & Fred Gedrich
June 23, 2007
 

Most Americans desire an effective change in current Iraq war strategy and the wider global war against Islamic extremists and nations supporting them. President Bush and the new U.S. Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, could deliver it by placing experienced unconventional warfare leaders in charge of the war effort.

Since forcibly removing Saddam Hussein from power in 2003, the U.S.-led coalition has been unable to quell insurgent, terrorist and sectarian generated violence concentrated mostly in four of 18 provinces and Greater Baghdad which are dominated by majority Sunni populations. About 150,000 Iraqis and nearly 3,000 Americans have died during continuing hostilities.

While many Americans recognize the conflict in Iraq is not going well and changes need to be made, there is substantial disagreement at the national level on a military strategy. The U.S. is seriously considering adding several combat brigades from outside Iraq to “purge” Baghdad and several provinces infested with local and foreign trouble-makers. Sending an additional 20,000 U.S. troops to Iraq under current military strategies and rules of engagement will be unlikely to make much difference.

Unlike U.S.-led coalition troops, the adversaries in this war do not carry arms openly, wear uniforms or insignias, and abide by other laws and customs of wars specified in Geneva conventional and protocols. They instill fear in military opponents and local populations through use of suicide bombings, improvised explosive devices, kidnappings and beheadings. And they disguise themselves as civilians and hide among civilian populations with weapons stored and discharged from mosques, schools, hospitals, market-places, private residences and public roads.

To prevail, the U.S. has to transition from a conventional to an unconventional war footing and make the enemy pay a heavy price for their despicable tactics. In Iraq and elsewhere, traditional troops, weapons and tactics are less useful than tools of influence, covert operations, and intelligence brought to the battlefield by special operators working harmoniously with indigenous forces and local populations. The prime objective is to create a climate of fear within enemy ranks that breaks their will to continue the armed insurrection against the freely-elected Iraqi Government.

Special Operations Forces (Rangers, Seals, Delta Force and other special units) leaders and troops are uniquely qualified for this mission. Special operators played prominent and successful roles in removing Afghanistan’s Taliban regime from power and disrupting al Qaeda’s terror base. In Iraq, they have spent most of their time searching for the infamous “deck of cards,” the elusive WMD arsenal, and high-value insurgents and terrorists.

Joint special operators (from all military branches) are also trained in local cultures and languages making it easier for them to embed in local populations and Iraqi security forces and collect information which in turn may be used to “hunt and kill” hostile forces. In addition, they can win “hearts and minds” of local populations through civil affairs work and performance of psychological operations against enemies of the freely-elected Iraqi Government. 

In January 2003, former defense chief Donald Rumsfeld designated the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) as the lead military organization to prosecute the Global War on Terror but unfortunately that has not materialized. Although stellar U.S. Army commanding generals John Abizaid (retiring early 2007) and George Casey continue to lead Middle East war operations and U.S. troops in Iraq respectively, they are products of the traditional warfare school. Moreover, nearly all of the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq are too.

It’s time to alter U.S. strategy by putting USSOCOM generals and admirals truly in command of the global war. And in Iraq, conventional forces could best serve by providing ground, air and sea support to USSOCOM and Iraqi security forces and sealing Iraq’s porous borders with hostile and/or dubious neighbors in Iran, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to prevent foreign jihadis, arms and sophisticated munitions from entering the country.

The action will surely meet resistance throughout DoD’s conventional warfare ranks, their industry partners, and congressional allies. The U.S. active duty military force consists of 1.4 million troops of which only about 50,000 are elite special operators, with only several thousand deployed to Iraq. Many military professionals prefer to have special operators continue in a supporting, not leading role.

Immediately after recently assuming his new post, Gates correctly stated that the U.S. must win in Iraq or face a “calamity” that would “endanger Americans for decades to come.” Since the fall of Baghdad, the U.S. has had the will to win but not the right strategy. It’s imperative that the U.S. transition quickly to an unconventional war strategy with USSOCOM generals and/or admirals in charge, or the war will be lost.

Paul E. Vallely (MG, US Army Ret) is a military analyst in the War against Radical Islam, and host of the radio show, “Stand Up America.”

Fred Gedrich served in U.S. Departments of State and Defense and is a foreign policy and national security analyst.

Special Operations to the Rescue

Special Operations to the Rescue
Terrorism Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely & Fred Gedrich
June 23, 2007
 

Most Americans desire an effective change in current Iraq war strategy and the wider global war against Islamic extremists and nations supporting them. President Bush and the new U.S. Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, could deliver it by placing experienced unconventional warfare leaders in charge of the war effort.

Since forcibly removing Saddam Hussein from power in 2003, the U.S.-led coalition has been unable to quell insurgent, terrorist and sectarian generated violence concentrated mostly in four of 18 provinces and Greater Baghdad which are dominated by majority Sunni populations. About 150,000 Iraqis and nearly 3,000 Americans have died during continuing hostilities.

While many Americans recognize the conflict in Iraq is not going well and changes need to be made, there is substantial disagreement at the national level on a military strategy. The U.S. is seriously considering adding several combat brigades from outside Iraq to “purge” Baghdad and several provinces infested with local and foreign trouble-makers. Sending an additional 20,000 U.S. troops to Iraq under current military strategies and rules of engagement will be unlikely to make much difference.

Unlike U.S.-led coalition troops, the adversaries in this war do not carry arms openly, wear uniforms or insignias, and abide by other laws and customs of wars specified in Geneva conventional and protocols. They instill fear in military opponents and local populations through use of suicide bombings, improvised explosive devices, kidnappings and beheadings. And they disguise themselves as civilians and hide among civilian populations with weapons stored and discharged from mosques, schools, hospitals, market-places, private residences and public roads.

To prevail, the U.S. has to transition from a conventional to an unconventional war footing and make the enemy pay a heavy price for their despicable tactics. In Iraq and elsewhere, traditional troops, weapons and tactics are less useful than tools of influence, covert operations, and intelligence brought to the battlefield by special operators working harmoniously with indigenous forces and local populations. The prime objective is to create a climate of fear within enemy ranks that breaks their will to continue the armed insurrection against the freely-elected Iraqi Government.

Special Operations Forces (Rangers, Seals, Delta Force and other special units) leaders and troops are uniquely qualified for this mission. Special operators played prominent and successful roles in removing Afghanistan’s Taliban regime from power and disrupting al Qaeda’s terror base. In Iraq, they have spent most of their time searching for the infamous “deck of cards,” the elusive WMD arsenal, and high-value insurgents and terrorists.

Joint special operators (from all military branches) are also trained in local cultures and languages making it easier for them to embed in local populations and Iraqi security forces and collect information which in turn may be used to “hunt and kill” hostile forces. In addition, they can win “hearts and minds” of local populations through civil affairs work and performance of psychological operations against enemies of the freely-elected Iraqi Government. 

In January 2003, former defense chief Donald Rumsfeld designated the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) as the lead military organization to prosecute the Global War on Terror but unfortunately that has not materialized. Although stellar U.S. Army commanding generals John Abizaid (retiring early 2007) and George Casey continue to lead Middle East war operations and U.S. troops in Iraq respectively, they are products of the traditional warfare school. Moreover, nearly all of the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq are too.

It’s time to alter U.S. strategy by putting USSOCOM generals and admirals truly in command of the global war. And in Iraq, conventional forces could best serve by providing ground, air and sea support to USSOCOM and Iraqi security forces and sealing Iraq’s porous borders with hostile and/or dubious neighbors in Iran, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to prevent foreign jihadis, arms and sophisticated munitions from entering the country.

The action will surely meet resistance throughout DoD’s conventional warfare ranks, their industry partners, and congressional allies. The U.S. active duty military force consists of 1.4 million troops of which only about 50,000 are elite special operators, with only several thousand deployed to Iraq. Many military professionals prefer to have special operators continue in a supporting, not leading role.

Immediately after recently assuming his new post, Gates correctly stated that the U.S. must win in Iraq or face a “calamity” that would “endanger Americans for decades to come.” Since the fall of Baghdad, the U.S. has had the will to win but not the right strategy. It’s imperative that the U.S. transition quickly to an unconventional war strategy with USSOCOM generals and/or admirals in charge, or the war will be lost.

Paul E. Vallely (MG, US Army Ret) is a military analyst in the War against Radical Islam, and host of the radio show, “Stand Up America.”

Fred Gedrich served in U.S. Departments of State and Defense and is a foreign policy and national security analyst.

50 Iranian-Backed High Value Targets Arrested In Iraq

50 Iranian-Backed High Value Targets Arrested In Iraq

As U.S. says Iran has begun it’s own Counter Surge against Operation Phantom Thunder

detainees

Iran has responded to the U.S. surge in Iraq with its own surge, the commander of the multinational force said Friday.

From Iran Focus:

London, Jun. 23 – The deputy commander of U.S.-led forces in Iraq accused Iran on Friday of stepping up its support for Shiite extremists responsible for attacks on the Coalition.

Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, Commander of the Multi-National Corps Iraq (MNC-I), told reporters at the Pentagon via live satellite transmission that the Coalition had recently detained 50 “high-value” individuals, a few of whom were “Shi’a extremists” that had received training in Iran — “those mostly being the mortar and rocket teams inside of Baghdad where they were trained in Iran and came in here to conduct attacks against not only coalition and Iraqi security forces, but government of Iraq targets inside of the Green Zone”.

(Read More)

Bill Gertz on The China Threat

Bill Gertz on The China Threat

EDITOR’S NOTE: The debating society Intelligence Squared US held a session last month on the motion: “Beware the dragon: A booming China spells trouble for America.” Bill Gertz spoke for the motion. Excerpts of his remarks follow. Gertz, 55, is a defense and national security reporter for The Washington Times and the author of five books, including “The China Threat: How the People’s Republic Targets America,” (Regnery) which was published in November 2000.

I’ve identified what I call 11 sources of trouble for the United States from China. The first is China’s military buildup. Number two is the danger of war over Taiwan. Number three is expansionism over energy resources. Number four is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles. Number five is massive intelligence operations to steal US secrets and technology. Number six is influence operations and so-called money diplomacy. Number seven is unfair trade practices, including currency valuation manipulation. Number eight, intellectual property theft. Number nine, human rights abuses. Number 10, religious repression. And number 11, environmental degradation and global warming.

To start with, the most serious trouble for America from China is China’s military buildup. On January 11th of this year, China conducted an unprecedented anti-satellite missile test. They fired a missile that traveled through space and hit a low Earth orbit satellite, a Chinese weather satellite, destroying it and creating 16,000 pieces of debris, which pose a threat to other satellites.

US official were shocked by this development because US intelligence estimates of China’s military have been stating for years that China is 10, 15, maybe 20 years behind the United States … so far behind that there is no way China’s military could pose a threat.

What the Chinese ASAT [anti-satellite] test showed was that China is not seeking to follow the US missile for missile, ship for ship, submarine for submarine. They’re going after niche weapons, they’re trying to leap ahead with special technology, and they’re doing this in a number of key areas, one of which is anti-satellite weapons.

Officials in Washington estimate that by, within the next six years, China will have the capability of destroying all US low Earth orbit satellites. Basically, this could be the modern day equivalent of a space Pearl Harbor against the United States if there were a conflict over Taiwan.

Regarding Taiwan, the danger of war over the Taiwan Strait continues. China has not renounced its plan to use force to retake the island. It is applying pressure, across the board to pressure this democracy. It is succeeding in many ways to influenceing US policy in ways that would diminish support for this traditional ally.

The danger of China expanding to gain resources is kind of a new source of trouble that has been identified by some studies in the Pentagon one of which was called the “string of pearls strategy.” It shows that China is developing a string of pearls, bases, alliances along a path going from the Middle East, where much of its oil comes from, all the way to China. There are concerns that because energy is so integral to China’s modernization effort, that China at some point will have to expand militarily, perhaps the Russian Far East, perhaps Southeast Asia, to take over places that have valuable oil and gas resources.

Intelligence operations. This is a subject that I have focused on in my recent book. It also highlights the case of Chi Mak, who was a Chinese intelligence agent, recently convicted in California of being an unregistered agent of the Chinese government. It’s part of a mushrooming spy case, more of which will be coming out in the coming weeks and months, which shows that China has been very successful in stealing some of the most advanced US weapons technology, including the next generation quiet electric drive for our war ships, secrets about our submarine force, and as well as the AEGIS battle management system, which is the heart of the, the modern Navy.

As for influence operations, this is another area where China has been extremely successful in influencing policies against the United States. We see this through what one Chinese defector called “money diplomacy,” buying up former US officials, and using those officials to lobby against policies that China doesn’t like. This is having a deleterious effect on the US economy and US policy because it’s preventing the US from truly understanding the directions and goals of China’s military modernization and its general modernization as well.

Representative Randy Forbes, the chairman of the China caucus in the House of Representatives estimates that China spends upwards of $100 million annually on these influence operations.

Unfair trade practices and currency issues, as well intellectual property theft. These issues are fairly well known, but I would like to highlight one issue surrounding the whole trade question. The main policy for the US towards China has been to trade with China as a way to seek a liberalized Chinese government and political system. Unfortunately, the idea of trading with China as a liberal, a liberalizing factor is not working. In fact, just the opposite is happening. Many feel that China’s military buildup is being benefited by its economic growth, but yet we have seen little or no political reform in China. This is a very serious source of trouble for the United States.

Pictures worth a thousand words: Harry Reid and Cameron Diaz

Posted in Uncategorized. Leave a Comment »

Audio: Teddy Kennedy sings in Spanish, promises illegal alien activist that “We won’t let you down, my friend”