I have attached an article below that appeared in this past Monday's edition of the Washington Post. It is an important article because it deals with the issue of deterring the employment of illegal aliens by unscrupulous employers who know that they face virtually no risk of being punished for their illegal conduct that exploits illegal aliens and does grave harm to the American workers. It is interesting that two individuals with whom I generally disagree have come to agree that both sides of the political aisle bear responsibility for the situation our nation now finds itself in, with millions of illegal aliens living and working in our country. The two individuals I refer to are none other than Doris Meisner, the former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration and also a key member of the INS bureaucracy under the Reagan administration, and Frank Sharry the executive director of a newly former pro-amnesty organization that favors "citizenship for 12 million illegal aliens. Mr. Sharry has long favored such a policy. While they state that the reason that employers are not being punished for knowingly hiring illegal aliens is that the current laws make it very difficult to punish those employers, a belief shared by Stewart A. Baker, the current Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning for DHS and former counsel to the National Security Agency, I believe that the greatest impediment to punishing employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens is to provide ICE with an adequate number of special agents and then dedicate them to carrying out the many functions that are comprehended under the broad umbrella of "interior enforcement" of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Consider this quote from the article: But the crackdown's relatively high costs and limited results are also fueling criticism. In an economy with more than 6 million companies and 8 million unauthorized workers, the corporate enforcement effort is still dwarfed by the high-profile raids that have sentenced thousands of illegal immigrants to prison time and deportation. The actual number of ICE special agents currently conducting investigations of immigration law violations is not publicly available information. I can tell you that is nearly as I could estimate that number before the government stopped discussing that number, some 4,000 ICE agents are "out there" conducting all manner of immigration-related investigations. The article claims that there are more than 6 million employers in the United States. There are probably 20 million illegal aliens living and working in the United States. Do the math- what is the likelihood that an employer will be investigated for knowingly hiring illegal aliens? I suspect that the odds are far better that an employer of illegal aliens might purchase a winning lottery ticket than he will be investigated by ICE!
Also consider the following quote from the article: The conflicting moves show how opposition has frustrated enforcement of the ban on hiring illegal immigrants. In 1986, Congress required law enforcement agencies to show that an employer knowingly violated the law, but provided few tools, agents or dollars to do so. Under the law, employers need only to verify that a new hire present at least one "facially valid" form of identification. The overhaul simply created a huge fake-ID industry, while granting unscrupulous employers a ready defense since the government had no system to validate a document's authenticity. At the same time, employers face discrimination complaints if they unduly scrutinize new hires. Among the deficiencies in the employer sanctions program is the lack of an adequate number of agents and also a lack of on-going training to help agents readily identify bogus documents. Those of us at the INS in the 1980's when the law that promised to punish employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens was enacted, we knew darn well that the hottest deal in town for the crooks was to crank out counterfeit identity documents and also supporting documents such as rent receipts and utility bills because aliens needed to be able to provide evidence that they had been residing in the United States for a defined period of time in order to participate in the 1986 amnesty. The failures of hiring enough special agents and providing the vital training to identify counterfeit and/or altered documents convinced all of us that the threat of employer sanctions were part of an elaborate smokescreen and was intended to create the illusion that the amnesty program of 1986 would have integrity and that there would be a meaningful "give and take." Illegal aliens would be given a pathway to lawful status and ultimately United States citizenship and those who employed illegal aliens would be punished if they hired illegal aliens. The reality is that the estimated 1.1 to 1.5 million illegal aliens that had been estimated to be living in the "shadows" and would be enticed into coming forward by the "One time" amnesty of 1986, swelled to nearly 4 million illegal aliens including criminals and even a number of the terrorists who participated in the first attack on the World Trade Center. The enforcement side of that amnesty was never truly implemented- I believe that this was not an error but was the intention of those who pushed that ill-conceived amnesty program. This is still the situation where newly proposed amnesty programs are concerned. On September 1, 2006 I testified at a field hearing conducted by the House Judiciary Committee in Dubuque, Iowa. The hearing was entitled "IS THE REID-KENNEDY BILL A REPEAT OF THE FAILED AMNESTY OF 1986?" You can read the transcript of that hearing at: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju29745.000/hju29745_0.htm At that hearing I discussed the background of one of the leaders of first terrorist attack at the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 that left 6 innocent victims dead, hundreds injured and an estimated one half billion dollars inflicted on that iconic American landmark. This is what I had to say: "A notable example of such a terrorist can be found in a review of the facts concerning Mahmud Abouhalima, a citizen of Egypt who entered the United States on a tourist visa, overstayed his authorized period of admission and then applied for amnesty under the agricultural worker provisions of IRCA. He succeeded in obtaining resident alien status through this process. During a 5 year period he drove a cab and had his license suspended numerous times for violations of law and ultimately demonstrated his appreciation for our nation's generosity by participating in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 that left 6 people dead, hundreds of people injured and an estimated one half billion dollars in damage inflicted, on that iconic, ill-fated complex. America had opened its doors to him so that he might participate in the ''American Dream.'' He turned that dream into our worst nightmare. The other terrorists who attacked our nation on subsequent attacks, including the attacks of September 11, 2001, similarly exploited our generosity, seeing in our nation's kindness, weakness, gaming the immigration system to enter our country and then, hide in plain sight, among us." Doris Meisner has long been a proponent of amnesty for illegal aliens and has done little to see to it that the interior enforcement program had adequate resources including staffing, funding and training. To support my claim I have provided you, below the article from the Washington Post, with the transcript of a hearing that was conducted on March 4, 1999 by the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. You may be curious as to why I would provide you with the transcript of a hearing that was conducted more than nine years ago. The answer is quite simple, John F. "Jack" Shaw testified at that hearing and raised the issue of the lack of resources that were provided, even back then, to the interior enforcement program of the old INS. He was called to testify before that hearing because at the time of the hearing, he was the Assistant Commissioner for Investigations. In effect, every INS special agent of the INS worked for him. I have had the privilege of having had many conversations with Jack Shaw and he has my respect. He wanted so badly to get the job done but found that our government provided the greatest impediments to that simple goal! (His testimony provides ample evidence of this. It also provided more than ample evidence of his integrity and courage, confronting his boss, Commissioner Doris Meisner, at an oversight hearing in which she also participated and therefore was present to hear what he had to say about her!) What Jack had to say is especially disturbing because that hearing was held just over 6 years after the first attack on the World Trade Center that took place on February 26, 1993 . It was the ability of the terrorists to enter our country and then successfully game the immigration system that enabled them to carry out that murderous attack that nearly succeeded in toppling one of the towers. Had that tower, that was 110 stories tall, fallen sideways (it nearly did) the devastation would have far and away eclipsed the destruction created at that same location roughly one and a half years after Jack Shaw testified about the failures of our nation to address the critical issue of the enforcement of the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States. Those same failures enabled the terrorists who attacked our nation on September 11, 2001 to enter our country and then embed themselves in our country as they completed their plans to carry out that deadly attack. The topic of the hearing conducted in 1999 was: "DESIGNATIONS OF TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS AND FRAUD IN PRIOR AMNESTY PROGRAMS" You can read the transcript of that hearing at: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0f.htm I have also provided you with a copy of Jack's complete prepared testimony for that hearing below the newspaper article. I have copied a couple of his key paragraphs immediately below, that make it clear that then INS Commissioner Doris Meisner had no apparent interest in making the interior enforcement a priority. Indeed, I would ask you to consider what Jack Shaw had to say about an infamous quote he attributed to her concerning the enforcement of the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States: In its determined efforts to establish control of the border by tightening security on the perimeter, Congress has seemingly ignored the critical, complementary roles and responsibilities of Interior Enforcement . . . and these fall mainly on the shoulders of Investigations. I believe that the concept of Interior Enforcement, supported by a well articulated strategy document, ought to be as familiar in the nomenclature of immigration enforcement as the concept, or term, Border Control. Although, I must admit that even in-house at INS, the Commissioner has said that Interior Enforcement is a term of usage invented by Investigations and devoid of meaning. I placed the emphasis on her words as reported by Jack Shaw, to repeat: "Interior enforcement is a term of usage invented by Investigations and devoid of meaning!" What did she mean "devoid of meaning?" Did this have anything to do with her failure to properly fund and provide leadership to this essential component of national security? Whose side was she on? Whose side is she on today? As the commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service back then, she was our boss! I would love for Doris Meisner, who now laments that employers are not being punished for knowing hiring illegal aliens, to explain what in blazes that quote means! Here is another quote from Jack Shaw worth considering: In May 1995, I met personally with Commissioner Meissner to discuss the status of Investigations, competing pressures on the program, static funding levels, and the transparent operational limitations of the program. I referred to the 1991 Workload Distribution and Resource Allocation Report that she had been provided during her transition. The Commissioner did not recall having seen the study, but expressed interest in it. I provided the Commissioner another copy the same day, which she said she would review with interest and provide me her comments and feedback. I never heard anything further from Mrs. Meissner on the report. There is a wonderful Yiddish expression that says that "When a fish goes bad, it smells from the head!" She was the head of the INS! Our country has a terrible track record where the effective administration and enforcement of the immigration laws are concerned. President Harry S. Truman had a placard on his desk in the Oval Office that simply stated, "The Buck Stops Here!" He understood that he bore the ultimate responsibility for the decisions made by his administration. I believe that when you read Jack Shaw's quotes and you consider how fouled up the INS was and how fouled up ICE is today where the enforcement of the immigration laws are concerned, the leaders at the top of the agency need to be accountable. As I have stated at a number of venues including when I have appeared at hearings, "A nation without secure borders can no more stand than can a house without wall!" The immigration system, however, is more than our nation's borders, it is the entire system including, especially the interior enforcement program where the immigration laws are concerned. We continue to hear reports from key leaders in the administration such as Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security, that terrorists are attempting to enter our country to kill more of our citizens and cause massive destruction. Yet the immigration bureaucracy that has consistently failed to demonstrate that it is up to its many challenges continues to blunder along. The administration continues to talk about expanding the Visa Waiver Program that should have ended on September 11, 2001- indeed, should have ended after the first attack on the World Trade Center ,more than 15 years ago! Much is being made about Senator Obama finally making a "fact finding' trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Senator McCain boasts about how many times he has gone to those "hot spots." Certainly our leaders should be concerned about the situation in the Middle East, we have certainly spilled enough blood of our soldiers there. We have spent enough money there as well. What I want to know is when will either candidate for the Presidency be going on a "fact finding" trip to our nation's borders? When will they speak with the family members whose loved ones were killed as a result of the terrorist attacks of February 26, 1993 and September 11, 2001? When will they speak with the family members of those whose loved ones were killed by criminal aliens and alien gang members who violated our laws and our borders and killed those innocent people? These are the questions that We the People need to demand answers to, before our nation is attacked again! These concerns are not Conservative issues and they are not Liberal issues: these are simply AMERICAN issues! 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! (I would ask that you forward this to anyone you wish. Just please forward it in its entirety and with attribution!) -michael cutler- <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/20/AR200807200 2293.html?hpid=topnews> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/20/AR2008072002 293.html?hpid=topnews <http://www.washingtonpost.com/?nav=pf> washingtonpost.com <http://www.washingtonpost.com/?nav=pf> NEWS | <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/?nav=pf> OPINIONS | <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/sports/?nav=pf> SPORTS | <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artsandliving/?nav=pf> ARTS & LIVING | <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/liveonline/?nav=pf> Discussions | <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/?nav=pf> Photos & Video | <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artsandliving/cityguide/?nav=p f> City Guide | <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/admin/classifieds/?nav=pf> CLASSIFIEDS | <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wl/jobs/home?nav=pf> JOBS | <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/cars/?nav=pf> CARS | <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/realestate/?nav=pf> REAL ESTATE In Immigration Cases, Employers Feel the Pressure But Critics Fault Laws as Ineffective By Spencer S. Hsu Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, July 21, 2008; A01 A three-year-old enforcement campaign against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants is increasingly resulting in arrests and criminal convictions, using evidence gathered by phone taps, undercover agents and prisoners who agree to serve as government witnesses. But the crackdown's relatively high costs and limited results are also fueling criticism. In an economy with more than 6 million companies and 8 million unauthorized workers, the corporate enforcement effort is still dwarfed by the high-profile raids that have sentenced thousands of illegal immigrants to prison time and deportation. Stewart A. Baker, assistant secretary for policy at the <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Department+of+Homeland +Security?tid=informline> Homeland Security Department, recently told immigration experts the disparity can be traced to ineffective policies that need to be addressed by Congress. "Companies tell me, 'We have an immigration system that allows us to hire illegal workers, legally,' " Baker said. Asked to defend <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/George+W.+Bush?tid=informli ne> President Bush's track record, he said, "Why are employers not punished more often? Because the laws we have don't really authorize that." In the first nine months of this fiscal year, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Bureau+of+Immigration+ and+Customs+Enforcement?tid=informline> U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) made 937 criminal arrests at U.S. workplaces, more than 10 times as many as the 72 it arrested five years ago. Of those arrested this year, 99 were company supervisors, compared with 93 in 2007. The arrests have led to several convictions, including a union official at a Swift meatpacking plant; three executives of a Florida janitorial services company; a temporary-staffing agency manager for a <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Del+Monte+Foods+Company?tid =informline> Del Monte Fresh Produce plant in Oregon; two supervisors of a Cargill pork plant cleaning contractor in Illinois; and seven managers of IFCO Systems North America, a pallet services company, among others. But Baker's comments acknowledged criticism by labor union leaders, immigrant rights' groups and Democrats about the limits of employer enforcement. His remarks also illuminate why the <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+White+House?tid=informl ine> White House, Congress and some states have scrambled recently to adopt new steps to compel companies to identify illegal workers, and why such efforts will probably remain ineffective. Political opposition from big business, labor and immigrant and civil rights interests has diluted immigration law for two decades, according to analysts in both parties. "If you want law enforcement, you have to have laws that are enforceable," said Doris M. Meissner, who headed the former Immigration and Naturalization Service under the Clinton administration. The 1986 law banning the hiring of illegal immigrants, she said, "has just been chronically flawed from the time it was passed." Raids against Swift packinghouses in six states in December 2006 highlight the administration's strategy to seek criminal indictments and felony convictions against corporate violators. An earlier approach that relied on administrative fines and forfeitures was increasingly dismissed by executives as a cost of doing business. The tactics used now are similar to law enforcement techniques honed in developing cases against mobsters and drug lords. In June 2007, federal agents wired a Mexican slaughterhouse worker who had been arrested on immigration charges and sent him to call at the home of his former boss at a meatpacking plant in Marshalltown, Iowa. The informant, nicknamed "Memo," carried a false ID. He told Christopher Lamb, now the plant's human resources manager, that he was free pending a hearing and wanted to return to work. Lamb, 38, coached Memo but seemed to realize he was walking into a trap, court records show. "Where's the migra?" he asked later, using the Spanish term for immigration agents. The informant's tapes led Lamb to plead guilty in March to one charge of harboring an illegal immigrant. In a deal with prosecutors, he agreed to serve a year's probation, pay $300 in fines and cooperate against others targeted after immigration raids in 2006 against meatpacker Swift, now JBS Swift. An undercover agent taped union official Braulio Pereyra advising new employees at an orientation speech on how to protect false identities. "You can lie to your boss or whomever, but not to the police," Pereyra was recorded as saying. "That's a federal offense." He was convicted in May on one charge of harboring illegal immigrants, and faces as much as five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Pereyra's lawyer, Keith Rigg, said his client committed no crime and had a First Amendment right to give the speech. He is seeking a retrial. Enforcement disparities were displayed vividly May 12 when ICE agents swept into an <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Agriprocessors+Inc.?tid=inf ormline> Agriprocessors Inc. kosher meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa. They arrested 389 illegal workers; 270 were convicted within days in expedited court proceedings at a cattle fairgrounds; and many were sentenced to five months in prison, mostly on criminal document-fraud charges. By contrast, ICE agents arrested two supervisors and issued an arrest warrant for a third man on July 3. The firm remains in operation. Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, a newly formed group that promotes citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, said the raid shows the misdirected policy of criminalizing illegal immigration for workers while not shutting down the jobs "magnet" that lures them. Several critics, including a federal court interpreter who participated in the Agriprocessors hearings, said the government's legal tactics are coercive and threaten defendants' due process rights. "There's no question this administration is coddling unscrupulous employers while arresting undocumented immigrants in order to make their statistics look good," Sharry said. But he echoed Baker's frustration at politicians who seek to look tough on immigration and yet do not provide effective law enforcement tools or address the nation's labor needs and underground population. "The dysfunctional immigration system really is the fault of Congress, for failing to lead," Sharry said. Piecemeal measures to combat illegal hiring are under way this year, but the moves remain controversial and their effects uncertain. In March, the White House attempted to jump-start a campaign to notify 140,000 employers about workers' use of suspicious Social Security numbers, seeking to force businesses to resolve questions or fire workers within 90 days. If companies do not respond to "no-match" letters, ICE could use that failure as evidence of illegal hiring. But the plan remains stalled by a federal lawsuit filed by the <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Chamber+of+Commerce?ti d=informline> U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/AFL-CIO?tid=informline> AFL-CIO and the <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/American+Civil+Liberties+Un ion?tid=informline> American Civil Liberties Union, which allege that it will disrupt businesses and discriminate against legal U.S. workers. Also in dispute is another effort to expand use of a voluntary online system that checks whether new hires are eligible to work in the United States. The Bush administration on June 9 ordered 60,000 federal contractors to use the government's E-Verify system, which checks workers' information against Social Security and immigration-status databases. Still, 12 years after Congress mandated that such a tool be piloted in 1996, the change will enroll about 2 percent of U.S. companies. Critics warn that the system has a high error rate that will exclude legal workers, cannot detect the fraudulent use of stolen Social Security numbers, and will permit some employers to harass workers. Frustrated by the stalemate, Arizona, Missouri and South Carolina since January have passed laws or have begun requiring businesses to use E-Verify under certain conditions. But Illinois has gone the opposite direction, barring companies from participating until the government proves that E-Verify is 99 percent error-free. The conflicting moves show how opposition has frustrated enforcement of the ban on hiring illegal immigrants. In 1986, Congress required law enforcement agencies to show that an employer knowingly violated the law, but provided few tools, agents or dollars to do so. Under the law, employers need only to verify that a new hire present at least one "facially valid" form of identification. The overhaul simply created a huge fake-ID industry, while granting unscrupulous employers a ready defense since the government had no system to validate a document's authenticity. At the same time, employers face discrimination complaints if they unduly scrutinize new hires. Few expect the situation to change soon with this fall's elections looming. Some <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Republican+Party?tid=i nformline> GOP congressional campaigns are talking tough, but the party is wary of further alienating its traditional business base. Democrats in turn rely on labor and immigrant support, leading the House to propose a $40 billion DHS budget bill that would require ICE to prioritize $800 million in enforcement funding next year to deporting illegal immigrants with criminal records, not workers. At a <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Georgetown+University+Law+C enter?tid=informline> Georgetown Law School conference in May, Baker of DHS described a sense among voters that "both parties owed their base a kind of collusion of pretend enforcement of the immigration laws." He added, "I can't say that was completely misplaced skepticism." Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report. © 2008 The Washington Post Company DESIGNATIONS OF TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS AND FRAUD IN PRIOR AMNESTY PROGRAMS HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MARCH 4, 1999 <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0f.htm > http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0f.htm PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN F. SHAW, FORMER ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR INVESTIGATIONS, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I am honored to submit this written statement in support of my oral testimony on these important issues which go to the heart of the integrity of our immigration laws and practices. On January 2 of this year, I retired from government service, thirty-six years all told: with three years commissioned service in the United States Marine Corps and thirty-three years in the Department of Justice. From 1984 through 1995, I was the Assistant Commissioner for the Investigations Division with program oversight responsibilities for criminal alien matters, fraud, alien smuggling, work site enforcement, and INS participation in joint inter-agency task force programs, such as the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force and the Criminal Division's Organized Crime and Racketeering Strike Force. <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 138%23138> Page 137 <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 136%23136> PREV PAGE <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 0%230> TOP OF DOC Before assuming the responsibilities for the Investigations Division, from 1982 through 1983, I worked directly with Benedict Ferro, then the District Director in Buffalo, New York, on a Headquarters priority project to develop a detailed implementation plan for a Legalization Program which was a major piece of successive legislative proposals from 1982 until finally passed as the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). With the passage of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill in November 1986, the INS had at its disposal a comprehensive implementation plan which covered all avenues for accepting and adjudicating, within a one year window, the legalization applications of an estimated 2.3 million applicants likely to meet the law's residency requirements. Overall, INS received considerable plaudits and positive recognition for its aggressive preparation and successful implementation of a national legalization program. Nevertheless, the agency's performance was sorely tested by a significant incidence of fraud in the petition process. Part of the problem was the agency's need to efficiently process millions of petitions in an abbreviated time frame, and at the same time, discourage fraud and ensure integrity in the adjudicatory process. Congress did not help the cause by adding, without public hearings, Special Agricultural Workers (SAW) provisions in the final bill. The SAW program substantially lowered the qualifications for a targeted population of workers involved in the harvesting of perishable crops. The potential for fraud in the application process was particularly acute for the Investigations Division. On the one hand, Congress provided specific provisions of law and special funding to allow the examinations, or the service side of the house, exceptional hiring prerogatives, including funds for the reimbursement of voluntary agencies to act as a preliminary screening and advisory force for alien applicants who might be fearful of submitting their petitions directly to the INS. Investigations, on the other hand, at the outset of Legalization had a staffing level of only 691 Special Agents nationwide to contend with the expected incidence of fraud, prepare for the implementation of the new employer sanctions provisions of law, and, at the same time, continue to support on-going investigative activities. For the decade preceding IRCA, Investigations had received no increase in staffing, but rather experienced a continuing decline in resources due to attrition. Although IRCA provided for 924 new positions for Investigations, the appropriation bill was only passed in the spring of 1987. This meant the recruitment, hiring, and training of new investigators would be in the pipeline, and not in the field, for a year or more, while the legalization application process was going full force and the indicators of fraud were already being reported by field offices. <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 139%23139> Page 138 <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 137%23137> PREV PAGE <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 0%230> TOP OF DOC Kimberly A. Mattingly, writing for the National Journal on September 24, 1988, summarized the peculiar pitfalls of INS trying to handle the SAW program as part of Legalization: ''No one was sure in 1986 how many illegal aliens worked in U.S. agriculture in a year. Although most estimates ranged from 200,000350,000. Today, still more than two months before the application deadline, more than 830,000 have applied for amnesty under the SAW program. About a million applicants are expected by November, according to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).INS officials say the fraudby some estimates at nearly 30 percent of applicantsis difficult to control without also rejecting qualified workers, whose documentation is often just as scarce. Under the law, after applicants present what appears to be valid preliminary documentation, such as a work affidavit from an employer, they automatically receive a stay of deportation and temporary work authorization. Unlike the general amnesty program, the burden of proof is on the INS. [An] INS deputy assistant commissioner said some labor contractors 'will sell [bogus] work affidavits to whoever's willing to pay the fee,' And with only 850 (sic) investigators nationwide, the INS does not have the manpower or the money to effectively counter fraud, he said.'' The obstacles, or challenges, if you will, that the Investigations Division experienced with IRCA's Legalization program are illustrative of the systemic problems encountered whenever INS seeks to implement a broad based benefit-dispensing program, such as adjudicating voluminous naturalization petitions under the patriotic banner of Citizenship USA; expanding the breadth of the visa waiver program to marginally deserving countries; or initiating virtually open-ended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) programs for countries added to the ever expanding queue. From my enforcement experience in Investigations, I do not question the altruism or humanitarian motives behind these initiatives, all of which afford priceless benefitsmany even permanent onesto the recipients. Rather, the problem with INS is not the lack of good intentions or lofty motives in extending these benefit programs, but rather its reliance on an inadequate support structure for issuing secure, tamper proof documents, including documents for extensions of TPS, and the lack of a coherent strategy to ensure the eventual removal of unqualified aliens upon the termination of their status. The moral of the story is that INS senior management, whether in furtherance of some political mandate or else propelled by Congressional or advocacy group pressure, invariably promises more than it is capable of delivering. And when failure ensues from the effort, as in the case of Citizenship USA, then management sees fit to place convenient blame on district field managers for their inability to absorb the sizeable workloads, or assigned quotas, in an unrealistic time frame. INS top management needs to start acknowledging responsibility for its own advance planning inadequacies. It needs to examine more closely the root causes of its inability to ensure both administrative efficiency and program integrity in launching large scale benefit dispensing initiatives, without first providing the impacted district offices the enabling resources and system support to accomplish their task. <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 140%23140> Page 139 <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 138%23138> PREV PAGE <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 0%230> TOP OF DOC Congress should certainly realize that humanitarian programs, such as TPS, place an additional burden not only on the INS adjudications and records functions, but on its enforcement components as well, particularly on Investigations. TPS qualified applicants must be issued INS identification documents through the initial application process and these documents establish the expiration date for their period of temporary residency. The initiation of TPS programs, almost from the date of their announcement, if not before, invariably induces unqualified nationals from the same country, particularly one whose borders are proximate to those of the United States, to enter surreptitiously in order to enjoy the economic benefits of the program, principally, work authorization and freedom of movement in this country. This phenomenon places additional pressure on the Border Patrol in its efforts to prevent illegal entry across our land borders. If Congress further extends TPS programs beyond their initial duration, INS must then assume the additional administrative responsibility of reissuing, or extending the terms, of the aliens' identification documents. Such an adjustment may compromise the security of the INS' document issuance system. Once INS allows documents to remain in the aliens' possession with expired dates, this internal administrative accommodation to alleviate in-house workload can lead to later problems in efforts to enforce the law, determine the actual status of an alien in possession of an INS document, and eventually, in efforts to locate and remove the alien upon the termination of TPS status. If the INS document-issuance system allows TPS aliens to retain documents with expired dates, as has happened in the past, both employers and INS investigators experience considerable confusion in ensuring compliance with the employer sanction provisions of law in Worksite Enforcement operations. Neither the employer nor the investigator in the first instance can establish the true status of the alien with an expired card. However, the real burden in INS instituting, or subsequently extending, TPS program benefits must be shouldered by the Investigations Division. Investigations is already charged with a formidable array of enforcement priorities and responsibilities that simply overtax its capacity to perform effectively in meeting the expectations of the Congress, the public at large, and state and local law enforcement in general. Besides the need to conduct long-term, labor-intensive complex investigations involving the prosecution of document fraud and alien smuggling operations, the INS Special Agent must somehow show a level of responsiveness to local law enforcement to assist in the identification, custody, administrative processing and removal of out-of-status aliens, as well as those committing crimes. TPS status candidates and would be TPS status seekers fall into the Investigations' mix, as well. And, in a climate of scarce detention space, the administrative or out-of-status violator, including the expired TPS alien, is not likely to warrant being held in lieu of a criminal alien. The realization of limited enforcement resources in the interior, an array of competing Investigations priorities, and the limitations of detention space, paint a discouraging picture for the INS investigator intent on doing his job; that is, denying the extension of immigration benefits to those not legally entitled. This situation tends to support the immigration maxims: ''If INS cannot detain an alien during deportation proceedings, it is unlikely to be able to successfully remove him from the country'' and ''Once an illegal alien avoids apprehension by the Border Patrol, the chances of his detection and removal from the interior are significantly in his favor.'' <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 141%23141> Page 140 <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 139%23139> PREV PAGE <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 0%230> TOP OF DOC An article in the Raleigh (North Carolina) News and Observer in November, 1998, I believe, accurately depicts the current state of enforcement of the immigration laws in the interior. Under the title ''Law vs. Reality,'' journalists Ned Glascock and Craig Whitlock wrote: ''In reality, the INS still strikes little fear in illegal immigration here. . . . After leaving his home in Mexico in 1996, [the illegal immigrant], age 42, now a landscaper in Durham, was caught three times in a single month after crossing the Texas border with a smuggler. Yet when he made it to North Carolina on the fourth try, he was in the clear. . . . 'In North Carolina, immigration authorities pose no problems,' [according to the immigrant] . . . As Congress boosted the Washington-based agency's budget 163 percent in six years, the enforcement priority has been clear. Each year through 2002, the INS is to deploy an additional 1,000 Border Patrol agents, for a total of 12,000. Yet almost half the illegal-entry problem has nothing to do with border enforcement. The INS' own statistics show that four of every 10 undocumented immigrants enter the country legallyusually on short term tourist or work visasand then stay.'' In its determined efforts to establish control of the border by tightening security on the perimeter, Congress has seemingly ignored the critical, complementary roles and responsibilities of Interior Enforcement . . . and these fall mainly on the shoulders of Investigations. I believe that the concept of Interior Enforcement, supported by a well articulated strategy document, ought to be as familiar in the nomenclature of immigration enforcement as the concept, or term, Border Control. Although, I must admit that even in-house at INS, the Commissioner has said that Interior Enforcement is a term of usage invented by Investigations and devoid of meaning. <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 142%23142> Page 141 <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 140%23140> PREV PAGE <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 0%230> TOP OF DOC As far back as December 1991, the Investigations Division circulated an analytical study in-house entitled ''Workload Distribution and Resource Allocation Report.'' This report represented Investigations' efforts at that time to measure its workload in six distinct areas of program activity, and to assess the minimum resource needs for operating effectively in these six areas: Criminal Aliens, Employer Sanctions, Fraud, Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, Anti-Smuggling, and general investigations support to other INS programs. The analysis of workload data and statistical productivity data found that 1,157 funded officer work years were required over and above the then on-duty strength of 916 non-supervisory criminal investigators, for a total of 2,073 non-supervisory street agents in Investigations. Investigations recognized the magnitude of seeking such an enhancement in a single year regardless of the merits of the justification. Investigations thus recommended that the service pursue a goal of reaching this resource level over a five year period, by recruiting, hiring, and training 231 new agents per year for five years. That completed study probably exists today only as an archival document in INS, but I remember it well for the general lack of in-house support through subsequent budget year cycles. The report was simply put on a shelf and became the victim of successive tight budget year planning marks by the Department and Office of Management and the Budget. Investigations' staffing continued to remain static through 1994, when the Clinton Administration first discovered the incarcerated criminal alien problem. In the first year of the Administration, the Governors of the seven states housing the largest number of incarcerated criminal aliens appeared at the White House, either in person or through their representatives, to exert pressure on the Federal government for their serious criminal alien problem. Investigations had been working cooperatively for several years with key state correctional representatives of the five states having the largest criminal alien populations as part of a Federal/State planning group, but without the ability to sufficiently satisfy their funding and manpower requests. Then, in the fall of 1994, Investigations Headquarters was suddenly asked what initiatives it could undertake, in conjunction with the Detention and Deportation (DD&P) program, with $300 million added to the FY 1995 agency budget, for criminal alien removals and worksite enforcement. Investigations and DD&P, within the allowed 48 hour planning period, put together program enhancements, identical to those unsupported in years past, which provided momentum to interior enforcement programs, at least in the areas of criminal alien removals and work site enforcement operations. The budget enhancement in FY 1995 provided the first real impetus to interior enforcement activities that had been largely ignored since the one-time IRCA infusion of resources for Investigations in the Spring of 1987. Again, one year later, in the course of reformulating the FY 1996 budget, INS top management asked what positive program results Investigations and DD&P could predict with an additional enhancement of $150$200 million for criminal alien removals and work site enforcement. The budget response was provided within 24 hours, and the result was a further bolstering of Interior Enforcement activities for which prior INS/Department administrations had consistently failed to seek funding via the annual budget planning process. <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 143%23143> Page 142 <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 141%23141> PREV PAGE <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 0%230> TOP OF DOC In May 1995, I met personally with Commissioner Meissner to discuss the status of Investigations, competing pressures on the program, static funding levels, and the transparent operational limitations of the program. I referred to the 1991 Workload Distribution and Resource Allocation Report that she had been provided during her transition. The Commissioner did not recall having seen the study, but expressed interest in it. I provided the Commissioner another copy the same day, which she said she would review with interest and provide me her comments and feedback. I never heard anything further from Mrs. Meissner on the report. I am well aware, however, that for the last three years the Offices of Enforcement/Programs and Field Operations have undertaken the task of formulating an integrated Interior Enforcement Strategy, the implementation of which would more effectively unify the enforcement activities of INS and allow an appropriate emphasis to be placed on the enforcement of immigration laws in the non-border areas of the United States. But such a strategy, even when formulated, will only succeed if it is supported adequately by staffing increases and resource enhancements in the field. INS' Interior Enforcement Strategy has been in gestation for at least three years under the current Commissioner. In reality, the critical pieces of that strategy owe their origins to the 1991 report; thus, the strategy has been in gestation for at least eight years. The prospects for that strategy's release and publication, however, are not optimistic. Immigration advocacy groups exert a strong interest in areas of INS policy formulation, on the enforcement side as well as on the benefits side, and they are not prone to endorse strong enforcement actions away from the land borders to deny aliens immigration benefits. Indeed, last year in addressing the strategy planning group as it completed its report on Interior Enforcement Strategy, under the aegis of LMI contractor support, the Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy and Plans noted that there are operational sensitivities to take into account and no strong public consensus for INS enforcement activities in the interior of the United States. INS top management remains reticent and lukewarm on placing any emphasis on the development of a fully integrated, and funded, Interior Enforcement Strategy. <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 144%23144> Page 143 <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 142%23142> PREV PAGE <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59871.000/hju59871_0.htm# 0%230> TOP OF DOC I share the frustration of the Congress, especially the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, in waiting for INS senior management to propose, seek funding for, and enthusiastically endorse and implement a cohesive, fully integrated Interior Enforcement Strategyone that finally recognizes the critical needs of Investigations vis-à-vis the legitimate, parallel needs of the Border Patrol, the unique authority and resource requirements of Investigations, the sensitivities, complexities and Constitutional restrictions on enforcement operations in the interior, and lastly, the professional competence, fidelity and dedication of the long-overlooked coterie of Special Agents of the INS. They are a special class deserving of the informed support of the Congress of the United States. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/20/AR200807200 2293.html?hpid=topnews> _____ Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football <http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020> today. -- You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today. - Abraham Lincoln [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
