Michael Cutler, a retired Senior Special Agent of the former United States INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years, worked as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who rotated through all the squads within the Investigations Branch. For half of his career he was assigned to the Drug Task Force. He has testified before over a dozen congressional hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as state legislative hearings around the United States and at trials where immigration is at issue.
In a recent article in Frontpage Magazine entitled “Immigration Failure — By Design”, Mr. Cutler described how America’s enforcement of immigration policy has all but collapsed after decades of cluttered and inefficient bureaucracy, lack of transparency with regard to both Congress and the American people, and corrupt political agendas. This is a failure that must be laid at the doorstep of the Washington establishment in general, as it was a problem long in the making through many congresses and presidential administrations. The Obama administration, however, has taken several unilateral actions that have virtually emptied the term immigration law enforcement of its very definition. Below is Cutler’s essay in its entirety.
Immigration Failure — By Design
Doing the bidding of the Open Borders anarchists.
by Michael Cutler, 19 April, 2016
Now the Obama administration, to the consternation of Americans across the United States, is preparing to admit at least 10,000 Syrian refugees into the United States with less scrutiny than ever before. This was the focus of my April 15, 2016 article for FrontPage Magazine, “How Obama’s Refugee Policies Undermine National Security: Obama orders ‘shields down’ in the wake of a succession of deadly terror attacks.”
Furthermore, the huge quantities of heroin and cocaine present in towns and cities across our nation lay waste to the administration’s absurd lie that our borders have never been more secure.
On June 27, 2015, CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization) posted my article, “Heroin Epidemic: The Real Metric for Determining Border Security.” In my judgment, the failures of our immigration system, while devastating to America and Americans, is actually a twisted “success story” for organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a laundry list of other organizations and individuals that are intent on flooding America with huge numbers of foreign workers, tourists and students to maximize profits at an extraordinary price: obliterating the “American Dream” and even, all too often, costing Americans their very lives.
Clearly the Obama administration has done more than any other administration to undermine the integrity of the immigration system and hobble any efforts at immigration law enforcement. The immigration crisis is a long time in the making. Indeed, prior administrations of both parties also bear responsibility for the immigration crisis that now threatens national security, public safety and the future of our nation and our citizens.
Back on May 5, 2005, I participated in a hearing that was conducted by the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims. The topic of the hearing was, “New “Dual Missions” Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies.” My prepared testimony for that hearing begins on Page 12 of the transcript of the hearing. What I said then absolutely applies today. I was accompanied at the witness table by three other witnesses: Mr. T.J. Bonner, President, National Border Patrol Council; Ms. Janice Kephart, former September 11 Commission Staff Counsel; and Mr. Richard Stana, Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues, U.S. Government Accountability.
The hearing was convened approximately 44 months after the attacks of 9/11 to determine how the newly created Department of Homeland Security was dealing with the immigration issue, an issue that was central to the ability of the terrorists to carry out that deadly attack.
The coincidence that we must not ignore is that it took the United States and our allies 44 months after the attack at Pearl Harbor to successfully wage war against the Axis Powers (principally Japan and Germany) to bring that war to a successful end. We must also not lose sight of the fact that the 19 terrorists of the 9/11 attacks inflicted more casualties on the United States mainland than did the entire Japanese navy at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
In response to that attack at Pearl Harbor and to the attacks by the Nazi war machine in Europe, the United States quickly mobilized to join with its allies to defeat our common enemies by building fleets of thousands of a wide variety of aircraft and thousands of ocean-going vessels, including Liberty Ships, battleships, submarines and aircraft carriers. We created brand new weapons systems, including the completion and deployment of nuclear weapons. No task was too daunting for the “Greatest Generation.”
I strongly urge you to watch an excellent documentary, “WW2 from Space HD-Full Documentary,” posted by Armed Forces Videos, about the true magnitude of the success America and her allies scored back then.
Now let’s contrast the grit and resolve of the Greatest Generation with where we are today and our current “leaders” by considering this statement from Richard Stana’s prepared testimony at that hearing:
Our work showed that ICE and CBP have made some progress, but much confusion still exists about roles, mission, responsibilities, performance measures and accountability. Reorganizing the bureaus now before the mission and strategic plans are fully developed and operational could further disrupt the mission and operation of these bureaus. More needs to be done to ensure that each element of the framework is put in place. If it isn’t done in proper sequence, mission, then planning, then structure, this could result in a case of ready, shoot, aim.
Now consider the exchange between Congressman Steve King and Mr. Stana:
Mr. KING. And Mr. Stana, you referenced in your testimony that the mission for ICE is national security and not immigration enforcement. And can you reference a policy statement that establishes that?
Mr. STANA. I wouldn’t say it is either/or. What I would say would be immigration in the context of national security. I would just reference that to the DHS strategic plans and then the ICE—well, ICE doesn’t have a strategic plan in final form yet, but in their interim plans and CBP plans, they mention the nexus to national security. It doesn’t preclude immigration efforts.
Mr. KING. And is there any directive on the part of Congress that you know of that DHS would be reacting to in order to promote that kind of a policy, or do you believe that is an internal conclusion?
Mr. STANA. I think what they are doing is taking the mission that was given to them statutorily and interpreting it in that way. I would point out, though, that of all the agencies that are mentioned in the homeland security legislation in 2002, only one was abolished, and that was INS, for whatever reason. And I know some of us have been in hearings for years and years and years, it goes back past the Jordan Commission—talking about how to deal with INS, and apparently one solution was just to dissolve it.
I can still recall sitting at that hearing and fuming that 44 months after this nation’s worst terror attack, formulating a finalized strategic plan for immigration law enforcement was beyond the reach of our “leaders” at the DHS — an agency that is so dysfunctional that I have come to refer to it as the “Department of Homeland Surrender.”
I was thunder-struck by the response Richard Stana provided when he said that of all of the federal agencies, for “whatever reason,” after the attacks of 9/11, only the INS was abolished. As it turned out, I did not have long to wait to voice my anger and frustration. Rep. King then asked me about attrition issues where ICE agents were concerned and I began by talking about the issue of loss of institutional memory, but then asked to be able to address the statements made by Stana. I explained how it was foolhardy to ignore the importance of routine immigration law enforcement to enhance national security. I strongly suggest you take the time to read the transcript of the hearing.
In my judgment, the Bush administration, in creating the DHS, seized the opportunity to abolish the INS and slice it into various components, adding in other agencies and responsibilities and placing managers at the top if each chain of command who had little or no immigration experience to hobble any efforts to enforce immigration laws.
The push for globalization and the importation of cheap labor apparently provided the motivation for Bush and others.
Today, all too many politicians are guided by greed and avarice, not their oaths of office or commitment to our nation or its citizens. In order to curry favor and campaign contributions, they must “deliver.”
While the 9/11 Commission made it clear that the visa process, which the terrorists easily exploited, needed to be tightened up, because of the pressures exerted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its affiliated members, the “Discover America Partnership,” the Visa Waiver Program, which included 26 countries on September 11, 2001 has been incrementally expanded to currently include 38 countries.
The Summer 2015 Edition of The Social Contract includes my extensive article, “The 9/11 Commission Report and Immigration: An Assessment, Fourteen Years after the Attacks.”
Our immigration laws, it must be noted, make absolutely no distinction whatsoever about the race, religion or ethnicity of aliens who seek to enter the United States. The laws were enacted to protect the safety and well-being being of America and Americans. As the title of my March 23, 2016 Frontpage Magazine stated, “Immigration Law Enforcement Is Not About Xenophobia But Commonsense.”
The abysmal failures of the immigration system are hardly a secret. Politicians from both political parties frequently declare that the immigration system is broken — yet most of their proposals to “fix” the broken system would actually greatly exacerbate the problems. Their “solutions” and carefully parsed statements were deviously concocted to create the illusions of solving these problems, while actually doing nothing to impede the flow of cheap foreign labor, foreign tourists and foreign students.
Their proposals often run directly opposite the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, especially the notion that since we cannot deport all of the millions of illegal aliens, we must provide them with lawful status even though we have no way of verifying their identities or backgrounds.
Such a massive legalization program would do irreparable damage to national security. While the southern border must be made secure, the entire immigration system must have integrity — yet this is an issue that is almost never discussed by anyone. None of the terrorists of 9/11 ran the border. Most terrorists entered the United States through international airports.
The lack of integrity to the immigration system enabled terrorists to enter the United States and commit immigration fraud – enabling some to be granted political asylum, lawful immigrant status and even, in some instances, United States citizenship just months before carrying out terror attacks.
Cheap labor is not cheap after all, but it comes with an extraordinary price.