"History is philosophy teaching by example." (Lord Bolingbroke)

New Email Address:

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Why Does the Government Prevent INS Officers From Doing Their Job?

"Government Keeping Secrets From Itself--Back by $10,000 Fines"
From: a James Fulford blog entry

Before 9/11, the CIA and the FBI were not allowed to talk to each other; there was a "firewall of confidentiality erected" that prevented the sharing of information. The result of that stupidity was the destruction of the Twin Towers and other acts that could have been thwarted, or at least discovered sooner. Inexplicably, that same mentality lives on in the Immigrations Services, preventing case workers from sharing and finding out vital and pertinent information about applicants.

Ted Kennedy, the man who gave us the 1965 Immigration act, has done it again.

One of Juan Mann's whistleblowers wrote this recently:

There is even a provision to allow affidavits from day labor centers (what's next -- affidavits for tamale vendors and popsicle vendors?) to "prove" employment; fines of up to $10K for immigration officers who dare to use evidence that aliens have committed fraud in immigration applications to disbar them from citizenship.

We weren't sure what section he meant, or if it was in the pubic text of the bill.

However, there's a story in the Washington Times about an interview with the Cuban-born head of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services Emilio Gonzalez, who said:

On the issue of information sharing and confidentiality of applications, Mr. Gonzalez said the law usually allows his agency to share information when its employees come across an application that raises questions. But he said the 1986 amnesty included confidentiality provisions that prohibited sharing information from those applications, and he said the Senate bill makes the same mistake.

"We ought not to be kept from using that information," he said.

The issue has already been fought out in the Senate, when Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican offered an amendment to change the confidentiality requirements. His amendment failed on a tie vote, 49-49.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat and a key backer of the Senate bill, fought Mr. Cornyn's amendment. He said the underlying bill struck a balance that still allows law enforcement t go after cheaters, while at the same time not discouraging illegal aliens from coming forward. [Immigration agency head slams Senate's alien bill The Washington Times, June 1, 2006]

This is the provision that says that if the aliens commit fraud during the interview, that can't be used against them, and also, what concerns Mr.Gonzalez, that if they let slip, somehow, that they're terrorists, that can't be used against them either.

S. 2611 has the following provision, and this version may include some of the same language tat was removed by Kennedy.

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as otherwise provided in this section, no Federal agency or bureau, nor any officer or employee of such agency or bureau, may -

(A) use the information furnished by the applicant pursuant to an application filed under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) for any purpose other than to make a determination on the application;

(B) make any publication through which the information furnished by any particular applicant can be identified; or

(C) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and employees of such agency, bureau, or approved entity, as approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security, to examine individual applications that have been filed.

(2) REQUIRED DISCLOSURES - The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State shall provide the information furnished pursuant to an application filed under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a), and any other information derived from such furnished information, to a duly recognized law enforcement entity in connection with a criminal investigation or prosecution or a national security investigation or prosecution, in each instance about an individual suspect or group of suspects, when such information is requested in writing by such entity.

(3) CRIMINAL PENALTY - Any person who knowingly uses, publishes, or permits information to be examined in violation of this subsection shall be fined not more than $10,000.

Ted Kennedy was apparently worried that "sharing information would discourage some aliens from coming forward because they would fear making an innocent mistake that would hurt them later."

You can see some of the results of the 1986 amnesty "Red Cover" confidentiality provisions here and here.

UPDATE: Note Remember, Juan Mann wrote that

scandalously, no copy of the final bill is yet available to the public.

So I can't confirm what my correspondent tells me was in the early versions -- and it's quite possible that it will all be law before Americans know anything about it.

(Note: Juan Man is an attorney and the proprietor of and is a columnist for and contributes to Michelle Malkin's Immigration blog)

What a swe-e--e-e-t deal! Wouldn't we all love to have such firewalls thrown up to protect us. Pretty soon no one will be able to find out anything or say anything about anyone....

Wait!! There ARE exceptions! To name the obvious, there are insurance companies that have all our medical records, and Social Security that has our employment and earnings history. Oh, there's the I.R.S., but I don't want to go there. Then, there's F.B.I. that make all those background checks; Credit bureaus that tell banks, lenders, and employers all sorts information about us.

How are these and other agencies allowed to intercommunicate, yet agents in the I.N.S. can't talk among themselves or with other agencies to discover true information about illegals, people that aren't even citizens; people that now have more rights and privileges than citizens...

Why does the government prevent the I.N.S. from doing its job? My guess is as good as yours, but could it be that they really want all those "new citizens" among us so that there can be no homogeneous culture that can itself "American", an erasure of national identity, for there are some that say "American" should not pertain to the United States; "American" means any citizen of the Americas and the use of the term by the United States is presumptuous and bogus. They are in fact, electing a new people to!

Does that sound right to you????


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home