Immigrant Crime: Who Wants To Know?

Immigrant Crime: Who Wants To Know? - David Walsh
http://www.vdare.com/misc/walsh_interview.htm

Immigrant Crime: Who Wants To Know?

By David Walsh

Recently, while exploring the incidence of immigrant crime and its impact on the US, I was stymied. Not by the dearth of information: it’s there if you really want it. What was troubling was the lengths to which people who rely on such statistics (here, gang investigators and the INS) will go to avoid discussing them. Some officials were fearful, some indifferent, others seemed to question my motives. It all seemed to mirror the big media’s tendency to skirt the issue.

Richard H. Ward, Dean and Director of the Center of Criminal Justice at Texas’s Sam Houston State University (and an ex-NYPD detective), recently published an interesting study in Criminal Justice 2000 called “The Internationalization of Criminal Justice” about the importation of crime: narco-terrorism, street crime and gangs, home invasions, credit-card and staged-accident scams, identity theft, and white slavery.

“Globalization,” Ward observed in his introduction, “is producing ... new challenges for criminal justice practitioners and researchers.... To the law enforcement community, particularly at the local level, global crime is frequently linked to illegal aliens” (now officially recorded as entering the US at a rate of some 25,000 each month, and probably far higher in actuality). At the same time, “criminal activity by ... legal immigrants ... has grown considerably.”

Despite this, though, the watchword in the States is… accommodation. Police, intelligence agencies, the courts, parole officers, social workers, and health professionals—as well as Americans at large—all must accustom themselves, it seems, to immigrant crime.

The dimensions of the problem loom so large, Ward suggested, that even basic American freedoms may be abridged in the name of the greater good. What most caught my attention in his article, though, was a passage having to do with disincentives to investigation and enforcement.

Some of these already hobble the police and the INS. “In areas with large immigrant communities,” Ward found, “political pressure is frequently applied to discourage immigration authorities and law enforcement from ‘searching out’ illegals.”

In an interview with Prof. Ward, I asked about this statement—a confirmation of something long suspected though rarely discussed in the media. He began by suggesting that several factors are at work here.

“Over the past decade, in many cases from a criminal justice standpoint [officials] have stepped back and said, ‘Hey, we’re just not going to look at this.’" (Immigrant crime, that is.) “It’s a sign of the times; the feeling, you know, that everybody makes mistakes [like crossing the border illegally?], and there’s an unwillingness to apply more law enforcement.” In a further reflection of current thinking, Ward added, “‘Let’s not cause any problems for our neighbors (and trading partners)--particularly Mexico.’" He declined to be specific, but suggested that officialdom exercises - quite properly - an overweening caution in discussing the matter.

Yes, but although it’s clear that only a minority of newcomers is involved in crime (“less than one-in-ten,” Ward guesses), aren’t We The People entitled to know the extent of it?

Well, no—that’s not politically feasible. “There is no way to sort out the numbers of foreign criminals,” Ward says. “That would take raiding sweat shops and the like, and that gets into how far you should go.” (To liberals, of course, the very term “raid” is ominous.)

Then, of course, there’s the ultimate question:

Why bother to study immigrant crime, anyway? Even with upwards of fifteen million illegals in the US today, “very few people care - as long as there are jobs.”

When I suggested to Prof. Ward that this laissez faire attitude towards foreign crime was shared by our government, he agreed with me. “That’s probably a good word. Unemployment is so low in the United States that very few people are paying attention.... An example is the large numbers of Asians, especially Chinese illegals, who no one [in the criminal justice system] seems to be paying much attention to.” How come? Oh—“They’re not much involved in crime, or it’s Chinese-on-Chinese crime.”

In any event, Ward said, the crooks melt into the immigrant community where they’re sometimes sheltered, but in any case untracked by police, INS, or other authorities. Unnoticed or not, Ward estimates that over 100,000 Chinese alone are smuggled into the country every year. Invariably, they end up as “slave laborers” for the Triads, or Chinese mafia.

As for Latinos, by far the largest contributor to the U.S.’s newcomer population, Ward quipped, “There’s this juxtaposition: people who want to bring [immigrants] in for farming, and others, like some ranchers who want to get rid of them.” (While trespassing across ranch land, immigrants sometimes steal equipment and damage private property.)

But Professor Ward turned somber when the discussion turned to shifts in public sentiment during an economic downturn. The Border Patrol, entrusted with guarding America’s frontiers, is “poorly funded” in spite of the booming economy. Ward endorses beefing up the BP with funds, plenty more personnel, better pay and equipment—improvements he thinks are unlikely, however. Washington gives “a wink and nod” to the porous border, since “the government relies on foreign workers and their cheap labor.” And so the U.S. Border Patrol, the professor commented with notable understatement, “finds itself in the unenviable position of trying to curtail what some view as a monumental problem.”

So what about foreign terrorists, presumably a major concern of this nation? Can’t they take advantage of the same lax border controls as the average Mexican peasant? Ward agreed they might, but that “that’s a different situation.” (He couldn’t tell me just how different.)

A further problem in controlling immigrant crime is the “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” phenomenon: To most Americans, the foreign population barely registers, let alone the criminals among them. An important reason for this, Ward notes, is that immigrants usually victimize their own people. Hispanic crooks, for instance, “see their people as walking ATM machines” owing to their avoidance of banks and police (this means they’re likely to carry large sums of cash on their persons).

And then, of course, there’s the fear factor: In today’s political climate, Ward acknowledged, truth-telling is easily confused with insensitivity or “hate.” Other difficulties include record-keeping on foreign criminals—or the lack of it. “Each state keeps different kind of statistics, and it’s really a killer to get an accurate picture.”

So how does the United States protect its sovereignty against foreign dangers? Besides the Border Patrol upgrades, Professor Ward suggests, “We should create better economic conditions in the other countries. On the criminal side, we’re never going to be able to close the borders with Mexico very effectively unless we make a very strong commitment to doing that.” (Experts, you need to understand, are in the habit of thinking big.) “Once again, quite frankly, we don’t know who’s coming across the border.” (You said a mouthful, professor!)

Finally, this criminal justice expert suggested how the problem of alien crime could lead to possible encroachments by the federal government. (“Indeed,” he had written in his article, “a paradox of more internationalization may well be a lessening of individual rights and the autonomy of local governments.”)

Now, he told me, “We are going to see more emphasis by the federal government stepping in on this [crime problem]. You’ve already got the drug czar .... Perhaps mass fingerprinting is next.” (Not fingerprinting for immigrants only, but for the American public as a whole.) As for the states and their police forces, we may expect to see them “federalized” in years to come. (So much to look forward to.)

So there you have it: the safety of the commonweal - and even basic national security - all but trumped by the government’s fears of identity politics and the escalating power of social activists.

Not to mention the timidity of the “experts” who advise and direct our elected public officials, in Congress and elsewhere.

David Walsh is a freelance writer/photographer (Click here to view his work) in the Washington D.C. area. Among his recent articles is an exposé of Hispanic drivers’ disproportionately poor safety record.

June 18, 2001

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23345

Mexico: The next Lebanon?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Joseph Farah © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

We've all heard and read the reports recently about how the Mexican government is actively promoting illegal migration into the United States – even providing survival kits to those intending to cross the Rio Grande and make their way to the "promised land."

Mexico makes little or no effort to police its border with the U.S. It minimizes the threat the refugees pose to the United States. It even suggests its overflow population should be welcomed into the U.S.

Therefore, a recent news item originating in the San Diego Union-Tribune was something of a shocker for several reasons.

Mexico's National Security Adviser Adolfo Aguilar Zinser made the sensational announcement that Islamic terrorist organizations have a presence along the U.S. border and may be making contacts with Mexican guerrilla groups.

"We have evidence that organizations or people linked to Islamic organizations could have a presence here or be passing through," Aguilar told a local radio program. Though declining to identify the specific groups, he also said the groups could have indigenous guerrilla ties.

The announcement was not intended to alarm U.S. authorities, but rather to quell fears in Mexico about the possibility of guerrilla attacks.

"Our duty is to find them and send [them] away from the country so they don't put roots down here or try to use our territory as a haven," he explained.

While Aguilar wouldn't name names, the newspaper El Universal and other Mexican dailies did. They said the Islamic militants trying to form a base of operations in Mexico are tied to Hezbollah, the Syrian and Iranian-backed terrorists who established a base in Lebanon and have used it ever since to launch rocket and guerrilla attacks on Israel's northern border.

And, despite the reassuring words of Aguilar, the Mexican media reports make clear the true purpose of the Islamic terrorists in the country – to carry out guerrilla activities in the United States. But even Zinser acknowledged the potential threat to the U.S.

"The geographical proximity with the United States puts us on alert so that we are not the passing-through point for any of these organizations," he said.

Because this report got little media attention in the United States – and next to none in areas far from the border – it is safe to say this is an issue not on the radar screen in Washington. But it's clear to me that the Islamic terrorists currently focusing their attention on destroying Israel are taking their fight to what they consider the ultimate enemy – "the Great Satan" of the United States.

Let me tell you, folks, this is not an enemy the U.S. Border Patrol can handle.

There's been debate in a few circles lately about whether it's time to use the U.S. military to stem the flow of illegal immigration into the U.S. from south of the border. I've never been one to suggest the U.S. military needs more deployments. It is already vastly over-deployed. And there is always a civil liberties threat when the U.S. military deploys on domestic soil.

But the one true objective of the U.S. military – the one defined by the U.S. Constitution – is to defend the borders of the country.

Personally, I think this is a much more sensible deployment than those in Macedonia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti and dozens of other remote places the U.S. acts as policeman of the world.

Meanwhile, as our troops patrol borders in these and other countries, our own borders are as porous as a sieve.

The illegal immigration into the United States in recent years has had devastating effects on the infrastructure of our country. It has been a demoralizing factor for millions of Americans – especially those who live closest to the problems.

But all that is nothing compared to the horror and anguish that Americans will experience when the first truck bomber makes it across the border and delivers his load at a vulnerable U.S. target. It's nothing compared to the terror Americans will experience when the first airliner is blown out of the sky by hand-held, guided, American-made Stinger missiles from south of the border – or north. It's nothing compared to the anger Americans will experience when Katyusha rockets start hitting American cities the way they routinely hit Israeli towns in Galilee.

Sound far-fetched? With so little attention on Mexico, it could well become America's Lebanon.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.asianweek.com/2001_06_15/bay1_cfap_capi_bill.html

Where’s the Support? Benefits May Vanish
Two state safety net programs for immigrants in jeopardy
By Janet Ng
Thanh Mai Truong and her husband emigrated from Vietnam to the United States hoping for freedom and looking forward to spending the rest of their lives with their children. Instead of enjoying her golden years, though, Truong, 70, struggles to pay for basic needs — and faces the possibility of homelessness.

California Governor Gray Davis.
Truong wouldn’t have to worry if Governor Gray Davis had included the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) and the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI) into next year’s budget. But he didn’t. Now, immigrant rights groups are fighting to see these programs saved from their sunset date of September 30.

CFAP and CAPI were created in response to the 1996 federal welfare law that withdrew benefits from immigrants who entered the United States on or after August 22, 1996.

“[Governor Davis] can send a message to Washington … but he remains silent,” Amy Marinacci, an analyst for the California Food Policy Advocates, said.

The two programs passed California’s Senate and Assembly budget committees, and are now in the conference committee, where they will be revised before being sent back by June 15 to the Senate and Assembly for a final vote. From there, the legislative budget is given to the governor, who must sign his approval by June 30.

To be implemented permanently, CFAP will cost some $5 million, and CAPI $29 million.

Speaking for the governor, Sandy Harrison, assistant director of the Department of Finance, explained: “[CFAP and CAPI] were intended at the time to be short-term programs. They’ve been extended for a couple years, but this year, we have a downturn of revenue, so now the programs are still up in the air.”

The deletion of CFAP will affect some 8,000 people and that of CAPI will affect roughly 1,000 in the state. “We are very worried … children may go hungry … seniors use the money to pay for basic necessities,” said Patty Diaz, a spokesperson from the Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network.

Governor Davis has included funding for those immigrants who are eligible for benefits and who immigrated before August 1996. Other legal immigrants, who arrived after that or who qualified for benefits later because of a change in circumstances, will be affected by the deletion of CAPI and CFAP, however.

“San Francisco has an extremely large and diverse immigrant population whose members contribute substantially to this state’s economy and cultural life,” Mayor Willie Brown stated in a letter to Governor Davis, urging him to support these two programs.

Approximately 11,000 people statewide currently receive benefits from the CAPI program. Of those, 8,935, the great majority, are API.

“Numbers are not the whole picture,” cautioned Isabel Alegria, a policy analyst for the California Immigrant Welfare Collaborative. “There are many more who could receive benefits, but don’t because they came after 1996.”

Advocates for the Assembly bill, which includes funding for these assistance programs and the deletion of their sunset date, stressed that CFAP and CAPI help those who work and pay taxes — immigrants who entered legally and should be treated as such.

Wilma Chan
“[The programs] are a lifeline for a very vulnerable population of people, especially Asian communities because they have many legal immigrants,” said Megan Wong, a legislative aid to Assemblywoman Wilma Chan, D-Oakland, one of the principal authors of the bill.

The legislation also received strong bipartisan support. “Some say that [immigrants] shouldn’t receive welfare because they shouldn’t immigrate unless they have family to support them. We understand that circumstances change, and people here don’t want to see them suffer,” commented Assemblyman Ken Maddox, R-Orange County.

He added: “My county has a large population of Vietnamese, and I want to take care of those I represent.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 8, Volume 1, Chapter 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2000]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO
Access
[CITE: 8CFR337.1]

[Page 693-694]

TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

CHAPTER I--IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

PART 337--OATH OF ALLEGIANCE--Table of Contents

Sec. 337.1 Oath of allegiance.

(a) Form of oath. Except as otherwise provided in the Act and after receiving notice from the district director that such applicant is eligible for naturalization pursuant to Sec. 335.3 of this chapter, an applicant for naturalization shall, before being admitted to citizenship, take in a public ceremony held within the United States the following oath of allegiance, to a copy of which the applicant shall affix his or her signature:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

(b) Alteration of form of oath; affirmation in lieu of oath. In those cases in which a petitioner or applicant for
naturalization is exempt from taking the oath prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section
in its entirety, the inapplicable clauses shall be deleted and the oath shall be taken in such altered form. When a petitioner or applicant for naturalization, by reason of religious training and belief (or individual interpretation thereof), or for other reasons of good conscience, cannot take the [[Page 694]] oath prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section with the words ``on oath'' and ``so help me God'' included, the words ``and solemnly
affirm'' shall be substituted for the words ``on oath,'' the words ``so help me God'' shall be deleted, and the oath shall be taken in such modified form. Any reference to `oath of allegiance'in this chapter is understood to mean equally `affirmation of allegiance' as described in this paragraph.

(c) Obligations of oath. A petitioner or applicant for naturalization shall, before being naturalized,
establish that it is his or her intention, in good faith, to assume and discharge the obligations
of the oath of allegiance, and that his or her attitude toward the Constitution and laws of the United States renders him or her capable of fulfilling the obligations of such oath.

(d) Renunciation of title or order of nobility. A petitioner or applicant for naturalization who has borne any hereditary title or has been of any of the orders of nobility in any foreign state shall, in addition to taking the oath of allegiance prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section, make under oath or affirmation in public an express renunciation of such title or order of nobility, in the following form:

(1) I further renounce the title of (give title or titles) which I have heretofore held; or
(2) I further renounce the order of nobility (give the order of nobility) to which I have heretofore belonged.

[22 FR 9824, Dec. 6, 1957, as amended at 24 FR 2584, Apr. 3, 1959; 32 FR 13756, Oct. 3, 1967; 56 FR 50499, Oct. 7, 1991]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Illegal Aliens Stage Protest on Capitol Hill
By Jason Pierce
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
June 15, 2001

(CNSNews.com) - Sixteen immigrants from 16 countries
ended a 24-hour
fast and vigil on Capitol Hill Friday demanding that
the U.S. government
grant legal status to illegal immigrants who work in
the country for
five years.

"These immigrants are here to urge Congress to change
immigration laws
so they reward work," said Dan O'Sullivan,
spokesperson for Service
Employees International Union. "This is so that
immigrants who are
working hard and paying taxes and have lived in this
country for at
least five years will be able to finally legalize
their status."

SEIU staged the protest in correlation with Justice
for Janitors Day,
which is June 15. In Washington and other major cities
in the nation,
service workers staged rallies and demonstrations to
mark the 11th
anniversary of the Century City riots, in which
striking office building
janitors clashed with Los Angeles police officers.

According to O'Sullivan, some of the immigrants
protesting at the
Capitol Friday are thought to be illegal, saying SEIU
represents many
"undocumented aliens," but does not inquire about the
legal immigration
status of its members.

O'Sullivan said his organization believes that
immigrants contribute
heavily to society and should be rewarded by the U.S.
for the work they
have done after illegally entering and working in the
country.

"These are the people that clean the buildings where
people work in,
wash the dishes in the restaurants where we eat and in
many instances
take care of our kids as nannies,"

O'Sullivan said. "If you think about how your life is
affected by
undocumented workers, immigrants who came to this
country for a better
life, they are everywhere and they affect all of us."

"What we are saying is that those living in America,
paying taxes, and
doing these jobs that are key to the economy don't
deserve to be U.S.
citizens," he said.

Valerie Long, president of the Washington, D.C. SEIU,
said the protest
was a way of giving workers a voice they usually don't
have.

"This has been a tremendous opportunity to bring
attention to the tens
of thousands of building service workers around the
country who are
exploited everyday," she said.

But David Ray, a spokesperson for the Federation for
American
Immigration Reform, said that SEIU's demands would not
carry the support
of the American people, because "most people who think
about immigration
think about law and order, and Americans don't
typically favor awarding
people who violate our laws by giving them green
cards," he said.

Ray added that Friday's demonstration should be reason
enough for
Congress to act in the opposite direction SEIU is
demanding and tighten
immigration laws, because if immigrants do not respect
American laws
before they are citizens, they are no more likely to
after they are
citizens.

"Does it strike you that people who openly admit that
they are illegal
aliens are down on the U.S. Capitol demonstrating?
What a bold disregard
for respect for American law," Ray said.

"If people obey the law and play by the rules, they
will probably
respect the laws," said Ray. "But people who say
'forget the immigration
laws, I'm coming when I want to and then I'm going to
lobby from within
for naturalization once I've been here for a while
aren't likely to
respect the laws once they are naturalized."

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Anti_Immigration-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com