The immigration threat can come from within: Column

Lou Barletta3:48 p.m. EDT June 3, 2013

A proposal of amnesty does nothing to make our country safer. It does nothing to make it easier for legal residents to find a job. And it is fiscally irresponsible. So, exactly why would we do this?


(Photo: Allison Shelley, Getty Images)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Nearly half of the illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. did not cross a traditional border.
  • They arrived here on a legitimate visa, saw the visa expire and never returned home.
  • If Boston taught us anything, it was that threats can come from within.



Is it safe now to talk about illegal immigration in terms of national security and fiscal prudence?

For some time, we have heard from pro-amnesty forces that the issue of illegal immigration dealt solely with people who are afraid to come out from the shadows. We were assured that once the veil was lifted, there would be a windfall of tax revenue and improved security and safety for all Americans.

But now, sadly, Boston has shown us what the truth can be, and how violent it can be.

The Tsarnaev brothers, accused mass murderers in Boston, were in this country by legitimate means. But still, even though their family had sought asylum from their former homeland in the Russian Federation, they returned to visit. This raises a larger question about the rules of asylum and why someone would want to return to a place he had purportedly sought to escape in the first place.

And that brings us to the three college friends of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving accused bomber. These three sought to aid their friend in his hour of need and shield him from police investigation of the mass murders. One of the three, Azamat Tazhayakov, had been kicked out of school for academic reasons. Despite the invalidation of his student visa on this basis, he was allowed to leave the United States and then return. This is an alarming breakdown in our national security.

Let us also remember that one of the hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001 was present legally on a student visa. Worse, two of the hijackers on that day received notification of their student visa approval long after their deaths. Twelve years later the problems still persist.

Clearly what we are facing is an immigration system that is badly in need of an overhaul. What proponents of amnesty suggest is that illegal aliens will not be eligible for social benefits. That promise would require increased diligence from a system that has proven to be ineffective with its current tasks. To heap more responsibilities on top of an already over-taxed system defies logic.

As tragic as the Boston situation was, it also served as instruction into what is wrong with our system. Asylum rules are obviously lax, as are those involving tracking visas. One must wonder why immigrants would seek political asylum from their native countries, only to return to the same region for months at a time. This obvious warning signal was entirely missed -- or ignored -- in the case of the Boston suspects.

Routinely, people speak of the illegal immigration issue as involving the northern, southern and coastal borders. But as Boston showed us plainly, it involves more than that. Nearly half of the illegal immigrants currently in the United States did not cross a traditional border. Rather, they arrived here on a legitimate visa, saw the visa expire and never returned home. The truth is if your state is home to an international airport, you effectively live in a border state.

We are told that there are approximately 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the country, though we have no real way of validating that figure. I'm reminded of the 1986 immigration deal when we were promised that granting amnesty to 1.5 million would rid us of the problem. In fact, when amnesty was advertised, about 3 million came forward. It would be foolish to believe that the same mathematics will not apply today.

Proponents of amnesty argue that it would be a fiscal boon to the nation, when in fact the opposite is true. A report just issued by the Heritage Foundation estimates that the cost of amnesty -- counting social benefits such as welfare, food stamps, Social Security, unemployment benefits and others -- would top $6.3 trillion over the life spans of illegal immigrants, even after tax revenues from them are realized.

Last but not least would be the damage done to legal immigrants -- people who have followed our laws and become residents or citizens through the proper channels. If we open the flood gates and wave the carrot of citizenship to countless millions, legal residents will then have increased competition for jobs that are already scarce.

In the end, we should never talk about granting amnesty before we have secured our borders.

That also means internal security. If Boston taught us anything, it was that threats can come from within and without.

A proposal of amnesty does nothing to make our country safer. It does nothing to make it easier for legal residents to find a job. And it is fiscally irresponsible. So, exactly why would we do this?

Rep. Lou Barletta is a Republican from Pennsylvania.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...olumn/2385213/