Thread: Fort Dix arrests fan immigration fires

Fort Dix arrests fan immigration fires
Monday, May 14, 2007
By BILL CAHIR

News Washington Bureau

The arrest last week of six foreign-born Muslims allegedly planning to kill soldiers at Fort Dix raised a series of thorny immigration issues, some of which may come before Congress next week.

Three of the alleged terrorists were living in the United States illegally, but were able to run a pizzeria and launch a roofing business without fear of prosecution from federal immigration authorities.

The same three suspects Eljvir Duka, Shain Duka, and Dritan Duka of Cherry

Hill had been stopped by New Jersey police for multiple traffic violations, but were never turned over to the federal government for deportation.

"It is a very big issue. It raises a big red flag," said U.S. Rep. Frank LoBiondo.

LoBiondo, R-2nd Dist., noted that the House last year had passed a bill that would have authorized state and local police officers to identify, apprehend, arrest and detain illegal aliens and then transfer them into federal custody. He claimed that the same measure ought to be approved again.

"Local law enforcement in many cases will be our first line of defense with a terrorist who may be in our midst," LoBiondo said Friday."

But Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney specializing in national security law at the New York University Brennan Center for Justice, cautioned against any change to the historic division of labor in immigration enforcement.

Federal officials, he said, generally have had the sole responsibility for enforcing federal laws. Authorizing state and local police to arrest and detain illegal immigrants will allow for abuses of immigrants' rights, Hafetz warned.

"Under the pretext of national security, what you'll get is a lot of anti-immigrant action by state and local officials carrying out biases against immigrants," Hafetz stated.

Law-enforcement agencies should not embrace policies that discourage immigrants from providing tips to police, Hafetz added. "It's actually contrary to the best type of policing for national security purposes," Hafetz stated.

Now that Democrats control the U.S. House, Congress is less likely to pass a bill that would allow state and local authorities to arrest and detain illegal immigrants, LoBiondo said.

Senate lawmakers hope to take up a comprehensive immigration bill this week. It's not yet clear whether they have drafted a measure that can get the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster.

"The important thing is, no one has walked away from these negotiations," U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez told reporters on Thursday.

Any final Senate bill should impose fines upon scofflaws who have entered the country illegally but afford undocumented workers a path to permanent residency, said Menendez, D-N.J. The measure should maintain U.S. immigration policy that focuses on re-unifying and strengthening families, he added.

The Fort Dix terrorism case makes the need for immigration reform "more compelling," Menendez claimed.

"I would rather know who is here in America to pursue the American dream versus who is here to destroy it," Menendez said.

Jack Martin, special projects director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, claimed that the Fort Dix terror plot had undermined the call advanced by President Bush and by some Democratic officials -- to create a new path-to-citizenship program that would allow illegal aliens, after 13 years, to apply for permanent residency.

The Fort Dix case "points out the stupidity of trying to adopt an amnesty for all of the people in the country illegally," said Martin, whose group favors added border security measures.

"The idea of screening 12 million or more illegal aliens would be very superficial, and simply give persons, such as the three illegal aliens (in the Fort Dix case), the documents to freely travel and conduct terrorist operations in the country," Martin added.

Spokesmen for the federal Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement declined comment for this story. They referred calls about the ongoing criminal case to the federal prosecutor's office in New Jersey. The New Jersey U.S. Attorney's Office, in turn, said it did not have any additional information about the suspects' immigration history.

The public record about the Dukas' driving infractions is lengthy, however.

Eljvir Duka in 2002 was twice arrested by Washington Township police on outstanding traffic warrants. He had 23 active points on his driver's permit at the time of his arrest last week. His permit he never had a license was suspended 24 times for a range of alleged infractions such as failing to appear in court, failing to pay surcharges, and operating a vehicle on a suspended license, according to the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission.

New Jersey authorities suspended Dritan Duka's driving privileges indefinitely after his visa expired in June 2006. Previously, his license had been revoked 11 times. He had five points on his driver's history at the time of his terrorism arrest.

Shain Duka had a valid driver's license at Tuesday's arrest, despite 19 previous suspensions. "He's currently paid in full," said a spokesman for the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission.

Information sharing between federal, state and local authorities still must improve, lawmakers say.

State and local law enforcement officers ought to be able to check a computer database, say, from a cruiser on the highway, to assess whether a traffic violation suspect is an illegal alien, or whether he has been listed as a terrorism suspect on a federal watch list, LoBiondo claimed.

"We're way past due in needing to enable local law enforcement. What we have been doing is tying their hands," LoBiondo stated. "We've got to reverse that 180 degrees and enable them so that they're part of this bigger (anti-terrorism) picture."

http://www.nj.com/news/bridgeton/local/ ... ml&coll=10

But Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney specializing in national security law at the New York University Brennan Center for Justice, cautioned against any change to the historic division of labor in immigration enforcement.

Federal officials, he said, generally have had the sole responsibility for enforcing federal laws. Authorizing state and local police to arrest and detain illegal immigrants will allow for abuses of immigrants' rights, Hafetz warned.

"Under the pretext of national security, what you'll get is a lot of anti-immigrant action by state and local officials carrying out biases against immigrants," Hafetz stated.

Law-enforcement agencies should not embrace policies that discourage immigrants from providing tips to police, Hafetz added. "It's actually contrary to the best type of policing for national security purposes," Hafetz stated.

This fellow Hafetz has his head up his ass.

Originally Posted by pjr40

But Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney specializing in national security law at the New York University Brennan Center for Justice, cautioned against any change to the historic division of labor in immigration enforcement.

Federal officials, he said, generally have had the sole responsibility for enforcing federal laws. Authorizing state and local police to arrest and detain illegal immigrants will allow for abuses of immigrants' rights, Hafetz warned.

"Under the pretext of national security, what you'll get is a lot of anti-immigrant action by state and local officials carrying out biases against immigrants," Hafetz stated.

Law-enforcement agencies should not embrace policies that discourage immigrants from providing tips to police, Hafetz added. "It's actually contrary to the best type of policing for national security purposes," Hafetz stated.

This fellow Hafetz has his head up his ass.

I am right there with you PJR! I kept reading this with my forehead all scrunched up, wondering why none of this made sense. Then, I re-read it two more times, thinking, "This guy is a national security specialists but he's worried about 'immigrants' rights?"

None of what he advocates secures our country as far as I'm concerned. He doesn't want police to be able to arrest 'immigrants', he's worried about 'biases against immigrants', and changing the 'historic division of labor in immigration enforcement'.

The current division hasn't worked all that well, has it? So, why wouldn't we try something else that at least has a chance of working? He says illegal aliens will not come forward to report crimes if the police can get them for being here illegally, but what about the cities with special order 40? How's that working out so far? At least one of those cities is now begging the feds for money to fight crime, so apparently some changes are in order.

It seems that in areas where police are permitted to question an immigrant's status, it's working out pretty well to get these people (if only they would ship them home and build the fence now) off our streets.

And, if someone's so-called "rights" have to be infringed upon, I'd rather it was the "rights" of the illegal alien than the rights of America and her legal citizens!

I guess on the re-read it hit me that he kept referring to illegal aliens as "immigrants"...then his point of view made sense. He's a pro-illegal posing as a national security specialist.

What is the difference between this family and Elvira in Chicago?

NotGoingToTakeItAnymore wrote:

I guess on the re-read it hit me that he kept referring to illegal aliens as "immigrants"...then his point of view made sense. He's a pro-illegal posing as a national security specialist.

I agree with your diagnosis 100%.

The man is also a poster boy for the mental midgets that infiltrate the bureaucracy.