By Michael Cutler
October 27, 2008

New York Times ran three separate news reports that I believe are, in fact, related to each other. The first two articles are clearly related because they both deal with the shooting of two New York City police officers who were assigned to the Transit Bureau.

The rationale behind the stopping of those individuals who attempt to gain access to the subway trains without paying, so called "fare-beaters" is summed up concisely by this title, "Officers Seeking Fare Evaders Often Find Worse Crimes"

The article goes on to note that according to police officials:

The police catch roughly 7,000 people a month trying to avoid paying fares; about 400 of them turn out to be the subjects of arrest warrants.

The alleged shooter in the news reports, an illegal alien from the Dominican Republic who as identified as Raul Nunez, who had purportedly been deported from the United States on June 24, 1998 upon his conviction and completion of his sentence for a narcotics charge. While the article states that it is believed that Nunez may have returned to the United States illegally within the last 6 months, there is no easy way of being certain as to when, where or how he entered the United States following his deportation. Furthermore, when Nunez stated that he shot the police officers because he was fearful of being deported, there are several issues to consider.

First of all, if the Nunez was so concerned about the possibility of being deported, why was he committing a violation of law, using a student fare card he was not entitled to use? Second of all, is this explanation supposed to somehow make a case against deporting illegal aliens who are convicted of felonies? Incidentally, the fact that Nunez reentered the United States without permission as a criminal alien means that he would first be subjected to criminal prosecution for the crime of unlawful reentry and face a jail sentence that would usually result in his incarceration for about 5 years before he could be removed from the United States.

Furthermore, it is worth considering that in the heat of the battle he initiated with the police officers, he managed to shoot both cops in the back and under their body armor. The article also points to the fact that it is believed that as he was fleeing he may have fired at the cops who were incapacitated and no longer able to block his escape.

In 1986 I was assigned to physically deport an illegal alien from Panama, a convicted narcotics trafficker by the name of Renaldo Rayside. My partner and I put him on an airliner destined to Panama. At some point after his deportation from the United States, this criminal returned to the United States illegally and, on March 3, 1989 he was encountered by two New York City police officers. One of them, Police Officer Robert E. Machate struggled with Rayside and was allegedly shot by Rayside. Officer Machate succumbed to his wounds. Although Rayside was acquitted of the murder charge, he was found guilty of two lesser crimes. I testified at that trial. It was the contention of the assistant district attorney who prosecuted the case that Rayside intended to kill the police officer to avoid being arrested and prosecuted for the crime of unlawful reentry.

Read the New York Times article reporting on the trial.

It is extremely fortunate that in the case of the two police officers who were shot last week, that although they were both seriously wounded, they are both expected to survive. The point to understand is that because of our nation's porous borders and lack of adequate resources dedicated to the enforcement of the immigration laws, that often aliens who are involved in serious crimes and are deported, have no problem in returning to the United States.

This problem is further exacerbated by those municipalities that have "Sanctuary" policies where illegal aliens are concerned. While not a declared "Sanctuary City" NYC does have a policy that was neatly summed up in the article as "Don't ask: don't Tell."

On February 27, 2003 I testified before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on the topic:


You can read the transcript of that hearing here.

Now we come to the final article of the three that I have attached below that deals with how members of the NYPD arrested ten "day laborers" for blocking a sidewalk and upsetting members of the community where they were waiting to get picked up by those seeking to employ them. The members of that community were sufficiently upset that they requested the police deal with the issue, but the article makes it appear that somehow the needs of the community should be subjugated to the interests of the day laborers who, it can be presumed, are aliens who are illegally present in the United States.

I have included this article with the two other articles that addressed the shooting incident because I find it remarkable that while the NYPD has found that those who jump turnstiles to secure illegal access to subways are prone to committing other crimes (fare-beaters are only guilty of committing a misdemeanor: The violation of law is comprehended under New York State Penal Law 165.15(3))

You can read the precise language of that statute here.

The concept of going after the relatively minor violations of law to help prevent more serious crimes has come to be referred to as the "Broken windows" approach to law enforcement which former NYC Mayor, Rudy Giuliani advocated. The idea is that by creating an environment that is not conducive to relatively minor crimes, criminals will be unlikely to become involved in more serious crimes in that jurisdiction. This is now considered to be an effective way of deterring crime.

What is impossible to understand is how NYC officials can take the position that arresting fare-beaters for committing a relatively minor offense makes sense but while those who jump turnstiles are seen as a problem that merits action, those who would jump our nation's borders should be ignored and, to a large extent, shielded from federal law enforcement authorities whose mission is to secure our nation's borders against criminals, terrorists and others who would violate our nation's borders and our nation's laws.

When an illegal alien runs our borders, this violation of law is potentially far more serious than the individual who fails to pay for a ride on the subway. An illegal alien who circumvents the inspections process enters our country without being screened by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors whose mission is to prevent the entry of criminals, terrorists and others whose presence in our country is contrary to our nation's best interests, and may present a threat to the safety and security of our nation and our citizens.

As I have often stated, the difference between and immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a house guest and a burglar!

Furthermore, I can tell you from my own experiences that when there are large numbers of illegal aliens living in a community, many businesses spring up to satisfy the needs of that illegal community. Many of these businesses provide services that are not only useful for illegal aliens but are essential for drug traffickers, gang members and terrorists.

A large illegal alien community also creates a great demand for the services of prostitutes, inasmuch as many of the illegal aliens are young men who have entered our country without their families and who lack female companionship. This leads to large-scale trafficking in women for the sex trade, often involving women who are coerced into coming to the United States against their will.

A woman who was identified as a spokesperson for the Queens District Attorney's Office, Helen Peterson, made a number of interesting statements in that article, one of which was as noted below:

Ms. Peterson said that “as a general rule,â€