Transcript: "Alan Keyes Is Making Sense" on Amnesty Bill 3/12/02 (REP. TOM TANCREDO)

MSNBC ^ | 3/12/02 | Alan Keyes

[Keyes For President]

  KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I‘m Alan Keyes. The INS last week sent out letters to the two terrorists who piloted the airliners into the World Trade Center. Notifying them that they were welcome to stay longer in America. They upgraded their visas so they could go to the flying school.
       
        One of the letters was addressed to the late Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of the attack. Here‘s MSNBC‘s Robert Hager.
       
        (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
       
        ROBERT HAGER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is Rudy Decker, he owns the flying school in Venice, Florida, where hijackers Mohammed Attaand Marwan Al-Shehhi trained. It was Atta who flew the plane into Trade Center Towers one, and Al-shehhi who flew into Tower two. That was six months ago.
       
        So, imagine Dekker‘s surprise this weekend, when he got a routine notification in the mail from the Immigration and Naturalization Service that Atta and al-Shehhi have been approved for student visas to study at his flying school.
       
        RUDI DEKKER, FLIGHT SCHOOL OWNER: The flight schools didn‘t do anything wrong. The government needs to look at itself, and look at the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) what they can change so this would not happen anymore.
       
        HAGER: So how could INS just now be telling the flight school that two terrorists, responsible for nearly 3,000 deaths, and both dead themselves for six months now, have been approved for student visas?
       
        (on camera): INS admits it‘s embarrassing, but explains it like this. It says when Atta and al-Shehhi first applied to be upgraded from visitors‘ visas to student visas two summers ago, there was nothing in the records then to raise suspicions. So the upgrade was routinely approved a year later, months before the terrorist attacks. So the INS says it‘s just a formal notification to the flying school, that was delayed and has only now arrived.
       
        (voice-over): Arrived this weekend in an envelope from the INS student school processing center in London, Kentucky, postmarked this March 5. Typical of INS, says a critical congressman.
       
        REP. ELTON GALLEGLY (R), CALIFORNIA: And our frustration has turned to anger in many cases, with an agency that has been less than functional for a long time.
       
        HAGER: But INS points out the delayed notification is of no real consequence, just a bizarre foul-up, caused by old processing equipment and a huge backlog of data to be entered into it. The agencies is now spending $34 million to speed up its student visa notification system. But too late to prevent this mistake. A system that just now failed to recognize the name Mohamed Atta, which has now become one of the most infamous names in the history of terrorism.
       
        Robert Hager, NBC News, Washington.
       
        (END VIDEOTAPE)
       
        KEYES: So, I have to tell you. It‘s the last point that particularly bothers me that after all this time, one would have expected that the INS, along with every other government agency and bureaucracy would have been alerted to these names, would have gone through their records with a fine-tooth comb to find out what they knew about these people and what interaction they had with them. Judging by this snafu, the INS didn‘t do it. And the fact that it didn‘t raises questions about whether or not we are, in fact, in this environment of challenge to our security dealing with an immigration system that meets our needs. Now against this backdrop of a reminder of the bureaucratic snafus, the difficulties, the out dated organization that really isn‘t up to the task of screening individuals in light of our security requirements, we now face a Congress that has just passed a piece of legislation in the House that would actually provide for an extension, a grace period, that would allow folks who are in this country illegally, in various ways in violation of the terms of their visas and so forth to have time so they can get their paperwork done we‘re told between now and November and regularize their status, and so forth.
       
        Against the backdrop of that security concern, is now the time to be relaxing our vigilance, relaxing restrictions, giving the INS more latitude in terms of who stays in the United States? Or would it be wiser at this point to tell a lot of these folks it‘s time to go home? Joining us now to talk about these questions, Representative Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado and chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, who is against easing the restrictions and Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Cato institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank. He is also president of the Club for Growth, an organization that helps elect candidates who support limited government and lower taxes.
       
        Now, Steven, I know out of deference — Congressman Tancredo, I would start with you. But I want to start with Stephen, because I obviously prejudiced the environment just a little bit in a way that I introduced the topic. And if I actually did not want to put you on the spot, I mean it does seem as if we‘re in a situation where we‘d want to be tougher and more restrictive for the not in terms of how we deal with immigration policy so that possibly through that screening process we might get to some of these sleemer cells. Maybe even inadvertently kick some people out of the country who intend to do us harm. Why relax our vigilance now?
       
        STEPHEN MOORE, CATO INSTITUTE: Well, first of all, on your previous segment on the screw ups at the INS, the INS is one of the bureaucractically inept agencies we have in government. I mean the INS makes the IRS, which is another agency you don‘t like too much, seem competent by comparison. So I agree with you. We need a total overhaul of the way we administer the immigration laws.
       
        What happened tonight, I think, was a pretty common sense measure. It did two things, Alan. It basically said we‘re going to beef up our border security to make sure that illegal immigrants cannot come into the country, as easily as they‘ve been able to in the past. But it also says, look, the ones who have been here for five or 10 years who have been paying taxes, Alan, who have not gone on welfare, who have been working here, let‘s make them Americans.
       
        They‘re Americans in every way, Alan, except for the fact they don‘t have green cards and I think it is common sensical, I think its humane, it‘s allowing families to stay together. We all believe in family values. I think it is a sensible policy, coupled with getting tough on the border and really putting teeth in our border patrol.
       
        KEYES: Representative Tancredo, is Steve right there in terms of the compromise that was worked out here, trading off tougher measures against this amnesty for some individuals?
       
        REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: There‘s only one problem with that. And the part of the bill that he refers to as being toughening, you know, in fact, it was. There was a great part of that bill that did, in fact, toughen the laws with regard to especially student visas. The only problem is, we passed that bill about a month ago. No, excuse me, in December. We passed that bill in December. It is now sitting in the Senate. It was HR-3525, exactly the same bill.
       
        Now, one wonders, why in the world would we pass the bill again? Why would we even bring it up again? Well, there‘s where another word you used earlier could come into play: sleeper. Because the sleeper in this arrangement is amnesty, or extension of 245-I, which was tagged on to this recreated bill, which we have already passed. It was done so that it would confuse the issue and give people cover so when they voted for this piece of junk, they would be able to say, ahh, I‘m sorry, I thought I was voting to toughen the law. We‘ve already passed this bill.
       
        This was an underhanded way to push this particular issue of amnesty. I am disappointed, of course, in my colleagues. But I‘m disappointed in the White House for actually pushing this issue. It is bad policy. It‘s bad politics.
       
        KEYES: Now, Stephen Moore, on the larger question of amnesty, aren‘t we, in fact, destroying the integrity of our immigration laws if we do these periodic amnesties in various ways that seem to send the signal that people who cheat on the system are actually going to just have to wait, because if they wait long enough, get away with it for long enough, we‘re going to regularize their status and let them stay?
       
        We‘ve done it now often enough that this is no longer an exception. It is becoming the kind of rule that cheaters can count on. What about all the folks who obey the laws? Aren‘t they going to get quite upset because they sat in line for 10, 15 years while these other people get to jump the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) by cheating? Won‘t we just encourage a general destruction of respect for our immigration laws?
       
        MOORE: Well, I think there is something to that. There‘s no question about it, Alan. We don‘t want to encourage illegal immigration by saying come in now illegally and then you can get amnesty later.
       
        This is more of a legalization program for people who would be eligible otherwise, Alan, people who basically have a — either a family connection or an employer who wants to hire them in the country. I think also, if you couple this, again, with the tough teeth in terms of the border patrol, I think it makes it a very sensible policy.
       
        The fact of the matter is, Alan, these people aren‘t leaving. They‘ve been here for five, 10, in some cases, 15 years. They have family here. They‘ve been working. I think it‘s kind of nonsensical to think that somehow they‘re going to leave after 15 years being in a country.
       
        TANCREDO: Steven...
       
        MOORE: The other thing to remember, though, is this idea that somehow, this is tied to terrorism is nonsensical. I mean, the fact is George W. Bush, who‘s the biggest hawk in terms of defending our country against terrorism, is for this bill and thinks it makes a lot of sense both politically and as a policy matter as well.
       
        KEYES: Well, I think he may want to little something to take with him to Mexico.
       
        TANCREDO: Yes. I think he‘s leaving on the 22nd to see the president of Mexico and wants to give him a gift. But the reality is, of course, it does have national security implications. Just to call something ludicrous does not it make, no matter how often you say it.
       
        (CROSSTALK)
       
        KEYES: Let the record...
       
        TANCREDO: I‘ll tell you exactly how. We are going to turn — no. The process is this. If you are here under certain conditions, and by the way, the thing Stephen left out in that explanation of who these people are, they would be otherwise eligible. This is the one true thing about every single one of them that you‘re going to talk about here or that are going to become eligible under this bill. They are here illegally. Whether they have overstayed their visa or whether they came across the border without our permission. One way or the other, they‘re here illegally. That is the bottom line.
       
        We are rewarding that behavior and we are supposed to be a nation of laws. Of course, this is an absolute antithesis of that. It is sending the wrong signal to everybody around the world. If you wait, if you do it the right way, if you fill out the paperwork, if you wait in line to come in, you‘re a sucker. What you should do is sneak into the country, wait under the radar screen for long enough and we‘ll give you amnesty.
       
        Now the reason why it is a national security issue is because these people will apply. Guess who tries to figure out whether or not their application is valid and whether the information that they have provided is accurate? Guess which agency has that task?
       
        MOORE: Tom, they‘re already here. They‘re here already.
       
        (CROSSTALK)
       
        TANCREDO: Back up. Back up. That‘s exactly right. And they can operate a heck of a lot more freely by being here legally. Can‘t they?
       
        (CROSSTALK)
       
        Therefore, you are legalizing, potentially legalizing people who are here to do us harm.
       
        MOORE: Most of the people we‘re talking about are not Muslims. They‘re not Arabs.
       
        TANCREDO: So what? So what? How many do you need? How many do you need to be here? Is one too many? How about two? How about three? How about four?
       
        (CROSSTALK)
       
        KEYES: Stephen, wait a second. Wait a second. I used to do this work when I was in the government, in the state department.
       
        TANCREDO: Right.
       
        KEYES: And I have to tell you that the resentment that exists among folks who are out there, because all of the criteria you talked about with relatives and so forth, there are people by the thousands and tens of thousands waiting to get in this country who satisfy those criteria, but who have acted honestly, haven‘t broken the law, watching folks who did otherwise go to the head of the line and jump the cue, violates every idea of American fairness.
       
        Gentlemen, thank you for coming in today with a lively discussion and, obviously, one that arouses a lot of intense interest. We‘ll see how it develops as this whole matter is considered in the Senate and further on.
       

[Keyes For President]

FYI

[Regulator]

And I have to tell you that the resentment that exists among folks who are out there, because all of the criteria you talked about with relatives and so forth, there are people by the thousands and tens of thousands waiting to get in this country who satisfy those criteria, but who have acted honestly, haven‘t broken the law, watching folks who did otherwise go to the head of the line and jump the cue, violates every idea of American fairness

Like the man said. What's fair about rewarding the lawbreakers?

[Fish out of Water]

index bump

[Fish out of Water]

bump

[Keyes For President]

KEYES: And I have to tell you that the resentment that exists among folks who are out there, because all of the criteria you talked about with relatives and so forth, there are people by the thousands and tens of thousands waiting to get in this country who satisfy those criteria, but who have acted honestly, haven‘t broken the law, watching folks who did otherwise go to the head of the line and jump the cue, violates every idea of American fairness.

Ping.

[usadave]

Stephen Moore says: They‘re Americans in every way, Alan, except for the fact they don‘t have green cards and I think it is common sensical, I think its humane, it‘s allowing families to stay together. We all believe in family values. I think it is a sensible policy, coupled with getting tough on the border and really putting teeth in our border patrol.

No, Mr. Moore, they are not Americans in every way. In fact, they are not Americans in the most important way, citizenship. The reason that they don't have green cards is because they are in the United States illegally.

[usadave]

Stephen Moore said:
The fact of the matter is, Alan, these people aren‘t leaving. They‘ve been here for five, 10, in some cases, 15 years. They have family here. They‘ve been working. I think it‘s kind of nonsensical to think that somehow they‘re going to leave after 15 years being in a country.

I understand that these illegal aliens are not leaving voluntarily. That's why we need to round them up and physically force them to leave.

[VA Advogado]

When will they take this no talent clown off the air?

[Keyes For President]

Struck a nerve, did he?

[Keyes For President]

Common sense is becoming all too uncommon these days. This bill is making a mockery out of law abiding immigrants and our nation's immigration laws.

[Symix]

It seems people are screaming for years about putting troops on the board to stop illegals - but of course it all dies - those people will vote for years for democrats; it is how democrats stay in power - by cheating.

[Symix]

But I must agree with those who support amnesty, at least in this regard - once the illegals stay in the country for a few years and adapted their life to the new country it would be just cruel to throw them back.

Consider that they were practically invited by the existing system to "invade" - they were given shelter, jobs, driver licenses, their children go to schools, and their wifes have a free medical attentions to bare new Americans... The new babies are Americans - how can you let them stay and not their parents? No - if you did not stop them at the border, if you don't deport them in time, if you let them work and pay taxes, if you can not enforce your own laws - then it is your fault they are here - and they are here to stay.

[rdf]

I would like to see one person, just one would do, who said the show would be non-stop Bush-bashing, to admit he or she was wrong. And I'm still waiting for Bill Kristol to come on!

Watch, the moment I post this, the producers will invite him...

:)

Richard F.

[VA Advogado]

Funny bone, followed by my yawn reflex.

[humbletheFiend]

"I would like to see one person, just one would do, who said the show would be non-stop Bush-bashing, to admit he or she was wrong."

A lot of people were fooled by the unfortunate remarks that Alan made last year when he was so despondent. The real Alan Keyes is back again.

Bush-Keyes in 2004?

Dream ticket!

[Marine Inspector]

INS APPREHENSION INFORMATION

Date Range: 01/01/2002 To 3/10/2002 EST
(last updated 03/11/2002)

The table below represents all the recorded INS apprehensions for the above time period. At the bottom of the table is a glossary to help you better understand what you are looking at. Once we are done looking at the table, I will present some facts about what these number represent.

These facts may shock you.

DISTRICT or SECTOR	ENCOUNTERS	RC HITS		DISTRICT or SECTOR	ENCOUNTERS	RC HITS
Anchorage District	34	8		Asylum	1	0
Atlanta District	683	28		Baltimore District	59	5
Blaine Sector	280	88		Boston District	167	11
Buffalo District	1,031	94		Buffalo Sector	134	16
Chicago District	826	60		Cleveland District	171	45
Dallas District	498	84		Del Rio Sector	22,880	8,891
Denver District	1,872	720		Detroit District	101	6
Detroit Sector	241	83		El Centro Sector	24,727	11,962
El Paso District	2,552	711		El Paso Sector	20,262	8,209
Grand Forks Sector	153	50		Harlingen District	3,007	699
Havre Sector	244	82		Headquarters	92	4
Helena District	88	14		Honolulu District	237	27
Houlton District	46	3		Houston District	1,329	325
Kansas City District	760	227		Laredo Sector	22,734	7,454
Livermore Sector	598	223		Los Angeles District	1,288	167
Marfa Sector	2,222	743		McAllen Sector	19,443	8,655
Miami District	2,319	198		Miami Sector	619	101
New Orleans District	208	41		New Orleans Sector	905	370
New York District	1,136	38		Newark District	500	16
Omaha District	515	159		Philadelphia District	300	49
Phoenix District	4,273	1,614		Portland ME District	69	9
Portland OR District	320	119		Ramey Sector	126	14
San Antonio District	3,652	1,016		San Diego District	11,893	3,866
San Diego Sector	21,752	9,299		San Francisco District	1,808	510
San Juan District	232	4		Seattle District	876	270
Spokane Sector	215	80		St. Paul District	351	124
Swanton Sector	117	18		Tucson Sector	72,873	30,883
Washington District	175	10		Yuma Sector	9,592	5,177
TOTALS	263,493	103,679

Table Glossary:

Encounters (also know as "Enrollments"): The total number of encounters (recorded apprehensions) into the system.

RC Hits: (Recidivist Hits) The number of apprehensions involving people who previously had been apprehended and having at least one record in the recidivist database.

District: The INS District is composed of the land Ports of Entry (Inspections), Airports (Inspections), and the District office (Detention, Deportation & Investigations) within that District.

Sector: The Border Patrol Sector is composed of the Border Patrol Stations and Check Points within that Sector.

Lets do some math.

From 01/01/2002 through 03/10/2002 the INS reported apprehending 263,493 illegal aliens in the US.
Now some of these apprehensions are what we call recidivist apprehensions, so well will subtract the RC HITS from the ENCOUNTERS.

263,493 - 103,679 = 159,814.

So, between 01/01/2002 and 03/10/2002 the INS apprehended approximately 159,814 illegal aliens either attempting to enter the US, or already in the US.

Now the fun numbers.

The Border Patrol estimates that for every illegal they apprehend, 4 slip by. Independent Immigration experts estimate that closer to 9 slip by, for every 1 alien apprehended. For this presentation, I will also use a 1 to 2 ratio.

So, if the INS apprehended 159,814 illegal aliens, the number of aliens that made it through undetected would be as follows:

1 to 2 = 319,628
1 to 4 = 639,256
1 to 9 = 1,438,326

This means, that anywhere from 319,628 to 1,438,326 illegal aliens entered the United States undetected since January 1st, 2002. .

Now for some more disturbing figures.

US and Allied troops that invaded Normandy in 1944 = 250,000+
US troops that invaded Okinawa in 1945 = 550,000+
Illegal aliens that have invaded the US in 2002 = between 319,628 and 1,438,326

Now imagine that just 1/10 of 1% of those illegals are terrorist, here to harm the US.

We now have between 319 and 1,438 possible terrorist undetected inside the United States.

This information is posted on my profile page and will be updated approximately every two weeks.

[Benson_Carter]

when you read this article and replied to it, were you under the influence of mind altering drugs? If I'm reading you correctly, you're against Keyes' position... which would put you in agreement with libertarians on this issue.

is that correct?

[VA Advogado]

which would put you in agreement with libertarians on this issue. is that correct?

No. Just imagine that I dont like Keyes even when I do agree with his stance on issues.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Just imagine that I dont like Keyes even when I do agree with his stance on issues.

Just imagine that most folks, not being personal friends of yours, do not give a spit about what you like or dislike, when you give no reason at all (other that you oppose him apparently because he agrees with you)!