Posted on 07/26/2002 9:03:13 AM PDT by gubamyster
July 26, 2002, 11:00 a.m.
The full House of Representatives today has the opportunity to enhance our border security by stripping visa authority away from the State Department entirely and placing it into the Department of Homeland Security.
Among the dozens of amendments being offered to the bill creating Homeland Security, an amendment from Rep. Dave Weldon (R, Fla.) provides the best shot for strengthening our borders by taking the broken visa process out of the hands of the people who created the current mess.
The Weldon amendment would remove visa powers from State and place them in the new department, giving it the ability to decide who gets in the country--and who does not. There is a simple, but compelling argument working in favor of such a move: All 19 of the 9/11 terrorists came here on legal visas. This frightening record speaks for itself.
With Homeland Security being given the authority to keep tabs on bad guys once in the U.S., why should the new department be deprived of the most powerful weapon in combating terrorism on our soil--keeping terrorists from reaching our shores in the first place?
As much as common sense--and State's own history--should dictate that visa-issuance functions belong in the new Cabinet department, there is tremendous opposition. Aside from Secretary of State Colin Powell's furious lobbying campaign to have State hang onto its power base, Rep. Henry Hyde (R, Ill.), chairman of the House International Relations Committee, has become a State ally on the Hill. Uncharacteristically, Hyde is going to the mat for the State Department, and he's drafted Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R, Fla.)--another typically reliable legislator--into the fight. The two Republicans, joined by two Democrats, sent out a "Dear Colleague" letter trashing the Weldon amendment. Their plan would give Homeland Security toothless "regulatory control" and would merely allow the new department to have agents in consulates and embassies.
Under the sham "compromise," which was more or less embraced by three committees because members simply didn't understand it, the new department would leave "operational control" in the hands of State. Though the eyes of most people, including those of Congressmen, glaze over at the discussion of such bureaucratic language, the difference is far more than just semantics.
"Regulatory control"--at least in Hyde's proposal--does little more than guarantee Homeland Security a role in the process; "control" is just not truth-in-advertising. Under this framework, regulations issued by Homeland Security would have to go thru State, giving State an opportunity to impede any measures it doesn't like--particularly those that would harm "bilateral relations."
Look at how State is stonewalling the Justice Department's recommendation to deny visas for suspected terrorists. Ten months after 9/11, State is dragging its feet on the most obvious of steps, but it can only get away with it because Congress gave it that authority.
Justice currently has the same "regulatory control" over visa issuance that Homeland Security would have under Hyde's "compromise." Thus, if Homeland Security issues regulations that State doesn't like, State can simply delay implementation or ignore the recommendation altogether.
"Operational control," on the other hand, is like possession: it's nine-tenths of the law. It's "operational control" that allows State to delay or prevent implementation of regulations it doesn't like. At the end of the day, the agency with people in the field charged with executing the law is the agency with the power to shape laws once enforced, if they are enforced at all.
A perfect example: In Mexico right now, consular officers have been told by their superiors to ignore FBI requirements to fingerprint and record all applicants on particular watch lists. Consular officers, in an e-mail dated June 3, 2002, were directed to disregard a previous instruction to run all names through the FBI lists and run only those names of people they might issue a visa because "if [consular officers] had to consider each hit [on the FBI's watch lists] for someone they intended to refuse, this would severely lengthen the time taken for many interviews." Resource issues aside, the FBI wants all names checked not just to have wanted criminals arrested, but to know which bad guys are trying to get into the U.S.--yet State goes its own way, to the detriment of our border security.
In addition to claiming that "regulatory control" would give Homeland Security actual "control" over visas, Hyde and Ros-Lehtinen make a silly argument: transferring visa authority "will distract the Secretary of Homeland Security from the task of securing the United States." Giving the new department the ability to screen out terrorists before they get here will be a "distraction"?
The full House must seize the opportunity to secure our borders by transferring visa authority out of State and into Homeland Security. Congressmen should not be distracted by State and its Hill allies.
To contact Congress: Phone: (202) 225-3121 (main switchboard): Internet: http://www.house.gov/writerep
— Joel Mowbray is an NRO contributor and a Townhall.com columnist.
The operative word is control...either you have it, or you don't! State should have the ability to "operate", but Homeland Security should have the ability to "control" the final decision...a very simple "regulation" would be "State will be free to issue visas to individuals seeking them, provided the consent of Homeland Security has been obtained in advance..."
This does presume that HS includes the appropriate agencies and info. access, and while it might seem impractical, we want every visa "vetted", don't we?! And of course, there would have to consequences for ignoring "regulations"...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.