The current push to reauthorize the Patriot Act ignores two very significant threats to all Americans: (1) our wide-open borders, and (2) the erosion of our constitutional liberties by every piece of Patriot Act-type legislation that Congress passes.

President Bush has been traveling across the country, urging reauthorization of 15 provisions of the Patriot Act that are scheduled to expire at year's end. At the same time, he and the Congress continue to ignore the most glaring problem of all—our wide-open borders. Neither the President nor either party in Congress has been willing to allocate resources or support legislation necessary to curtail the flood of illegals across our borders.

Why devote so much ink and rhetoric to urging renewal of a set of laws that we are told helps law enforcement track and capture terrorists—but do nothing to hinder terrorists from getting into the U.S. in the first place? Since we purportedly set out after 9-11 to wage war on terrorism, why are we not seeing a full-scale effort to protect us at the points where we are most vulnerable?

Dr. Larry Bates, economist, political analyst, and publisher of Monetary & Economic Review and Unravelling The New World Order, says the situation reminds him of what a former Tennessee congressman, Robert A. Everetts, used to say: “If you didn’t want to work, you ought not to have hired out . . .”

Increasing Flood Of Illegals

We desperately need to control our borders. One of the fundamental obligations of our federal government is to protect its citizens, yet there is an inexcusable reluctance on the part of the President and Congress to take action to reduce the threat posed by our wide-open borders.

 Instead of focusing on the dangers we face from our vulnerability at the borders, our lawmakers hide behind the debate over immigration, with tired controversies about jobs that go begging for lack of laborers, and contradictory statistics showing illegal immigration resulting in either a net gain or loss to the U.S. economy being used by both sides.

 Gutless legislators and other government officials don’t even seem perturbed by the horrendous costs that illegal immigration is foisting on American taxpayers: health care, schooling, housing and welfare, more crime, more street gangs, more illegal drugs. Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institution reports that California has over 14,000 illegal aliens incarcerated in its prisons, costing yearly more than 20 times the annual budget of the under-funded new University of California at Merced.

 Then there is the problem of illegals that bring in diseases that Americans never had to begin with (or cured decades ago) such as leprosy, malaria, and tuberculosis (15,000 cases of TB diagnosed last year). According to an essay in the current issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, a deadly form of tuberculosis that has shown itself resistant to drugs has invaded California and is present primarily in the state's “foreign-born” population, a politically correct euphemism for illegal aliens. (“ TB or not TB?” Cal Thomas, June 14, 2005 ).

This list of concerns only scratches the surface of the problems caused by an uncontrolled invasion across our borders. It is time for the elitists who advocate not enforcing immigration laws to explain why it is more “caring” and “ethical” to allow hordes of illegals to cross our borders, some with intent to do us deadly harm, while others by their sheer numbers are wreaking havoc on our health system, our laws, and our economy, to name just a few.

And it is high time for President Bush and Congress to get past their obsession with political ambitions and take action to control our borders.

Patriot Act: Good Cop or Bad Cop?

Meanwhile, the debate over the Patriot Act continues. Many worry that the powers granted to law enforcement under the Act are dangerous and overreaching.

John McKay, U.S. attorney for the western district of Washington, has written an article in which he emphasizes that the Act gives law enforcement the benefit of the same tools to wage war on terrorism that they have long had in the war on crime (“Preserving Life and Liberty,” www.lifeandliberty.gov). For years, law enforcement has used court-approved tools to go after the mob, drug traffickers, gangs, and other criminals, and McKay says the Patriot Act simply allows the use of those same tools to go after terrorists.

John W. Whitehead, constitutional attorney, author, and founder and president of The Rutherford Institute, sees it differently. In his article, “How Liberty Dies” (www.rutherford.org, June 13, 2005), he points out that the massive, 342-page Patriot Act was rushed through Congress, with a majority of our representatives having never even read it.

Whitehead states that the Patriot Act redefines terrorism so broadly that many non-terrorist political activities, such as protest marches, demonstrations, and civil disobedience can be construed as terrorist acts.

He warns that the Act grants the FBI the right to come to your place of employment, demand your personal records and question your supervisors and fellow employees, all without notifying you.

He says it allows the government access to your medical records, school records, and practically every personal record about you, and allows the government to secretly demand to see records of books or magazines you’ve checked out in any public library, as well as Internet sites you’ve visited.

Whitehead warns that the FBI (under a delayed notification provision) can enter your home through the use of a special warrant, search your personal effects, and confiscate your personal property without informing you that they have done so

Despite the many objections to disturbing provisions within the Patriot Act, the Senate Intelligence Committee has embraced the reauthorization (Patriot Reauthorization Act, or PAREA). Critics say the reauthorization will take government intrusion to a whole new level.

While government officials insist the FBI needs additional tools to fight terrorism, a recent report by the Justice Department suggests that what the FBI really needs is to just do its job. It is possible that, had they adequately done their jobs in the months before 9-11, there might not have been a need for the Patriot Act.

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley remarked in a January 2003 interview with the Los Angeles Times, “Since 9-11, the Constitution has gone from an objective to be satisfied to an obstacle to national defense. . . . As these changes mount, at what point do we become something other than a free and democratic nation?”

Even if the Patriot Act posed no threat at all to our constitutional liberties, it is foolhardy to ignore our open borders while deluding ourselves that the enactment of legislation to deal with terrorists “after the fact” will save us from another—possibly worse—event like 9‑11.

Editor’s Note: In a surprise move on June 15, the House voted by 238 to 187 to curtail one provision of the Patriot Act, which makes it possible for the FBI to obtain a wide variety of personal records about a suspected terrorist, including library transactions. Under the original provisions of the Patriot Act, the FBI could obtain an order from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, where the government must meet a lower threshold of proof than in criminal courts. Under the House change, officials would have to get search warrants from a judge or subpoenas from a grand jury to seize records about a suspect's reading habits.

A handful of conservative Republicans, worried about government intrusion, joined with Democrats to pass the amendment, which was sponsored by Rep. Bernard Sanders (VT.), a socialist who is the chamber's lone independent. The measure was supported by 38 Republicans and opposed by 186.

House Republican leadership aides said they plan to have the provision removed when a conference committee meets to work out differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. Appropriations Committee spokesman John Scofield said, “The administration has threatened to veto the bill over this extraneous rider, and there are too many important initiatives in the bill for that to happen.”