Idiot: Janet Napolitano Doesn’t Know The Law Her Agency is Supposed to Enforce

Dept. of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is without a doubt the biggest idiot in Washington. Her remarks on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday demonstrates she has no clue about the laws her agency is supposed to enforce:

KING: A lot of Democrats in Congress want to you investigate [Joe Arpaio]. They think he is over the line. He says he is just enforcing the law and the problem is the federal government.

NAPOLITANO: Well, you know, Sheriff Joe, he is being very political in that statement, because he knows that there aren’t enough law enforcement officers, courtrooms or jail cells in the world to do what he is saying.

What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.

And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.

Excuse me??? With all due respect madam secretary you might want to review 8 USC Sec. 1325:

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.
(c) Marriage fraud
Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the
purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be
imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than
$250,000, or both.
(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise
for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws
shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance
with title 18, or both.

Call me crazy but shouldn’t the Secretary of Homeland Security know that illegal immigration is a crime?

Unfortunately, I suspect Sec. Napolitano knows all to well what the law is, and like administration she serves, has chosen not to actively enforce it.

Related

• Napolitano: Illegal Immigration NOT a Crime? – Jena McNeill, The Heritage Foundation

Dept. of Homeland Security Issued ‘Extremist’ Report Despite Objections

The Department of Homeland Security apparently pushed out it’s report “Right-wing Extremists” despite objections from their internal civil liberties watchdogs:

Homeland Security Department officials disregarded warnings from their internal civil liberties watchdogs before releasing a security assessment of “right-wing extremism” that had Secretary Janet Napolitano apologizing to veterans Thursday.

A spokeswoman confirmed that the department’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties raised objections about some of the language in the nine-page report before it was sent to law enforcement officials nationwide.

The office “did object to a part of the document, which was not resolved before the product went out. This was a breakdown of an internal process that we will fix in the future,” said spokeswoman Amy Kudwa.

Homeland Security officials declined to elaborate on or describe in detail the objections of the civil liberty officials, or say whether Ms. Napolitano was made aware of the objections when she was briefed on the general nature of the threat before the report’s release on April 7.

However, Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, is demanding answers on how the report was cleared with privacy and civil liberty officials.

My problem with the report (PDF) is not that it doesn’t contain valid information, in a broad sense it does. It’s that it it provides no new information or specifics on potential threats and uses overly broad generalities that effectively, even if unintentionally, lump mainstream conservatives and veterans in with extremists. Simply put it’s not a particularly useful intelligence assessment.

That said the report does provide a stark reminder that certain fringe elements on the right, and the on left, are using the current political and economic climate to boost their recruiting efforts. There is a very real possibility that one or more these groups could turn to violent action. The hyper partisan and/or populist rhetoric being used by many of our elected leaders and by some in the media is simply adding fuel to the fire.

I should note the Wall Street Journal is reporting that the FBI has tracked a small number of veterans for extremist activity… Because they joined extremist groups, not because they were veterans:

Michael Ward, FBI deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said in an interview Thursday that the portion of the operation focusing on the military related only to veterans who draw the attention of Defense Department officials for joining white-supremacist or other extremist groups.

“We’re not doing an investigation into the military, we’re not looking at former military members,” he said. “It would have to be something they were concerned about, or someone they’re concerned is involved” with extremist groups.

Mr. Ward said that the FBI’s general counsel reviewed the operation before it began, “to make sure any tripwires we set do not violate any civil liberties.”

That’s how the system should work — and it highlights the problem with this report… Just compare it to the report on left-wing extremism (PDF). One relies on broad generalities, the other on specifics.

Update: I doubt this will go anywhere but:

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced that yesterday evening it filed a federal lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.  The lawsuit claims that her Department’s “Rightwing Extremism Policy,” as reflected in the recently publicized Intelligence Assessment, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” violates the civil liberties of combat veterans as well as American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of their political beliefs. Read the rest…

Realated

• 7 Senate Republicans Reply to DHS ‘Rightwing Extremists’ Scaremongering – Red State
• Napolitano Backpedals On Homeland Security Report Wording – The Bulletin

Are You a Rightwing Extremist?

There’s been a great deal of buzz on conservative blogs and talk radio about this Department of Homeland Security report on rightwing extremism. I’m not going spend a lot of time deconstructing the report or pointing out it’s faults, Moe Lane, Michelle Malkin, Ed Morrissey & Roger Hedgecock have already done that.

The report provides no specific information on potential threats, instead it relies on broad generalities to paint roughly half the country as kooks (emphasis mine):

(U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

If you follow DHS’ logic Texas Governor Rick Perry is an extremist for backing legislation affirming Texas’ 10th amendment rights:

You can read the text of the bill here.

The bottom line here is that DHS is using overly broad generalities that effectively, even if unintentionally, lump mainstream grassroots conservatives together with extremists. Believing in traditional Constitutional principles like states rights does not make someone an extremist… Advocating the violent overthrow of the government does!

Update

AJ Strata has an interesting post on the DHS report (be sure to read Colin’s comment)… For the most part I agree with him, I disagree with his characterization of Michelle Malkin’s comments though. Yes, Michelle tends to use hyperbole to make her point, her point though is basically the same as mine or AJ’s:

This report isn’t a particularly useful intelligence assessment; it provides no new information or specifics on potential threats, and worse still it uses overly broad generalities that effectively, even if unintentionally, lump mainstream conservatives in with extremists.

Related

• Watch Out For Those Crazy Right Wingers! – John Hinderaker
• Federal agency warns of radicals on right – Washington Times

Janet Napolitano: This Week’s Biggest Idiot in Washington

From Newsmax.com:

The new term for terrorism being used by President Obama’s secretary of Homeland Security would be comical if it were not so scary.

Instead of referring to threats from terrorists, Janet Napolitano is referring in her speeches to “man-caused disasters.” In an interview, a reporter for Germany’s Spiegel Online asked Napolitano whether her avoidance of the term terrorism means that “Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose[es] a threat to your country?”

“Of course it does,” Napolitano replied. “I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word ‘terrorism,’ I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”

Man-caused disasters??? Huh???

Idiot...