Trent's Blog
Obama Administration Has Disastrously Mishandled Arizona Immigration Situation
Posted By: Trent Franks on June 25, 2010
Filed Under: Immigration SB 1070 National Security Terrorism
Late last week, news broke that the Justice Department, at the direction of the Obama administration, would be suing Arizona for its recent immigration bill, S.B. 1070. This move was yet another misstep in what has been a disastrous mishandling of Arizona's considerable illegal immigration problem.
Indeed, the Obama Administration even mishandled the very announcement of the lawsuit, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leaking the information during her appearance on an Ecuadorean news program. Instead of calling the Governor of Arizona (or any Arizona official, for that matter) directly, the people of Arizona had to find out this news secondhand, after the U.S. secretary of state publicly bragged about the decision to the people of Ecuador.
Such talk of lawsuits is not new. A few days after the Arizona law was passed, Attorney General Eric Holder called the bill "unfortunate" and said the Department of Justice was considering a lawsuit. Shortly thereafter, he added a bit of information he initially neglected: He hadn't even read the bill — all 10 pages of it. Likewise, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano called the bill "misguided" and "bad enforcement law," before admitting that SHE hadn't read the bill either.
The entire Obama administration has been passionately opposed to the contents of the bill. They just couldn't bother themselves to find out what the contents actually were. But nearly all of the bluster surrounding the Arizona immigration bill has been grounded firmly in an ignorance of what the bill actually says.
Critics claim that the law promotes racial profiling, yet the law expressly prohibits racial profiling four separate times.
Critics claim that the law requires non-citizens to carry identification that they otherwise wouldn’t be required to carry. But federal law has required this of non-citizens since 1940! Somehow, after 70 years on the books, this law has now become a problem, with opponents of the Arizona law deeming it “racial profiling,” and turning it into a political football.
Additionally, critics claim that the law requires police officers to stop people on the streets to question them about their immigration status. In fact, this provision of the law only takes effect if a police officer has already made a “lawful stop, detention or arrest ... in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance.”
In passing S.B. 1070, Arizona took a necessary step to address the porous border that has for so long been neglected by the federal government. In Arizona alone, over 1,000 illegal border crossings occur per day, and 87 percent of those people crossing have criminal records, according to the Arizona Governor's office.
We would also be well served to remember that at least five of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were in the United States illegally. Truly, border security and national security are inextricably linked. Much like the Obama administration has failed to address our porous border, they also continue to stand by while the radical Iranian regime, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, continues to pursue a nuclear weapons capability unabated. We must realize that even one nuclear warhead provided by a rogue nation like Iran and smuggled over our largely unguarded southern border could change the face of the world as we know it, claiming tens of thousands of innocent American lives. Yet, somehow, this administration still fails to see the necessity of border security, attempting instead to score cheap political points with symbolic gestures.
After Arizona's immigration bill passed and polls indicated that the nation overwhelmingly supported it, President Obama announced that he had suddenly, finally decided to direct 1,200 National Guard troops to America's southern border. Even though the number of troops was drastically less than the 6,000 I, along with Arizona Sens. Jon Kyl (R) and John McCain (R), had requested, the move still sounded great on paper. However, it was then revealed that the 1,200 troops in question would almost exclusively be "boots on the desk," as opposed to actual "boots on the ground" manning the border. Furthermore, the troops would only actually be sent to the border if and when the president decided it was a necessity, once again demonstrating the president's failure to realize that the border is an issue NOW, and cannot wait until he finally decides the issue is worth addressing.
Of course, even if all 6,000 requested troops are sent, our border problems will not be completely resolved, thanks again to dramatic failures by the federal government.
The tragic death of Arizona rancher Robert Krentz made national news last month. The drug smuggler who shot Mr. Krentz in cold blood entered the nation through the San Bernardino Wildlife Refuge. Just this year, that same refuge spent $200,000 paid for by Democrats' failed, so-called stimulus to build fences that would keep Border Patrol agents OUT of the wildlife refuge.
Today, about 40 percent of the land from California to El Paso, Texas, is controlled by the federal government, much of it in the form of protected wildlife areas and national parks. Many of these cannot even be patrolled by Border Patrol agents because of fears that a plant or animal's habitat might somehow be harmed.
To add insult to injury, it was recently revealed that two federal agencies are participating in boycotts of Arizona, ostensibly to "punish" Arizona for its necessary immigration law.
If Arizona waits for the federal government to address our border issues, we are ignored. If we take matters into our own hands, we are sued and boycotted by our own government for having the audacity to protect our citizens. This lawsuit and these boycotts completely disprove the Obama administration's disingenuous claims that they are in any way interested in strengthening border security.
The Fragile State of Democracy in Nigeria
Posted By: Trent Franks and Leonard Leo on May 22, 2010
Filed Under: Nigeria Religious Freedom
This piece is co-authored by Leonard Leo
With the unfortunate – and yet much anticipated – death of Nigerian President Umaru Yar’ Adua, it is unclear how the people of Nigeria will come together under Goodluck Jonathan’s leadership and prepare for the 2011 elections. Following the end of military rule in 1999, an unwritten agreement has stipulated that the presidency rotate between the north and the south, ensuring equal representation of both regions and religious communities. Moreover, it ensured a peaceful transition for President Yar’ Adua when he came to power in 2007. Yet, President Yar’ Adua’s failing health left the country in a state of uncertainty throughout his presidency, which enabled other levels of government to function with limited accountability.
The latter point is of particular concern. While most cases of religious persecution involve clear violations by a state actor, there is another, and sometimes more sinister, threat to freedom of religion when governments fail to punish religiously motivated violence perpetrated by private citizens. This breakdown in justice— known as "impunity"— sows the seeds of terrorism.
The Nigerian government’s failure to respond or act swiftly in addressing rising violence in the north contributed to a climate of impunity that has exacerbated regional and ethnic differences. Coupled with the feeling of many in the north that they were never fully represented during their rotation for the presidency, President Jonathan must now face the greatest test to Nigerian democracy since the end of military rule – whether it can survive outside the rotation system of power and, whether north and south, Christian and Muslim, will be willing to address the breakdown in justice in the north.
The issue came to a head recently when Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan used the nuclear security summit in Washington to publicly deny that his country is facing a horrific wave of religiously motivated violence. He was responding to Christian-Muslim riots that took place in northern Nigeria in March, resulting in at least 500 deaths. According to President Jonathan, these incidents were the product of ethnic, tribal, or economic tensions.
But whitewashing the reality of religious persecution simply makes matters worse. Since 1999, there have been a dozen Muslim-Christian clashes in northern Nigeria resulting in over 13,000 dead, but not a single perpetrator has been brought to justice. Ethnic power struggles and economic disparities can fuel hate, but struggles for money, land, and power often cut along religious lines, and religious hatred is a convenient proxy for broader discontent that leads to violence.
Evidence of increasingly shrill tones and rising intolerance is continuing to bubble to the surface. One needs to look no further than July 2009, when the radical movement, "Boko Haram," instigated widespread rioting in northern Nigeria's Bauchi State, leaving as many as 900 dead and many more displaced Christians and Muslims, all under the banner of repelling "Western education" in Nigeria.
It is no accident that this sectarian violence has largely occurred in the predominantly Muslim part of northern Nigeria. Though Nigeria’s constitution declares that there is no state religion, twelve state governments have instituted Islamic Sharia law. Christians in the north have told us on visits to the country that they are treated like second class citizens.
Climates of impunity fester in other key strategic countries, affecting Coptic Christians in Egypt, Bahai's in Iran, Ahmadi Muslims in Indonesia, Catholics and Yazidis in Iraq, Hindus and Christians in Pakistan, Jews in Russia and Venezuela, and Muslims and Christians in India, to name just a few examples. In each case, the failure to crack down on religiously-motivated violence presents the threat of emboldening extremists and thereby fostering terrorism, both domestically and internationally. Where law enforcement and courts are not up to the challenge, individuals who kill people because of faith and destroy their places of worship will continue to stoke violence with impunity.
And the effects of Nigeria's struggle with extremism do not end at the Nigerian border. Last year's Christmas Day Bomber captured international attention when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a native of Nigeria, attempted to destroy a Northwest Airline flight on its approach to Detroit. No doubt every facet of his life inside and outside Nigeria will be meticulously scrutinized during his prosecution here.
It is difficult to know whether al-Qaeda or other affiliated groups are on the ground in Nigeria. The Nigerian government says they are not, though by the United States naming them as a "country of interest"— which requires that their citizens undergo additional screening at U.S. Airports— real questions have been raised.
As Nigeria faces new and continuous challenges, the bilateral agreement signed last month between the United States and Nigerian governments comes at a critical time. Indeed, our two nations enjoy very religiously active and diverse societies, which are also committed to democracy and human rights for all people. This new relationship should serve as an opportunity to work with the government of Nigeria as they address some of the conditions that present threats of terrorism to both of our democracies.
Leonard Leo is Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
FRANKS & JASSER: American Muslims disagree
Posted By: Trent Franks and Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser on May 13, 2010
Rep. Trent Franks and Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser
Tariq Ramadan entered the United States this month with much fanfare and homage to a victory for the freedom of speech. While we will have to agree to disagree with Mr. Ramadan on why he previously was excluded from entering the United States, he would do well to understand another critical provision of the First Amendment - that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
He is a self-described "Salafi reformist" who deceptively seeks a modern version of the Prophet Muhammad's political system, and so Mr. Ramadan's departure from the inviolable sanctity of religious freedom and of the U.S. Constitution itself necessitates serious scrutiny while he is here. In this regard, our critique of Mr. Ramadan is distinctively American.
Mr. Ramadan's history in Europe is rife with controversy. His Muslim Brotherhood lineage is well-known and was reaffirmed proudly last week on the Muslim Brotherhood's London website. Mr. Ramadan tries to distance himself from the Muslim Brotherhood. Yet his tour includes stops for several Brotherhood-affiliated groups. He revealingly commented that "the Palestinian resistance or the Iraqi resistance is legitimate,"
leaving many to question why American Muslims would have any sympathy for someone who endorses attacks on their friends, relatives and compatriots serving in Iraq and elsewhere.
His message has changed over time, but in essence, he argues that Muslims can integrate fully into Western societies without fearing incompatibility with their religious beliefs. The problem with Mr. Ramadan's vision for integration rests in his dangerous whitewashing of political Islam. His work and interviews evade legitimate concern that Shariah is given primacy to all other legal systems within political Islam, or even in non-Islamic societies, while still paradoxically speaking about full integration. This is hypocritical. The Islamic state is inherently incompatible with American - and Western - democracy.
Where we diverge with Mr. Ramadan is on the relationship of religion and state in democracies such as the United States. His bandwidth is filled with platitudes and misses the substance of real reform against Islamism. As individuals who are deeply committed to the protection of religious freedom and other basic rights from interference by the government, we find that Mr. Ramadan's remarks on American soil thus far have given us more than enough cause to be concerned.
When pushed to state his position on Shariah and the stoning of women during an interview with CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour, Mr. Ramadan avoided condemning the practice outright. Instead, he pointed to the inability to do anything when Western governments work so closely with oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia. George Packer of the New Yorker asked him whether rights were inherent in human beings or if they must be granted by the authority of religious texts and was clearly disappointed by Mr. Ramadan's response. Mr. Packer remarked that "Ramadan is building a worthy bridge on a rotten foundation." Mr. Ramadan's remarks to both Ms. Amanpour and Mr. Packer reflect his tendency to criticize the West's hypocrisy rather than affirm the primacy of universal standards on human rights in Muslim societies.
Mr. Ramadan's mantra of victimization, which propelled him to stardom among the immigrant Muslim population in Europe, is far less relevant in the United States, where 3 million-plus American Muslims experience great freedom and opportunity in the political, economic and social realms. American Muslims hold dearly their government built on individual liberty, and they understand from personal experience - as our Founding Fathers did as well - that theocratic governments can never equally honor the rights of every citizen blind to faith.
Yet Mr. Ramadan clearly is disconnected from the reality of American Muslims and continues to propagate dangerous apologetics for Islamist terrorism that, if adopted, would isolate American Muslims from the country and freedoms they cherish. In his discussion with Democracy Now! Mr. Ramadan was asked about Imam Anwar al-Awlaki's call for American Muslims to rise up against the United States. Mr. Ramadan did not jump to declare Mr. al-Awlaki an enemy of America and American Muslims - the message young Muslims should hear. With his direct link to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, charged as the perpetrator of the Fort Hood massacre; the so-called Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab; and at least two of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Mr. al-Awlaki has made clear his position toward America. Yet Mr. Ramadan rushed to declare that the U.S. does not have the right to kill Mr. al-Awlaki. More disturbing is his silence on Mr. al-Awlaki's Islamism while having the further temerity to blame the United States for the cleric's slide toward radicalization.
Mr. Ramadan dismissed Mr. al-Awlaki's radical views with a "you reap what you sow" mentality, avoiding any message of Muslim responsibility for his ideology. He is quick to condemn American actions in Iraq and Afghanistan and then blames America for the actions of a radical Islamist connected to the deaths of potentially thousands of Americans. And he still wonders why we believe his views are irrelevant to the experience of American Muslims who believe in their nation and do not apologize for Islamists.
In this war of ideas, ideologues like Mr. Ramadan need to be constantly matched with engagement by liberty-minded Americans and particularly American Muslims who disagree with him. Putting out a blind, victim-obsessed welcome mat from media, government and academe will miss one of the greatest opportunities for publicly engaging political Islam's anointed leader in the West. As Mr. Ramadan continues his parade across the United States, it is important that the public is aware of the danger of the ideologies he holds dear and, most notably, how his ideas endanger the fundamental freedoms preserved for all in America.
Mr. Ramadan needs to learn how people of all faiths can coexist freely in a nation that respects religious diversity and protects religious liberty for all by ensuring that government follows one law based in reason. American Muslims, when given the opportunity, will demonstrate that in this nation, Mr. Ramadan would be better served by becoming less a teacher about "his" Islam and more a student on liberty.
Rep. Trent Franks, Arizona Republican, is co-founder of the International Religious Freedom Caucus and serves on the Human Rights Commission Executive Committee. Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser is president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander.
This time, Israel will not walk into the ovens
Posted By: Rep. Trent Franks on April 2, 2010
Filed Under: National Security Iran Israel Terrorism
A Jewish author, Primo Levi, was once asked what he had learned from the Holocaust. He replied, “When a man with a gun says he’s going to kill you - believe him.”
At this moment, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man who, in the same breath, both denies the Holocaust ever occurred, and then threatens to make it happen again, is arrogantly holding a gun with which he vows to wipe the state of Israel off the map.
But where is the Obama Administration?
Israel remains the truest friend America has in this world, and our two nations need each other now as much as we ever have; because a nuclear Iran represents a threat to the paradigm of freedom for the entire world. It also represents a truly fundamental, existential threat to the state of Israel.
Yet, in recent days, Israel has received more open rebuke from the Obama administration for plans to build houses in Jerusalem than Iran has received for building a secret uranium enrichment facility to build nuclear weapons that would threaten the entire world.
Israel's enemies and ours see such open criticism as a weakening of the Israeli-American alliance, and an opportunity to boldly advance violence against Israel and the hegemony of our common enemies in the Middle East— most notably, Iran.
With each well documented new discovery by the International Atomic Energy Agency over the last several years, Iran has dramatically shifted its stories about its uranium enrichment efforts. In the beginning it had claimed it had no centrifuge program at all. When we discovered Iran had its first operational centrifuges (fewer than 150 in back 2005), I began calling for Iran to be referred to the U.N. Security Council because it was becoming obvious to reasonable and unbiased observers that it was Iran's true intent to ultimately develop nuclear weapons. That was five years ago.
Today, the Iranian program includes over 8,000 centrifuges. A total of only 3,000 centrifuges is the commonly accepted figure for a nuclear enrichment program that can be used as a platform for a full industrial-scale program capable of churning out enough enriched uranium for dozens of nuclear weapons.
Iran has also begun to enrich uranium to 20 percent, which is four times the amount necessary for peaceful domestic energy production. It also means that they are 70% of the way to weapons grade uranium capable of fueling nuclear warheads.
The regime has built underground enrichment facilities at Natanz and the newly discovered secret underground facility at Qom, and they continue to test medium- and long-range ballistic missiles that could be used to deliver a nuclear payload.
The IAEA reports that Iran has already manufactured enough uranium hexafluoride to ultimately build at least 20 nuclear warheads. It has also been reported that Iran has now experimented with polonium. Polonium is a radioactive isotope with only one known purpose on earth: to trigger a nuclear explosion.
This overwhelming evidence, along with Iran's languishing economy and literally centuries' worth of natural gas reserves, makes Iran's claim that it seeks nuclear capability solely for peaceful purposes ridiculous beyond my ability to express.
Iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism and continues brazenly to provide support to its proxies, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and other jihadist terror groups. It should send a chill down our spines to consider that the same willingness Iran has demonstrated to proliferate missile technology to its terrorist proxies would undoubtedly also become a willingness to proliferate nuclear weapons technology to terrorists.
Osama bin Laden has called it a religious duty for al-Qaida to acquire nuclear weapons.
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated, "My worst nightmare is terrorists with nuclear weapons. Not only do I know they are trying to get them, but I know they will use them."
This is indeed the greatest danger of all. If Iran steps over the nuclear threshold, rogue regimes and terrorists the world over will have access to these monstrous weapons. No wonder the nation of Israel is concerned.
Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said many years ago: “In our long war with the Arabs, Israel has always had a secret weapon: No alternative.”
Today, that reality remains unchanged for the tiny nation that could fit into my congressional district twice. Israel has very few options and no margin for error. Israel understands that Iran is currently ruled by a regime whose present leaders believe that Armageddon is a good thing, and that it is God’s will for them to annihilate America and Israel.
A responsible Israeli leader facing such a mortal threat from a nuclear armed terrorist state must and will do whatever is necessary to defend his people. Israel will not walk silently into the gas chambers again.
The choice before Israel and the free world is no longer one between a world as it is now, or the way the world might be after a military strike to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. Rather, our ultimate choice now is between what the world will be like after a preventative strike on Iran, or what the world will be like after Iran gains nuclear weapons.
If and when the people of Israel find themselves with no time left and no choice but to defend themselves by taking preemptive military action to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, the Obama administration will owe an apology to the whole world for failing to act, but especially to Israel for leaving them with no choice but to act on behalf of all of us.
America and the Western world will then have a moral responsibility to stand with Israel in whatever follows.
Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, is a co-founder of the Israel Allies Caucus and is a member of the House Strategic [Nuclear] Forces Subcommittee.
The Death Tax is a "Double Tax"
Posted By: Trent Franks on December 11, 2009
Filed Under: Taxes and Economy
