Royce:Washington is still in a 9/10 mode on Immigration

And to prove it, votes No on 9/11 Commission Recommendations 

Ed RoyceI must admit, I have been thinking about Republican congressman Ed Royce’s column in Red County/OCBlog last week about tying Immigration Policy to 9/11.  The congressman says most of Washington is living in a 9/10 world when it come sto Immigration. 

Royce is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, and until January was a member of the congressional majority that could have actually done something about changing this mentality but did not because the Congressman marched in lockstep with the rest of the GOP majority behind President Bush’s lead. You can read the column here for details on a bill before Congress.

Some gems in his column include these passages:

The recent arrest of six fundamental Islamists who were charged with plotting to attack the Fort Dix Amy base and “kill as many soldiers as possible” should serve as a dramatic wakeup call. 

We must not forget that four of the 9/11 terrorists had been stopped by local police for speeding prior to the jetliner attacks on the World Trade Towers.  All four terrorists could have been arrested had police asked the right questions and realized that they were illegal immigrants. 

When it comes to border security, it is time for Washington to wake up to the lessons of September 11th.

So I did some tooling around in the Congressman’s voting record and discovered on January 9 of this year, Rep. Royce, and my congressman, John Campbell, both voted no to implement many of the remaining recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.  A description of the bill is below.  I have bolded some key passages here.

Vote 15: H R 1: This bill would implement many of the remaining recommendations proposed by the 9/11 Commission in 2004. The almost 300-page bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to give faster and more efficient funding to first responders. It also boosts federal aid to regions at greatest risk of a terrorist attack. It aims to improve the flow of intelligence between local law enforcement and first responders.

It amends existing statutes on weapons of mass destruction to provide greater assistance to countries willing to help the United States fight nuclear proliferation overseas. It also creates an independent civil liberties watchdog group within the executive branch, according to The Washington Post. The bill bolsters cargo security on passenger planes and ships traveling to the United States.

Critics say this aspect of the legislation goes too far. The bill requires airlines to physically inspect 100 percent of cargo on passenger planes within three years of the bill’s passage. It also says shippers must inspect all U.S.-bound cargo in overseas ports for radiation within five years. Using existing technology, this change potentially could slow the flow of goods into the United States, skeptics argue.

The House left this component intact and passed the measure on Jan. 9, 2007, with a vote of 299-128. However, this portion of the bill could lead to its demise in the Senate. The Bush Administration has said it will not support the current House version of the bill, according to The Washington Post.

While I believe the Congressman is doing a twofer pandering her.  He is invoking 9/11 fears and tying it to illegal immigration while actually having voted against implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations.  So what do we want here?  Safety in the form of stronger border security vs. timely delivery of overseas goods?