Posted on 04/04/2006 7:14:45 AM PDT by 3AngelaD
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colorado) has introduced an amendment to the immigration legislation currently before the Senate that would close a loophole in U.S. law and visa system that allows advocates of terrorism to enter the country, and called for a voice vote on the matter Tuesday.
“This amendment says, simply, that if you advocate terrorism, you lose the privilege of coming to the United States,” Senator Allard said during a floor speech in the Senate. “Incredibly, that is not the rule under current law and U.S. Department of State regulations.”
“I would guess that most Americans believe that the exclusion of those who advocate terrorism is already part of out law, that we changed our approach after 9/11 to exclude those who actively advocate terrorism. But that is not the case,” Senator Allard said. “My amendment would put common sense back into our country’s anti-terrorism playbook, and close this loophole in our visa system.”
“ ‘Advocacy of terrorism not always exclusionary,’ ” Senator Allard said. “Am I reading from a how-to book on exploiting loopholes in the U.S. visa system? I may as well be.”
“Believe it or not, I am reading from our very own Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual. This is from the chapter that instructs U.S. consular officers how to determine to whom visas should be issued. Visas are, of course, the ticket that foreigners, including terrorists, need to enter the United States,” Senator Allard said.
“This instruction says to consular officers deciding whether to issue visas that they need not deny a visa to an individual who advocates terrorism. I cannot imagine more pertinent grounds for denial,” Senator Allard said. “If advocacy of terrorism is not grounds for exclusion, I don’t know what is.”
“I am just as concerned about the message this sends to terrorists: Feel free to lay the groundwork for an attack at home, apply for a visa, and come to America to finish the job,” Senator Allard added.
This Congress has already passed important legislation denying visas to terrorists, including in the PATRIOT and REAL ID Acts. The REAL ID Act, signed into law on May 11, 2005, specifically states that one who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity” is inadmissible.
The real REAL ID Act became public law on May 11 of last year, eight days after publication of this manual. Yet more than 10 months later, the State Department is still instructing its consular officers that advocacy of terrorism may not be a ground for exclusion.
“Admittance to the United States is a privilege, not a right. My amendment says, if you advocate terrorism, you lose the privilege of coming to the United States,” Senator Allard said. “I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this legislation that slams the door shut in the face of advocates of terrorism who seek to enter our country.”
Unbelievable that we don't already have such a thing on the books.
What do we do with the Michael Moore and Ward Churchill types who are already here?
Can we "Grandfather" this in to include all the anti American protestors in LA two weekends ago?
They seem to want to overthrow our government and way of life.
LA would be a good start
“This amendment says, simply, that if you advocate terrorism,"
Define terrorism?
Under Clinton, those that defended the Constitution or spoke of the Bill of Rights "too often" were considered domestic terrorist.
They should call it the "Yale Taliban" clause.
By the time they get done with this "immigration reform" bill there is no telling what it will look like. You can already call it "no illegal alien left behind".
These people will wind up compromising away our soverignty.
Oh wait, they already did.
I think you make a great point. The USA, the UN, Europe, and the rest of the world need to come together and define what terrorism means in no uncertain terms.
When this is actually done, I offer that there would be alot more agreement on what to do about it when it rears its ugly head. When the debate is about what terrorism consists of...how can a strategy of dealing with it gain any consensus?
Some folks think that dissent is the only and most important thing. They fail miserably with their ideology when their dissent disallows even such things as a simple accepted defenition of something as straight forward as 'terrorism'.
"This amendment says, simply, that if you advocate terrorism, you lose the privilege of coming to the United States,” Senator Allard said during a floor speech in the Senate. “Incredibly, that is not the rule under current law and U.S. Department of State regulations.”
You think? no one knows who snuck into this country, no one knows exactly how many are here, no one knows the true intent of the invaders but yet we are going to offer all sorts of rewards, free medical care, free housing anything else they can think of for tapayers to pay for to support them. Since we have no idea what their true intent (and please stop saying they are here to do jobs America WON"T do)is than do not pass any immigration legislation. This is a threat to national security right now of epic proportion not knowing how many are here, who their employers are, and worse of all their true intent for sneaking in!
Oh yes and, it was my understanding that demonstrating is a right of Citizens not illegals.
Indeed the UN has yet to come up with a serious definition for this. It is high time this bridge be crossed.
I think I remember reading where they have trouble with defining WMD also. Seems like a common problem at the UN......he he...imagine that.
Sounds good to me. Now if we could just agree on what "is" is.
9 11 showed that intended USE is the issue, I think that bolsters the definition I hold. I sure do wish that people could come to a common agreement on what 'terrorism' actually is. But I suppose that is reaching to far....
Yes, I have to agree, the "is" debate would have to be settled first. LOL.
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.