Posted on 03/25/2002 7:10:38 PM PST by healey22
WASHINGTON - What does combating illegal immigration have to do with combating Middle Eastern terrorists in America? Well, duh.
Let's review: Three of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were illegal visa overstayers. Seven of the 19 obtained fraudulent I.D. cards with the help of illegal-alien day laborers in Virginia. Two of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were illegal aliens. At least two bin Laden-linked bomb plotters attempted to cross illegally through our land borders. More than 115,000 people from Middle Eastern countries are here illegally. More than 1,000 of them were smuggled through Mexico by convicted global crime ringleader George Tajirian. And some 6,000 Middle Eastern men who have defied deportation orders remain on the loose.
The connection between illegal-immigration reform and homeland security is now fantastically obvious to most Americans, but the loose-and- open borders crowd is as blind and dumb as ever. Leading the senseless is The Wall Street Journal editorial page, which I admired in the past for its stalwart promotion of the rule of law and abhorrence of race-card demagoguery. On March 18, the paper betrayed both principles.
"So Atta got his visa. That's no reason to kick out Mexican workers," pooh-poohed an online summary of an editorial titled "Immigrants and Terrorists." In it, the Journal's unrepentant open-borders proponents approve of bipartisan efforts - foolishly embraced by President Bush and favored by Mexican president Vicente Fox - to extend partial amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who have been in the country since 1998.
The so-called 245(i) provision of federal immigration law will allow illegal aliens who have found employer or family sponsors to obtain visas in the United States for a $1,000 fee, instead of being forced to return home - where consular offices would thoroughly scrutinize their native criminal records before approving applications. The 245(i) program would also allow these applicants to bypass a 1996 federal law barring illegal aliens from re-entering the United States for up to 10 years.
The administration's initial attempt to ram this proposal through, by a stealth "cloaked" vote, was cravenly Clinton- esque. But not a peep of complaint was heard from the Journal on that. Instead, the editorial board lambasted principled conservative critics of 245(i) such as Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., for "scapegoating" Mexicans who "bus tables."
This isn't merely about innocent Mexican bus boys. The amnesty would be extended to any law-breaking alien from any country who can hustle up an American employer or "spouse" and pay a good immigration lawyer to cook up an eligibility claim.
Amnesty is an open invitation for marriage fraud, document fraud, endless litigation and swamped adjudications offices. It is also a known loophole for terrorists. At least one al-Qaida-linked operative, convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing plot, obtained amnesty through a program intended for farm workers. Who knows how many more are now among us as amnestied citizens?
The Journal editorial board and its ilk perpetuate a perilous myth - that we can continue to reward "good" illegal immigrants streaming across the borders while keeping the "bad" illegal immigrants out. "There's always a chance that terrorist cells lie dormant among these folks," the Journal concedes. But even after the heinous murder of 3,000 people in its back yard at the hands of these sleepers who slipped through, the New York-based paper is far more concerned about not wanting to "upend the lives of Mexican nannies in San Diego."
This takes the cake. While the Wall Street Journal editors and their border-crashing allies remain obsessed with protecting illegal Mexican workers from the slightest inconvenience, the lives of countless American soldiers and their families across the country have been "up- ended" in the war on terror to ensure that we remain a safe and sovereign nation. Which side are our friends at the Journal on, anyway?
9/11/01 was a rude awakening for a large number of people in this country.
If they are "illegal", they have no respect for our laws and they need to go. Thanks for the ping, Sabertooth.
Still, it's mighty white of you to acknowledge that a brown-skinned Philippino woman makes a better case for the anti-immigrant stance than you have. I'm sure Michelle would bask in your kudos on the boat back to Manila, if you had your druthers.
I'm sorry, my daughter is half Philippino
I guess when I run across a post as racist and repugnant as yours, I should consider the source. If moral ugliness has an eloquence, you have achieved it.
I'm coming for you Saber!
I guess when I run across a post as racist and repugnant as yours, I should consider the source. If moral ugliness has an eloquence, you have achieved it.
Your mendacity knows no bounds. You get someone's comment pulled and then post an excerpt out of context to insinuate racist overtones that do not exist.
My post was not pulled NOT because it was racist, but because the moderator thought I was implying that YOU are a bigot, shamelessly citing an immigrant journalist to advance your anti-immigrant agenda.
From Admin Moderator
Received 2002-03-26 11:21:25I pulled this comment. It was an inspired flame, but too overt in the personal attack area (seems clear you are calling him a bigot).
This isn't the first time you've falsely accused others of racism. You previously accused me of anti-Teutonic racism (whatever that is). The truth is, you were soundly thrashed on your favorite topic, your overblown ego can't handle defeat, so you played the race card in a desperate bid to change the subject and claim moral superiority you do not possess.
You have no standing to lecture me or anyone on morality or racism.
To: Sir Gawain
No hablo ingles.
Se habla burglary?
Welcome, future Republican!
13 posted on 3/11/02 1:50 PM Eastern by Sabertooth
Invest in a mirror if you wish to see the face of moral ugliness.
I see you've decided to expand your role on this forum from all purpose buffoon to cloying sycophant.Congratulations! It's good to see that upward mobility is within the reach of everyone, including people of limited intelligence.
(Cute Erik Estrada moniker icon, even if unoriginal.)
On further inspection, WW is not slipping.
What a funny world you live in! You count among your allies individuals who continually dehumanize an entire ethnicity, calling them "vermin", "parasites", and referring to their continued presence an "infestation". And you have the nerve to call anyone's post racist?That's some nerve.
BTW, I have a question, the post you are quoting was pulled yesterday, a few minutes after you called Daddy on the bad man beating you up.
How is it that you can quote that post 24 hours later?
Could it be that you saved it right before either you or your cub pushed the abuse button?
I find it disingenous to quote a pulled comment out of context to gain some sort non-existent moral high ground.
I also failed to see the racism that you allege to. I do see WW calling you a bigot, at least he's not reducing you to the sub-human level that you and the rest reduce Mexicans to.
Maybe if you and I both look at the post in question again, together we may be able to find the objectionable segment(s).
To: Sabertooth
"One of the most important editorials written this year."
You're too modest. Surely the *most* important editorial written this year was "I hate Mexicans and George W. Bush is a @#%^@ LIAR and-for-the-fifth-time-this-month-Bush-can-kiss-my-one-vote-out-of-40-million-in-a-state-he-basically-conceded-goodbye!"
Nothing racist in that, do you see anything?
Let's move on...
"Considering the source, I suspect the lavish praise for this article would only be surpassed if Stepin' Fetchit received a lifetime achievement Oscar."
You know, that's not so much racist as a commentary on this past Oscar Awards ceremony, with a little Dennis Miller thrown in for effect.
Next:
"Still, it's mighty white of you to acknowledge that a brown-skinned Philippino woman makes a better case for the anti-immigrant stance than you have. I'm sure Michelle would bask in your kudos on the boat back to Manila, if you had your druthers."
Mmmm...I think that you ARE misrepresenting the post. WW isn't making a racist statement, it's more a commentary on you, wouldn't you say?
37 posted on 3/26/02 1:41 PM Eastern by William Wallace
Oh, that's just the signature line, cute ferret, don't you think?
Obviously, you think that it's OK to post quotes from pulled threads, I hope you didn't think that it was only OK if YOU did it.
Yo quiero Taco Bell.
I see you've decided to expand your role on this forum from all purpose buffoon to cloying sycophant.
Actually, it's a bug in the beta software. You can see deleted posts in your self-search.
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.