I am opposed to illegal immigration - I prefer the Senate verision of reform to deal with it though - I also don't want terrorists or other criminals "illegally" immigrating.
Yeah, sure - if we put up a fence that was 95% effective, you would be against it.
- I prefer the Senate verision of reform to deal with it though
Which deals with it by surrendering to it.
- I also don't want terrorists or other criminals "illegally" immigrating.
Well, then, you should be opposed to the Senate bill:
In 1986, the terrorist Mahmud "The Red" Abouhalima fraudulently got amnesty as a seasonal agricultural worker (in fact, he was a New York cabbie). That status allowed him to travel to Afghanistan for terrorist training - which he later used as one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.
Terrorists know how to game the system. Janice Kephart, former counsel to the 9/11 Commission, released a study last year on how easily terrorists obtain immigration benefits. Of 94 alien terrorists in the United States, she found that 59 were successful immigration frauds. That includes six of the 9/11 hijackers.
The Senate bill does nothing to address this problem - while throwing a massive new load on the bureaucracy. A new amnesty will almost certainly ensure that more terrorists gain the legal right to walk our streets.
They will no doubt show their appreciation by attacking innocent Americans. And that will be the nastiest surprise of all.
------------
So you say you are opposed to illegal immigration, but also say you would opposed a fence even if it kept 95 percent of them out. And you say you don't want terrorists to immigrate, yet support a bill that would make it easier for them to do such.
Methinks you are being less than forthcoming about your actual positions. Maybe now you should fall back to your old threadbare talking point that a few posters on FR are opposed to legal immigration.