Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Juan Williams accuses immigrant of being anti-immigrant
Hot Air ^ | June 7, 2007

Posted on 06/07/2007 7:11:57 PM PDT by rob21

To celebrate the (temporary?) demise of shamnesty, here’s open-borders shill Juan Williams tearing a page from the Bush/Chavez/Chertoff songbook and serenading Mark Steyn with a little quasi-racial demagoguery. He should have at least followed out his own logic, taken it the whole nine yards, and accused him of being a “self-hating immigrant.”

(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Political Humor/Cartoons
KEYWORDS: aliens; illegalimmigration; immigrantlist; immigration; mediabias; stupidliberals
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 last
To: Jorge
They entered the country LEGALLY. They didn't sneak across the border. Juan was right.

Do your homework. Here's a simple one question quiz: Do you even know what year the 9-11 attack took place on America?

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

"Where do these people come from?"

101 posted on 06/07/2007 9:24:12 PM PDT by Cobra64 (www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jorge; calex59
You are in fact typical of the hysterical anti-immigration reform fanactics we see on these boards.

In case you have not noticed. there are LAWS in this country. Laws are not to be broken. That's why they are laws. (That shouldn't be too difficult)

102 posted on 06/07/2007 9:28:58 PM PDT by Cobra64 (www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
No, YOU'RE wrong. The 9/11 terrorists entered this country legally. Juan was 100% right.

Correct, except that several had overstayed their visas and others were not doing what they received their visa for, i.e., being students. Thus they were then here illegally. We don't have a system that monitors visa holders including when they leave the country.

Six months to the day after Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi flew planes into the World Trade Center, the Immigration and Naturalization Service notified a Venice, Florida, flight school that the two men had been approved for student visas. "I think it is certainly embarrassing that the letters show up at this late date," said INS spokesman Russ Bergeron. "It does serve to illustrate what we have been saying since 1995 -- that the current system for collecting information and tracking foreign students is antiquated, outdated, inaccurate and untimely."

103 posted on 06/07/2007 9:31:30 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

30% to 40% of all illegal aliens are visa overstays. That doesn’t make them any less illegal than the folks who come across the Mexican border into the US.


104 posted on 06/07/2007 9:35:30 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Terrorists are coming thru our southern border. And since we have no way of knowing who is coming through, there could very well be terrorist cells inside our country who entered from Mexico and are planning the next 9/11.

FBI's Mueller: Hezbollah Busted in Mexican Smuggling Operation

Illegals from terrorist nations are crossing the border into Arizona.

105 posted on 06/07/2007 9:42:54 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

We?

LOL

You have a gerbil in your pants, Whore-hay?


106 posted on 06/07/2007 9:50:15 PM PDT by Petronski (imwithfred.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
No, YOU'RE wrong. The 9/11 terrorists entered this country legally. Juan was 100% right.

Pull your head out of your a**. You and Juan are wrong. Read from Joel Mowbray at NR :

Visas that Should Have Been Denied

The cover story in National Review's October 28th issue (out Friday) details how at least 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers should have been denied visas — an assessment based on expert analyses of 15 of the terrorists' visa-application forms, obtained exclusively by NR.

In the year after 9/11, the hand-wringing mostly centered on the FBI and CIA's failure to "connect the dots." But that would not have been a fatal blow if the "dots" had not been here in the first place. If the U.S. State Department had followed the law, at least 15 of the 19 "dots" should have been denied visas — and they likely wouldn't have been in the United States on September 11, 2001.

According to expert analyses of the visa-application forms of 15 of the 9/11 terrorists (the other four applications could not be obtained), all the applicants among the 15 reviewed should have been denied visas under then-existing law. Six separate experts who analyzed the simple, two-page forms came to the same conclusion: All of the visa applications they reviewed should have been denied on their face.

Even to the untrained eye, it is easy to see why many of the visas should have been denied. Consider, for example, the U.S. destinations most of them listed. Only one of the 15 provided an actual address — and that was only because his first application was refused — and the rest listed only general locations — including "California," "New York," "Hotel D.C.," and "Hotel." One terrorist amazingly listed his U.S. destination as simply "No." Even more amazingly, he got a visa.

All six experts strongly agreed that even allowing for human error, no more than a handful of the visa applications should have managed to slip through the cracks. Making the visa lapses even more inexplicable, the State Department claims that at least 11 of the 15 were interviewed by consular officers. Nikolai Wenzel, one of the former consular officers who analyzed the forms, declares that State's issuance of the visas "amounts to criminal negligence."

The visas should have been denied because of a provision in the law known as 214(b), which states that almost all nonimmigrant visa (NIV) applicants are presumed to be intending immigrants. The law is clear: "Every alien [other than several narrowly exempted subcategories] shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant [visa]." State's Deputy Press Secretary Phil Reeker recently remarked that 214(b) is "quite a threshold to overcome." It just wasn't for Saudi applicants.

Defying the conventional wisdom that al Qaeda had provided its operatives with extensive training to game the system with the right answers to guarantee a visa, the applications were littered with red flags, almost all of which were ignored. The forms were also plagued with significant amounts of missing information — something that should have been sufficient grounds to deny many of the visas. For example, while all but one terrorist claimed to be employed or in school, only on three forms is the area marked "Name and Street Address of Present Employer or School" even filled out. At the very least, the CA executive points out, "The consular officers should not have ended the interview until the forms were completed."

Any discrepancies or apparent problems that would have been resolved by way of explanation or additional documentation should have been noted in the area reserved for a consular officer's comments — yet this was only done on one of the forms. Which begs the question: Were 11 of the 15 terrorists whose applications were reviewed actually interviewed as State claims?

- Joel Mowbray, National Review. October 9, 2002.


107 posted on 06/07/2007 10:09:55 PM PDT by Cyropaedia ("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rob21

Juan William’s comments are more like brain farts from a closet racist than cogent comments on most issues.

More and more, Juan is appearing to be the Fox network’s “minority commenter” — which is sad, since there are many black intellectuals who would be more suitable and informative..


108 posted on 06/07/2007 11:18:19 PM PDT by river rat (Semper Fi - You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Total bull. And you know it. Read the bill. Read these threads. This about Mexicans who've enter the country illegally.

The bill makes no distinctions about the nationality of the individual. It's about people who are here illegally.

If that isn't so, please paste the portions of the bill that prove me wrong.

This whole deflection by Williams, and repeated here by you (is that you Juan?) is an attempt to turn the larger debate into an argument over 911 and it's irrelevance to the southern border. Personally, I think Steyn should have brought up Fort Dix rather than 911, because those guys apparently DID enter through Mexico. But after all, Steyn's reference to 911 is a minor point. The overall problem is massive, and goes beyond terrorism. There are economic and cultural components that are just as harmful, over time, as terrorism.

This is where you apparently don't want to go with this silly, minor pissing match over what Juan said.

109 posted on 06/08/2007 3:22:24 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (I would rather vote for Lindsay Lohan than Lindsey Graham.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

Hannity says he is for immigration reform but he wants secure borders first. For ther sake of argument say the borders are secured ,locked down ,now what reform is he for , I would like to hear that .
I would like to go back pre 1965 ,before the drunk from mass. changed the quotas form majority of immigrants coming from Europe and Scandanavian countries to more coming from South America ,China And Africa. Lets see Hannity run with that one.


110 posted on 06/08/2007 3:31:06 AM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

Mexican nationals have no allegiance to the United States.

Mexico is not our friend and never has been.

Mexico opposes our war efforts.

Mexico is an enemy.


111 posted on 06/08/2007 3:45:45 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

Mexican nationals have no allegiance to the United States.

Mexico is not our friend and never has been.

Mexico opposes our war efforts.

Mexico is an enemy.

Mexico sucks.


112 posted on 06/08/2007 3:46:48 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Cyropaedia

Mexicans were cheering “Osama” down in Mexico City when The U.S. team was playing soccer.

Screw Mexico, send their citizens home to Mexico.


113 posted on 06/08/2007 3:50:22 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: ballplayer
Agreed. We also need to stop chain migration and reduce the number of legal immigrants each year. Since 1990 the population of the US has increased by 53 million; since 2000 by 21 million; and we will add another 63 million in the next 23 years or the equivalent of the current population of the UK. Three-quarters of this increase is the result of immigration, legal and illegal. If this bill passes, these population projections will increase dramatically.

Census Bureau projections

114 posted on 06/08/2007 4:26:45 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Jorge; Petronski
If I didn't have Pestronski to entertain me I don't know what I would do!

You could swim the Rio Grande to join your sainted amigos.

115 posted on 06/09/2007 7:25:15 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Just because some immigration clerk gave a pass to such an application doesn't make the paperwork legal. They just didn't get caught.

In that case we shouldn't let anybody in. They might be lying.


If you're going to pretend to quote me try to get it right. Here's my comment to you, if full:
Perhaps. But only if all questions on the applications and interviews were answered, and answered truthfully. My recollection is that some of the answers were obviously and ridiculously false. Just because some immigration clerk gave a pass to such an application doesn't make the paperwork legal. They just didn't get caught.

I didn't say that "they might be lying". Here's the kind of stuff I was talking about (from a Steyn article, posted on FR today:

The young Muslim men who availed themselves of the U.S. government's "visa express" system for Saudi Arabia filled in joke applications – "Address in the United States: HOTEL, AMERICA"
116 posted on 06/10/2007 11:41:08 AM PDT by caveat emptor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson