No, YOU'RE wrong. The 9/11 terrorists entered this country legally. Juan was 100% right.
How does that justify amnesty?
They overstayed their visas. The USA was attacked on 9-11 by illegal aliens.
I see you are using the weasel words "entered this country". How many of them were in the country legally on the day they flew those airplanes into those buildings?
Lots of illegal immigrants entered the country legally. They just did not follow the law or leave when they were supposed to.
Also , the fact that they entered legally before 9/11 says nothing about what they are doing now.
Open borders are crying out for terrorist to enter. If you want to call people who want the laws enforced bigots then you are a fool, or an illegal yourself, or a person who hires illegals or has illegal relatives. Take your pick, you have an agenda and you make no sense with stupid statments about how Juan is right!
Williams came across as nothing but a fool. He couldn’t come up with a decent argument, so he resorted to shouting over everyone else.
Couldn’t believe he said Mark was against immigration. Couldn’t help but laugh.
Here illegally. Their visas had expired.
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.
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.