Michelle Malkin: Amnesty for illegals weakens U.S.

www.omaha.com ^ | March 25, 2002 | Michelle Malkin

[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?

[Pelham]

The Wall Street Journal spoke some sense when Bob Bartly was in charge of the editorial page

Robert Bartley is the one who proposed a new Amendment, "There Shall Be Open Borders." The man is an idiot.

[Sabertooth]

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.
LINK.

"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...

Wow.

One of the most important editorials written this year.

Kudos to Michelle Malkin!

[Sabertooth]

Michelle Malkin -
Seattle, Washington's loss,
Washington DC's gain.

Been there, my friend.

Michelle worked in the San Fernando Valley for the Los Angeles Daily News before getting married and moving to Seattle.

Nice to watch a great one rise like that.

[Tuor]

Michelle Malkin -
Seattle, Washington's loss,
Washington DC's gain.

Yeah. The Seattle Times is pretty much a liberal rag. They took her on as a sort of token conservative, I think, but she got too popular. It was she, BTW, who turned me on to FR.

I'm sorry she went to the 'other' Washington, but wish her well there.

OTOH, she did badmouth my city, which I don't take kindly to from anyone, even if what she said was mostly true. Native Seattleites can't help it if all these foreigners (out-of-staters) came in and all but destroyed the city's soul. Oh well, I'm still here and intend to stay till the end.

Tour

[brat]

I too have friends who have paid the price to be here legally. It's a slap in the face to their honesty!

[brat]

"I'm not sure what is worse - a globalist free trader or a Marxist. To me, the end result is pretty much the same." Tyranny is tyranny no matter which side brings it on.

[glock rocks]

thanks, saber. great article.

bump.

[Brownie74]

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.

[MissAmericanPie]

"Which side are our friends at the Journal on, anyway?"

They are on the side of all other globalists, such as the U.N., Bush, Socialists, and all other such evil from the pit.

[4Freedom]

Thanks for the heads-up you guys.

Great article, but who's all over the media, today, instead? Gloria Steinem. Even Fox can't get it right.

[4Freedom]

We need an all Ann Coulter, Kelly Ann Conley Fitzpatrick, Michelle Malkin, all the time, network. ;-)

[Travis McGee]

You are Philippino? Cool. I haven't had any pancit in too long, but "no thanks" on the bloots.

[Sabertooth]

You are Philippino? Cool. I haven't had any pancit in too long, but "no thanks" on the bloots.

Not me, I'm Irish/German. But my daughter is half Philippina.

We agree on pancit and bloot.

[Righty1]

Plus she is much more attractive than that camel bait Ann Coulter.

[itsahoot]

You are Philippino?

Fil·i·pi·no   

n. pl. Fil·i·pi·nos
1. A native or inhabitant of the Philippines.
2. The Austronesian language that is based on
Tagalog, draws its lexicon from other
Philippine languages, and is the official
language of the Philippines.

[PRND21]

The Philippina author's parents are immigrants.
Bias. But it is an "opinion".
Thankfully, our policy with the "terror-celled" Philippines does not direct our policy with bordering Mexico.

Amnesty is an open invitation for marriage fraud...hustle up an American employer or "spouse"

Just curious, how did the author get that American last name? ;)

[VinnyTex]

Well she sure has done a complete 180 on this issue.

[majordivit]

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.

I just cancelled my online subscription to the Wall Street Journal. I can't believe I hadn't cancelled sooner. The Wall Street Journal is controlled by the evil elite new world order multinational corporate traitors.