And I'll let you go on thinking what you want because it's just so funny! lol
Quod erat demonstrandum
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?
From Sabertooth
Received 2002-03-20 08:23:11
Check out this piece of work...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/XXXXXX/posts?page=XXX #XXX
This is an axample of how he cuts and pastes out of context. He has no analysis.
He and William Wallace are a real pair.
Gawain has had their number all along.
Take it up with Saber....
As for Willy, well, sending unsolicited and unprovoked threats via FR mail full of gutter language would just about wear anyone's patience thin.
Your continuing misrepresentations are starting to wear my patience thin. Unprovoked threats? Hardly. I called you on your misbehavior involving another party. I won't comment further since someone else's reputation is involved.
Perhaps you are too dense to understand your offense even after it was pointed out. Ignorance is obviously bliss in your case, but it is no excuse.
Incidentally, I didn't even post once on the thread referred to in his email. Sabertooth was debating Luis when he delivered that gratuitous and unprovoked attack on me -- citing you, the forum idiot, as an authority.
At least I showed you the courtesy of telling you to your face what I think of you. You lie about others behind their backs and expect Luis to believe Sabertooth mentioned your name at random out of 80,000 FReepers.
You lie about others behind their backs and expect Luis to believe Sabertooth mentioned your name at random out of 80,000 FReepers.
I don't expect Luis to believe anything. I told the truth. He can take it or leave it. Poor Willy.
And I'll let you go on thinking what you want because it's just so funny! lol
Quod erat demonstrandum
Reprinting a private e-mail that I accidentally sent to you? Not something I'd do with out the sender's consent, but that's just me.
In any case, you are making a charge against Gawain that you know to be baseless, because I told you later that morning that I had been in error about Gawain having said anything negative about you.
Yet you're using a charge you know to be false to defame Gawain... I guess that's just you.
This from someone who selectively redacts a deleted comment to create a false and defamatory impression of someone else's meaning. At least Luis had the decency to quote your message in its entirety. Claiming moral superiority that does not exist IS just so you.
Luis didn't introduce that email until Gawain professed innocence and tried to falsely paint him as the aggressor. Under the circumstances, neither of you have standing to complain.
In any case, you are making a charge against Gawain that you know to be baseless, because I told you later that morning that I had been in error about Gawain having said anything negative about you.
Right, that proves it. Obviously Luis believed you were telling the truth when you explained the second time that you weren't tell the truth the first time.
Well, at least you didn't pretend Luis made up your email. Keep working on this honesty thing and who knows, by 3002 or so, you might be a mensch.
Silly Willy, I never falsely did anything. I told the truth since the first post. I never said anything about Luis. It was a mistake by Saber. If I had a problem with Luis, I would tell him. What reason would I have to deny it? You're good at making up stuff and twisting meanings. You must be a lawyer—a lawyer with a vivid imagination about quite a few things. lol
So, let me get this straight.I'm supposed to believe that the claim that Gawain had said things about myself and WW that you sent to some yet-to-be-named FReeper mistakenly addressed to me was not true, and the message that you sent me once you found out that you had made a serious mistake by sending me FReemails where you spoke negatively of me(twice) was true?.
By your own admission, you lied on the first FReemail, and I am expected to believe that you are not lying on the next one?
Whatever...
I did not have sex with that woman...Ms. Lewinski....
Do any of you guys disagree with Malkin's take on amnesty for illegals? I mean, to me, it seems pretty much cut-and-dried that we needlessly significantly increase our threats to homeland terrorism by offering amnesty to illegals already here on our soil (who, obviously, are breaking the rule of law -- are any of you pro-breaking the rule of law?). She cites various *facts* in support of her thesis that I find compelling.
Which, if any, of you disagrees with her thesis, and why?
Not me.
By your own admission, you lied on the first FReemail, and I am expected to believe that you are not lying on the next one?
For the public record, I don't give a rip what you believe at this point. The truth is of no interest to you.
I mistakenly attributed to Gawain negative comments about you. When I learned of my error, I corrected it. If that's what passes for lying to you, it's no wonder you find the truth so elusive.
The flaw with her argument, is that the terrorists who committed the acts on 9/11 entered the country legally. It stands to reason that if you are putting a plan of the magnitude of 9/11 together, you do not want to risk it by trying to sneak the personnel into the country, thus risking detention of some if not all the conspirators, and failure of a carefully conceived, and planned act of terrorism.
If anything, what she fails to mention, because much as she wants to she can't completely drop her Political Correctness, is that we should immediately stop any immigrants from countries where radical Muslims are known to exist, including Saudi Arabia.
The next thing she needs to do is to quit trying to score points off the Mexicans, we know they are here illegaly, and we know that we must deal with that problem, but there's never been a single act of terrorism against Americans by Mexicans. So, what's her point?
Something that you would have never bothered to do if you had sent the FReemail to anyone other than myself.
Yo quiero Taco Bell.
Gee, I hestitate to question your omniscience.
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.