Replies

Malkin wrote an article that features the phrase "Well, duh!" in its opening sentence. It's difficult for me to take any writer seriously who uses that sort of language in a supposedly serious article.

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?

The flaw with her argument, is that the terrorists who committed the acts on 9/11 entered the country legally.

Are you saying that the 3 Sept. 11 hijackers who were illegal visa overstayers were here legally? Are you saying that 7 of the 9/11 hijackers obtained fraudulent (i.e. - illegal) I.D. cards with the help of *illegal*-alien day laborers in Virginia, were also here legally?

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.

Malkin wrote an article that features the phrase "Well, duh!" in its opening sentence.

I agree, a sophomoric opening to a serious issue. If I'm the copy editor on duty that night, it doesn't go through. However, the bulk of her premise seems to hold water. Do you dispute her statements about the 3 of the 19 being here illegally, and 7 of the 19 having obtained fraudulent (illegal) I.D. cards through illegal-alien day laborers in Virginia?

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.

Apparently, according to the facts stated by Malkin, they did just that with at least 7 of the 19 hijackers.

So, what's her point?

Her point is this:

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?

I have to ask you: If the '93 WTC bomber got amnesty through a similar program, doesn't it concern you that another terrorist could gain amnesty through this current program? Why make it more difficult than it already is on our country to secure our homeland?