Sunday, June 03, 2007
|
|
"Killing America...Twice": Jihadists And The Immigration Compromise
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:15 AM
|
|
Andrew McCarthy looks at the Kennedy Airport Four:
Defreitas and his fellow jihadists, most haling from Guyana but with ties to Trinidad’s ruthless Jama’at al Muslimeen (the Muslim Group), wanted to do their part in what they unflinchingly called “the war for Islam.” They wanted to kill JFK, and kill us. A second time.
They know there’s a war out there. Not just Iraq or Afghanistan, but Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb — jihadists versus civilization. Global. For us to win, it will not be enough to stabilize Baghdad, sow democracy and empower moderates. It’s about breaking the enemy’s will, as they are working feverishly to break ours.
Thanks to excellent police work, this time they were stopped. But there will be a next time, and another. The jihadists know what’s at stake. Do we?
Giving the jihadists who are in the country illegally the ability to move around it at their leisure and the right to work the day after the new limmigration law passes remains the most absurd of all the aspects of the "compromise."
The senators return to D.C. and to the debate on Monday. Be sure to keep calling. Ask them what the effect of the new law will be on a jihadist who entered the country illegally from Guyana, Somalia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia etc and who has not been detected by our counterintelligence professionals.
Here is one study from the Center for Immigration Studies of immigrants by country of origin, based upon census data (yes, illegal aliens reply to the census takers in huge numbers and they are counted within these numbers):
If we make the obviously incorrect, but nevertheless useful-in-identifying-the-scope-of-the-problem assumption that all jihadists here illegally are among those who came from the Middle East in the past five years, we still have a population of 246,000 within which those hostiles hide.
The answer to detecting them is not to issue 601(h) visas to that portion of the quarter of a million within which they hide in the hopes that they are too timid to step forward and claim their work and travel permits.
The answer is to amend the law to except out all the illegals within the 246,000 from the new law's bestowal of probationary status (as well as Guyanans, Trinidadians, Somalis and illegals from other "countries of interest" with know jihadist networks.)
And, yes, that includes Great Britain and France. Illegals from those countries should have to make a positive showing of loyalty to the west and absent a confirming investigation, remain undocumented and subject to deportation. With such a provision, the new law becomes the very useful tool in stopping jihadist attacks within the U.S. that its backers argue it is already.
It isn't fair to treat "good" illegals from Somalia differently from "good" illegals from mexico --but it is necessary. There is no constitutional bar to doing so, but once the new law passed, there would be likely be challenges to any differential treatment of the 601(h) probationary visa holders.
|
|
Now ...it makes sense.To our CinC and many "leaders"(Kyl,AZ)
it is foregone...We can handle massive budgets/deficeits,no vetoes,no borders,the occaisional terrorism ,etc. because we ARE the North American Union: 460 million people strong.
Any B-1 Bobs left in the Senate?as if there ever were post-1990. To the globalists it's as plain as the "made in China" on your manufactured expresso machine.
The senate will be filabusting Bush's rumored opening Supreme C. seat pick...100% surety.
Why not the 2007-2008 immig. reform?
The NAU is a foregone certainity to the global money manipulating our "leaders" in Wash,DC. |
|
We the People of the United States of America have the right to have our borders and our laws respected and enforced.
Citizens of other countries illegally in our country have no right to demand anything from our government. They most certainly have the right to petition the governments of their home countries for change if they are unhappy with their home country. If they want to be Americans, we have a path to citizenship, more generous than any other nation, and it starts in their home country.
We need to insist on the equal protection, application and enforcement of the law or devolve into anarchy. Our Republic only functions if everyone follows the same rules. We should not change the laws to accomodate those breaking them.
If America annouces to the world "We can't stop you, so come on in" with another amnesty, the deluge will be overwhelming. If 3,000 a day didn't get your attention, then wait until it's 10,000 a day. We cannot sustain this influx and survive as a nation. We must speak up and speak to each other about this and not let false claims of racism or bigotry be used to intimidate us into silent assent. America is not Congress' to give away. America belongs to We the People. Speak to your neighbors, speak to your coworkers, but please speak up to your Congressmen and Senators. It's O.K. for us to enforce our laws, no really, it is.
|
|
That's cute.
I'm sure there are some that are deeply pleased with such lame efforts at the usual of the Left, you know, effeminate mockery, snideness and trivialization.
Just the usual.
But it's easier to indulge in such decadent and degenerate displays, than engage on the merits.
The merits require thought, rigorous thought, reasoning, conclusions that logically flow from minor and major premises.
But for some, it's just so much easier to be a poseur.
Why actually study islam, why bother going over jihad, what jihad means, what jihad has meant over the centuries, why do all of that, when it's so much easier, SO MUCH EASIER to throw out the same-old-same-old. And what would that be pray tell? The parlour tricks of the post-modern Left, which dictates that everything be viewed through the stale, flawed hermeneutic of race/class/gender.
But then again, some are able to be snide, able to mock, able to effeminately trivialize, because they weren't on certain subways that went ............. BOOM!
Because they weren't on certain airline flights ................ that went, ............ well, let's just say they didn't quite make it to their destination, now did they?
And of course some are able to pretend that nothing is going on here, just move along, just more of the usual from the religion of peace. And they're able to do that because they don't work at JFK, they don't work at Fort Dix, they aren't a cop on the beat in a Parisian banelieu.
It's all so easy to toss off a few effeminate remarks while you're at your laptop, sipping your overly sweet latte at Starbucks, and all the while, striking the right pose for the rest of the poseurs that are all about.
Why think when you can pose?
Why study when it's so much easier to strike the right attitude? And so much more gratifying as well, because of the social validation you'll receive from the poseurs and non-thinkers around you.
Why plunge yourself into the sorry history of jihad, when you can breezily dismiss it all as a figment of power-mad Eurocentrists?
Whatever.
But the rest of us, unconcerned with striking the right pose in the faculty lounge, unconcerned with getting ourselves published in some Lefty journal that nobody reads, we'll do the hard work of actually studying the religion of peace, we'll do the hard work of actually finding out what jihad OBJECTIVELY means, and what it portends, for us, for the West, for the whole world.
|
|
Here's another way of examining the problem.
Ask yourself how much the Bush administration has spent on first responders, homeland security and beefing up security around various sites. Ask yourself how much we've had to spend on the state, town and county level. Now add in the amount that we've spent on personnel, additional hours, additional personnel.
Now what does that add up to.
Now ask yourself how much economic activity, in terms of a dollar amount, the millions of muslims here contribute to the overall American economy.
Compare and contrast those two amounts.
GW insists on telling us, as does the economic fetishists over at the WSJ, that immigrants make enormous contributions to this country.
So let's add up simply in an economic way the amount that we have to pay protecting ourselves from muslims, and add up the tax proceeds that we accrue from those muslims in our midst.
Now think of it this way.
If we pay out SUM X in protection money protecting ourselves from the several million muslims in our midst now. What will we have to pay out when we have ten million muslims in our midst, when we have fifteen million muslims in our midst, when we have twenty million muslims in our midst.
Will it be BILLIONS PLUS SUM X?
Will it be TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS PLUS SUM X?
Will it be HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, ALL IN ADDITION to that original SUM X we spent in the aftermath of 9/11.
From a sheer economic perspective, the amount of money that we are dumping protecting ourselves from muslims that were never here up to around the date of our bicentennial, and were mostly never here through the Reagan years, but have only come recently, VERY RECENTLY, is an amount OUT OF ALL PROPORTION to the amount that they contribute economically, AND OUT OF ALL PROPORTION to the amount of anxiety that their presence amongst us triggers.
A simple cost benefit analysis dictates the policy of removal.
Policies have been created over the last fifteen years that have seen the movement of muslims into this country.
So policies need to be immediately created that will see their departure in the next few.
It's really that simple. |
|
A little off-topic but it is important to understand this. The MSM and Dems are always claiming there are 46 million uninsured Americans. That number is inflated somewhat because it includes about 15-20 million legal and illegal immigrants.
My point is it is bad data to use that as the cricital factoid. If you remove these immigrants and Americans with financial means who elect to not purchase hlth insurance and young people between jobs and entering careers, there are probably about 20-25 million or only half of the number you always hear. |
|
...the current Administration are sufficient to not blur the distinctions between contemporary Republicans and Democrats. From the NSA electronic surveillance program to nominations to the Supreme Court, we would have a far more vulnerable Republic under Hillary.
That stated, Pasadena Phil is correct in that the Republicans are in political disarray and the Dems are sputtering and unable to capitalize on it--witness their capitulation on a withdrawal timetable (so much for hearing "the voice of the American people.").
A friend who works for the DoD in intelligence says the likelihood of another attack on U.S. soil increases with time, for reasons he was obviously unable to state. Although we all pray it doesn't happen, it's hardly a reckless assertion, and, unfortunately, that's what it might take for the left to recognize that the Bush Administration's efforts to protect the nation aren't based on a misappraisal of this nascent barbarity known as radical Islam.
Although illegal immigration is crucial for our national security, the debate is fraught with conventional political thinking that underestimates the threats because the left has successfully demonized serious attempts to protect the U.S., from its rejection of racial profiling to this latest capitulation to political correctness, the so-called "immigration bill."
Memo to Congress: Just build an 850 mile fence then we'll talk.
Phil Mella
ClearCommentary.com |
|
I pray we all keep the pot boiling over.
This is the Alamo(Waco?)for the USA.
If "reform" passes with ,or prior to, America's border enforcement it will truly be the "July 4th" of the North American Union.Pray for some senate "gang of ?" to filabuster.At least the Senate is air-conditioned and clear of IED/EFP's
Hugh:Robert Recter..... |
|
I guess it started back in 1990 when Hugh worked for the Nixon library and proposed screening all the researchers who wanted access. Bob Woodward should be put on a persona non grata list, according to Hugh, because "he was not a responsible journalist". Nixon over-ruled him.
Today, Hugh wants to exclude all immigrants from Muslim countries. He himself admits that it isn't "fair", but it is "necessary".
This is the truly frightening thing about religious zealots of all types - from Islamic Jihadists to Christian extremists like Hugh. They're all cut from the same cloth. They see themselves as held accountable to a spiritual "higher law" which supercedes civil law; they believe that desperate times call for desperate measures, and will suspend civil liberties at the drop of a hat because ultimately everyone who doesn't agree with them is "dangerous".
The only bright spot in all of this is that Hugh Hewitt and his fellow Christian fanatics are a tiny albeit vocal segment of the population. Thankfully, Hewett's hate agenda turns off more people than it reaches. |
|
|
The provision to do so was eliminated from the amnesty bill as well as the one preventing gang-bangers from getting amnesty. Yeah, I know. It's not an amnesty bill. |
|
|
Read kchand's comment about this issue being bigger than partisan politics. I agree. BOTH parties are falling apart which is lost on most people at TH. The Dems are not getting the benefit of the GOP meltdown. The Dem Congress is even less popular than its GOP predecessor and GWB. We are heading for an ugly election where there might be 3 or 4 possible winners with an ugly showdown in the electoral college. It won't matter who wins. Each party is worse than the other. What exactly would be worse right now had Hillary been president the past 6 1/2 years? And don't answer that with a question. |
|
|
Cut Federal discretionary funding to those municipalities. Even Berkley would back off its position. |
|
As long as there are sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration law even seperating the illegals from countries of interest won't do any good.
What's the answer then? I don't know. The one thing I do know is that whatever solution we come up with MUST include real border enforcement and real interior enforcement first.
Jim C |
|
In a perfect world cheap leftists, truthers and those who doubt the jihadi threat in America would be denied police protection, food, water and medical care in the event of a severe nuclear, chemical or biological attack by the bad guys.
This is harsh medicine. However, I have a hard time being sympathetic to those who mock and obstruct efforts to protect the country from nut cases. |
|
|
|
This is a great article about why many of us have lost all faith in the Republican party. Does anyone think that Richard Viguerie is wrong about Congress selling out our Country to the lobbyist money changers in Washington?
RAW STORY-He didn’t support invading Iraq. He says national security decisions are too often made for political gain. And he maintains that Tom DeLay used “legal plunder” for the “immoral purpose of holding onto power.”
A Democrat? No – His name is Richard Viguerie, a conservative icon and key architect of Ronald Reagan’s 1980 victory. Known to many as the godfather of direct-mail campaign fundraising, his four-decade career has succored scores of conservative candidates and grassroots causes.
A balding grandfather with a wry Texan’s smile, Viguerie is a seasoned conservative who confidently brushes aside accusations that his criticism of Republicans is intended for personal gain. On Monday, he sat down with RAW STORY to talk about his new book, Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause.
Read More
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/hijackers-of-the-conservative-movement
|
|
|
if the main criterion for illegal or for that matter legal immigration is the need to fill job positions at the lowest possible wage...why not take up China standing offer of USA importing 20-25 million chinese perferably males who are willing to work much cheaper than mexicans and other latin american immigrants...of course they would "work at jobs Americans won't do". |
|
|
I hear you, but what if we end up with a Dem Presidency, Senate and House? I think this bill will end up being killed because compromise is not possible right now (at least comprehensivesly)--but if a smaller compromise on border and port security comes out of it (as as a first seperate step), that would be a good thing. Just killing it is not enough. |
|
I have never understood Hugh's logic with his amendment. By his own admission he does not believe the US government has the manpower/ability to go background checks the millions of illegal's.
Hugh's plan is to "regularize" 98% of the illegal aliens in the US.
Hugh says 2% of the at least 12 million need to be "excepted out" and not "regularized".
Hugh has stated that the federal government has absolutely no ability to do adequate background checks on 12 million people. Would the background check consists of being able to read and speak Spanish? Speak and read Spanish and you are in?
Of 12 million "undocumented", how would the federal government "document", where 2% of those people are originally from or what is their religion?
In order to "except out" the 2%, it means the federal government must do some type of background check on every illegal alien in the US.
How does Hugh believe he will find the person from Guyana he does not want to "regularize" without going through tens of millions of illegal aliens he does want to "regularize". This is another concept that can be put down on paper, but which this government has absolutely no ability to carry out.
If the federal government attempted this task, there is no doubt we would be "regularizing" high numbers of the 2% Hugh does not want to regularize. It is not workable.
|
|
Democrats and Republicans in the war with the Islamofascists. There are only targets and all party affiliations are included. How long will it take for everyone to understand it is not a political issue and cannot be used as one? Many try but it is ultimately fruitless.
It would be like seeing someone trapped in a burning automobile and asking, before attempting a rescue, whether the victim was a Republican or Democrat.
We will not win this war unless it becomes a national issue and not a partisan one. |
|
|
...could a terrorist go to, never been there before, and with enough cash (to the right person) get a perfectly "valid" (as in government-issued) birth certificate from that country, and maybe a passport? I bet quite a few. And many of those countries won't be on the "special list." |
|
|
But I think those changes should be legislated separately from this amnesty bill. We need to kill this bill if for no other reason than to guarantee that ILLEGAL immigration will be an issue in the presidential campaigns. We cannot afford to let this bill pass in any form unless it is an enforcement-only bill. |
|
|
I note that some wacky posters do not understand real evil when it bites them: ala the Dem Party and the MSM. It is nice for them that the FBI, CIA, TSA at least protects their sorry sarcastic sadistic rear ends while they make fun of real dangers to our society. The sad part is that loons like some of these posters are represented by many sophisticated elites and DNC types along with the Kos-Moore-Soros nutters and are influenceing the really naive in our country. Keeping the heat on the Pubs and Dems in the Senate and House over this illegal immigration monstrosity is just one step in keeping the nation even a bit safer. To cave into the pseudo-intellectuals in the Beltway and the anti-American crowd who wishes amnesty and open borders just to destroy our culture, economy and infrastructure since those complainers are the socialist pacifists who want to change our whole sensibilities, is just another way of showing the Islamofascists that they are right as when they saw Bubba cave in Somalia and in his handling of Ben-Laden. The Islamos only respect toughness not wussiness that the effete Dems and media types portray. Of course, it would take recognition by the Left that this nation really is under attack by jihadism. That might take the Second Coming. |
|
In the national edition of today's NY Times the story on the JFK Four shows up on page 30. Clearly there are more worthy news items for the front page. Those include a husband and wife brick making team in India and fingers that keep violins fit.
In the article you have to get to paragraph 5 to read the word Muslim. Nowhere in the article are we told specifically that the 4 conspirators are Muslims, although in fairness, there are enough references to draw the inference that they are. However, the NY Times could not bring itself to report that the 4 are actually members of the 'religion of peace'.
This all took place in the city which suffered the greatest toll on 9/11 and is clearly a target for symbolic and practical purposes. Yet the 'elites' and the Times driven by Bush hatred cannot or will not concede that there is a real threat from radical Islam. To do so would be to give the Bush administration some credibility and heavens forbid, the Times surely could not give credibility to the cowboy. The NY Times makes Neville Chamberlain look like a clear headed and visionary leader.
My only solace is that they live in NY and I don't. The MSM clearly continues it's decline and the faster the better as it sinks into total irrelevance. |
|
|
|
The bill gives conservatives a large chunk of what they've wanted for years, plus some things they don't want. The balance is heavily in their favor, though, and they're crazy to oppose this once-in-a-lifetime chance to stop illegal immigration and enact sensible policies for legal immigration.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/724lcnkt.asp
See, the Weekly Stanard thinks you are all crazy. |
|
holds our economy in their hands, we are fighting a global war on terrorism, our manufacturing base is moving offshore every year, and our own very Government is determined to increase the U.S. population with 20-30 million non english speaking immigrants that are here illegaly, while Social Security is crashing on it's own.....WHY?
1. Are we entering a NEW industrial age with a shortage of factory workers?
2. Do we believe that a second "Great Depression" would be more fun with 20 million unemployed non english speaking new citizens?
3. Is a "SUPER WAR" on the callendar that will require millions of bullet catchers?
4. Did nobody in Government ever read the story of the Trojan Horse?
It all seems so illogical to me as to the motivation for increased immigration! |
|
Hugh is rightly and solidly focusing on the need to exempt the pool of illegals that might harbor a jihadist. Kris Kobach, former counsel to John Ashcroft, also tells of those illegals who have already been ordered deported getting another chance.
But even if Hugh got to write the amendment that corrects his main issue, and it passed, there is still plenty more in this bill that needs to be stopped. We shouldn't let the Senate and Administration play a Good Cop, Bad Cop type of act on us where we breathe a sigh of relief because the really, really horrible bill was replaced with just a really, really bad bill.
One should be asking why we as private citizens have to be working so hard to defend our own country and convince the senators from our own party of what we see so clearly. Do they implicitly realize that all bad legislation impacts us and not them? Are they that aloof? |
|
the status quo. Remember too that most jihadists in America (and there have been about half a dozen lone wolves who have gone on killing sprees and several networks uncovered) were here legally. Border security would not have stopped them. I also disagree with Hugh's premise that the current immigration plan would be demonstrably worse than the current status quo in that regard.
I agree, however, that any "plan" should be an improvement (and this current one is not ready yet). We should not extend immigration forgiveness to persons from countries with extensive jihadist networks (Britian and France included) without extensive background threats.
|
|
To stop them, we will keep our borders open.
That's the "logic" of our elected... :( |
|
|
|