Do your homework. Here's a simple one question quiz: Do you even know what year the 9-11 attack took place on America?
"Where do these people come from?"
Posted on 06/07/2007 7:11:57 PM PDT by rob21
Do your homework. Here's a simple one question quiz: Do you even know what year the 9-11 attack took place on America?
"Where do these people come from?"
In case you have not noticed. there are LAWS in this country. Laws are not to be broken. That's why they are laws. (That shouldn't be too difficult)
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.
30% to 40% of all illegal aliens are visa overstays. That doesn’t make them any less illegal than the folks who come across the Mexican border into the US.
FBI's Mueller: Hezbollah Busted in Mexican Smuggling Operation
Illegals from terrorist nations are crossing the border into Arizona.
We?
LOL
You have a gerbil in your pants, Whore-hay?
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.
Juan William’s comments are more like brain farts from a closet racist than cogent comments on most issues.
More and more, Juan is appearing to be the Fox network’s “minority commenter” — which is sad, since there are many black intellectuals who would be more suitable and informative..
The bill makes no distinctions about the nationality of the individual. It's about people who are here illegally.
If that isn't so, please paste the portions of the bill that prove me wrong.
This whole deflection by Williams, and repeated here by you (is that you Juan?) is an attempt to turn the larger debate into an argument over 911 and it's irrelevance to the southern border. Personally, I think Steyn should have brought up Fort Dix rather than 911, because those guys apparently DID enter through Mexico. But after all, Steyn's reference to 911 is a minor point. The overall problem is massive, and goes beyond terrorism. There are economic and cultural components that are just as harmful, over time, as terrorism.
This is where you apparently don't want to go with this silly, minor pissing match over what Juan said.
Hannity says he is for immigration reform but he wants secure borders first. For ther sake of argument say the borders are secured ,locked down ,now what reform is he for , I would like to hear that .
I would like to go back pre 1965 ,before the drunk from mass. changed the quotas form majority of immigrants coming from Europe and Scandanavian countries to more coming from South America ,China And Africa. Lets see Hannity run with that one.
Mexican nationals have no allegiance to the United States.
Mexico is not our friend and never has been.
Mexico opposes our war efforts.
Mexico is an enemy.
Mexican nationals have no allegiance to the United States.
Mexico is not our friend and never has been.
Mexico opposes our war efforts.
Mexico is an enemy.
Mexico sucks.
Mexicans were cheering “Osama” down in Mexico City when The U.S. team was playing soccer.
Screw Mexico, send their citizens home to Mexico.
You could swim the Rio Grande to join your sainted amigos.
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.