Immigrants and Terrorists

The Wall Street Journal | 3/18/2002 | Unknown

[Dave S]

The delayed mailings of visa approvals for two September 11 terrorists has the Immigration and Naturalization Service in dutch with everyone from President Bush on down. We won't waste your time piling on. The need for serious reform at the INS is obvious, but so is the need for lawmakers to distinguish between immigrants who bus tables and those who hijack airplanes.

Last week the House debated a sensible bill on immigrant residency that recognizes such a distinction. The measure ultimately passed in a 275 to 137 vote, despite strong objections from some in the GOP. It would allow mostly Mexican aliens who have entered the U.S. legally to remain here while they seek residency. An earlier version easily passed the House in a preliminary 336-43 vote last May. Last week's debate and lower margin are signs that a large clutch of Republicans are now bent on exploiting the terror attacks to advanc their anti-immigrant agenda.

Leading this brigade is Colorado's Tom Tancredo, who warned his colleagues that "people will be given amnesty under this plan who may in fact even be terrorists." Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California agrees. Last week he told House Members that to "extend amnesty to these illegal aliens is unworthy of this body." To stop the next Mohammed Atta, this thinking goes, it is necessary to upend the lives of Mexican nannies in San Diego. Never mind that Atta and the other hijackers had all entered the U.S. legally.

The House bill, which Mr. Bush backs, would temporarily reauthorize a program that drew some 400,000 applicants before it expired on April 30. The program targets noncitizens who entered the U.S. on a valid visa that has now expired or is about to. These individuals are eligible for a permanent resident visa, but under existing law they must return to their country of origin to reapply, a process that could keep them out of the U.S. for up to 10 years. Extending the program allows these immigrants to remain in the U.S. while they reapply.

It's the humane course to take. Seventy percent of those eligible are children or spouses of American citizens or permanent residents. It also makes economic sense. Many of these workers are now settled in companies and communities where they make a large contribution.

There's always a chance that terrorist cells lie dormant among these folks, but it's hardly likely. There's also a chance that every person who enters the U.S. legally is a security risk, which is why the better way to enhance border security is to improve intelligence and information sharing among the INS, CIA and FBI.

Republican immigration opponents surely know this, but scapegoating our hard-working neighbors to the south seems to matter most to them. This is politically short-sighted, considering large immigrant voting populations. But it's also not likely to help the war effort. Sending Mexicans away now with the intention of readmitting them later needlessly burdens already overworked U.S. consular officials whose time would be better spent tracking down more legitimate threats.

The Senate will now consider the President's residency proposals, and Republicans must decide whether Mr. Bush or Mr. Tancredo is the voice of the party on immigration. The realities of migration in a global economy should make the choice obvious. Until Mexican wages reach a point where people don't see more opportunity here, nothing short of a Berlin Wall along the Rio Grande will break the human tide. For now, Mexico's loss is our gain

[Dave S]

What was all the screaming about by Rush and Tancredo last week saying that this "amnesty" rewarded lawbreakers and those who came into this country illegally. Seems like some mislead us. All of the people elligible under this program, which by the way was law until recently, were individuals who had entered the US LEGALLY. The INS screwed up their paperwork much like they did last week finally giving ATTA a student visa a year after it was given verbally. Reading all the threads on FR one would have thought what Bush was backing was what Reagan signed back in the 80's, a blanket amnesty to those illegals who had lived in the country for x number of years.

[olliemb]

I am glad I read this before going to bed. I could not understand what all the uproar was about as I had understood Mr. Bush when he said there would be NO AMNESTY. This article explains a whole lot. Yet there are so many misinformed that hopefully this will set people straight.

[11B3]

"nothing short of a Berlin Wall along the Rio Grande"

Yeah, what's the problem with that? We still have immigration laws, and until we know that all who enter did so LEGALLY I say let's build that wall. (During the 3 years I was stationed in Berlin, 28 tried to escape to the West. 4 made it.)

I'm glad to hear that the new law only allows those who entered legally to stay (assuming that the INS can tell the difference). The American taxpayer is paying far too heavy a price in things like health care, education, etc. on illegals. Those who have entered legally from the south should obviously have the legal right to stay. As for the illegals, I say get them the hell out and don't let them come back until they follow the rules. By being here illegally, they have demonstrated that they have no respect for our laws. Our system fails to do more than take them back to Mexico. I know that this will outrage the more liberal folks here, but I thin that they should put any illegal entrants into the nation to work in camps for a set period of time (with no pay), much like the old Conservation Corps. I guarantee you that the number of illegals would plummet once word got out that we were even considering such a thing.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

nothing short of a Berlin Wall along the Rio Grande will break the human tide.

That is exactly what is needed if we are not to surrender to complete lawlessness. The foolishness of allowing this flood of illegal aliens to continue is breathtaking. This is not a benign invasion. We are being overrun by murderers, thieves, rapists, the insane, those with deadly communicable disease, and the most fanatic terrorist killers on earth. Twenty-five per cent of the inmates in California prisons are ILLEGAL aliens.

We must break this lawless "human tide" or lose America forever.

No foreigner has any birthright to enter the United States.

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[iopscusa]

nothing short of a Berlin Wall along the Rio Grande.... why not, it worked for the Reds in Germany. A wall, a minefield and an army on the borders..... deal with the immigration problem before anything else. What a bunch of idiots!

[Dave S]

The foolishness of allowing this flood of illegal aliens to continue is breathtaking. This is not a benign invasion. We are being overrun by murderers, thieves, rapists, the insane, those with deadly communicable disease, and the most fanatic terrorist killers on earth. Twenty-five per cent of the inmates in California prisons are ILLEGAL aliens.

Isn't this what early Americans said of the Irish, the Italians, and then the eastern Europeans? Didnt we have a Presidential race back in the 1800's whose primary issue was immigration ("Rum, Romanism, etc"). Those who dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[Dave S]

I know that this will outrage the more liberal folks here, but I thin that they should put any illegal entrants into the nation to work in camps for a set period of time (with no pay), much like the old Conservation Corps. I guarantee you that the number of illegals would plummet once word got out that we were even considering such a thing.

Lets not blast the Conservation Corps. My dad was a member prior to going to war to defeat the Germans. Frankly I think many of those swimming the Rio Grande to get here would gladly work a couple years in such a program to earn the right to stay. Wouldnt you?

[glc1173@aol.com]

"It's the humane course to take. Seventy percent of those eligible are children or spouses of American citizens or permanent residents." (Wall Street Journal)

Most all of those with IRS liens also are the children or spouses of American citizens or permanent residents. Do you ever hear either Washington or the cheap-labor lobby at the Wall Street Journal call for "their" government to give them "amnesty?"

In the aftermath of Algore's coup attempt, liberals said Bush wasn't "legitimate" as president. In the aftermath of any "amnesty" for illegal aliens, Washington itself won't be "legitimate."

IMMIGRATION resource library - with public-health facts of immigration!

[FITZ]

Isn't this what early Americans said of the Irish, the Italians, and then the eastern

And those people came legally through Ellis Island, were screened for TB and other diseases, they were sent back if they didn't meet background checks. If what the article says is true however, it might not be a blanket amnesty and it may not be for many people. I hope they are given background checks and are all self-sufficient and working.

[ZeitgeistSurfer]

I learned everything I need to know about the direction the country is going in a recent Delta flight. They gave the safety briefing in English and then repeated it completely in Spanish. If anyone doubts that we are becoming an English-Spanish country, get on an airplane.

[Dave S]

I learned everything I need to know about the direction the country is going in a recent Delta flight. They gave the safety briefing in English and then repeated it completely in Spanish. If anyone doubts that we are becoming an English-Spanish country, get on an airplane.

So if by any chance you ever left your 1/2 acre and traveled around the world you would object to Lufthansa or El Al giving you that safety briefing in English rather than in their native language?

[BOBTHENAILER]

Good post. Sabertooth: Here's the article I was referring to.

[Sabertooth]

Last week the House debated a sensible bill on immigrant residency that recognizes such a distinction. The measure ultimately passed in a 275 to 137 vote, despite strong objections from some in the GOP. It would allow mostly Mexican aliens who have entered the U.S. legally to remain here while they seek residency.

This article fails completely to address the fact that Section 245(i) is specifically for Illegals. Doesn't that seem like a bit of an oversight?

Section 245 of the Act allows an alien to apply for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) while in the United States if certain conditions are met. The alien must have been inspected and admitted or paroled, be eligible for an immigrant visa and admissible for permanent residence, and, with some exceptions, have maintained lawful nonimmigrant status. The alien must also not have engaged in unauthorized employment. Section 245(i) of the Act allows an alien to apply to adjust status under section 245 notwithstanding the fact that he or she entered without inspection, overstayed, or worked without authorization.
LINK.

The WSJ is known for it's open border leanings... Could that bias be at play here?

[BOBTHENAILER]

The program targets non-citizens who entered the country on a valid visa that has now expired or is about to.

Congratulations for doing homework; I read the link. However, the WSJ article specifically refers to the link you provided as being expired April 30. Does the new one in the bill passed read the same? The italicized quote seems to say that this bill is not about illegals.

Bias on their part is a possibility, but I haven't seen much bias from WSJ that I wouldn't agree with.

[Sabertooth]

However, the WSJ article specifically refers to the link you provided as being expired April 30.

True. The House bill extended that deadline.

The categories of aliens described in Sections 245 and 245(i) are the same.

I don't honestly know, but don't you wonder if the (i) refers to "Illegal?"

[BOBTHENAILER]

Does the (i) stand for illegal?

I don't know either. Maybe intelligent immigration, ignorant, inconsequential? Probably the next alphabetical designation for a sub-paragraph, 245a, 245b, etc.

You didn't address the articles reference to noncitizens who entered the country on a valid visa.

Also pertinent is the statistical reference that 70% of those eligible are children or spouses of American citizens or permanent residents. Not exactly your "tired, poor, huddled masses" type of alien.

[Sabertooth]

You didn't address the articles reference to noncitizens who entered the country on a valid visa.

Pointing out their ignoring of the distinction between Section 245 and 245(i) was sufficient.

They are incorrect.

If this WSJ article was true, we'd be talking about a Section 245 extension, not 245(i).

[Sabertooth]

scapegoating our hard-working neighbors to the south seems to matter most to them. This is politically short-sighted, considering large immigrant voting populations...

The Senate will now consider the President's residency proposals, and Republicans must decide whether Mr. Bush or Mr. Tancredo is the voice of the party on immigration. The realities of migration in a global economy should make the choice obvious. Until Mexican wages reach a point where people don't see more opportunity here, nothing short of a Berlin Wall along the Rio Grande will break the human tide. For now, Mexico's loss is our gain.

Do you sense a bit of an "open border" leaning here?

I like the WSJ, but these are the RINO business interests that sell out the National Interest when it comes to Illegals, time and again.

[Howlin]

Thank you, Dave!!!