While Ms. Malkin has some definite views regarding illegal immigration (which are not entirely wrong), this particular case does not fit in with the sort of stuff -- country or scenario -- that she describes in the context of terrorist threats. Michelle's a looker, but she's got an agenda and has in the past not shied away from bending the facts to suit it.
Which facts has she bent?
Illegals are one the enterprises which facilitate the terrorists' presence here, from transport to false documentation.
Which facts has she bent? Ms. Malkin several months back wrote a particularly bent column about immigration -- and after that one I've stopped paying much attention to her. It's in the archives someplace, and you're free to try to find it. I'm not really inclined to hunt it down.