Illegal Immigration and Terrorism: The single greatest threat to the lives of American’s remains

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | December 18, 2002 | John Perazzo

[SJackson]

The single greatest threat to the lives of America’s 280 million people remains, to this day, utterly unaddressed by political leaders afraid to lose the votes of ethnicity lobbies that would be "offended" by tighter government controls of our nation’s borders. It is that simple.

Consequently, illegal aliens are free to enter our country – virtually without encumbrance – by land, sea, and air. Michelle Malkin’s startling new book Invasion documents how truly grave the danger of illegal immigration is, and how appallingly meek has been our government’s response to the problem.

Malkin points out, for instance, that seven months ago the US Coast Guard received intelligence information that some twenty-five al Qaeda-linked Islamic extremists had entered our country as stowaways aboard commercial cargo vessels docking in Florida, Georgia, and California ports. Yet it is by no means surprising that some of the world’s most bloodthirsty monsters were able to sneak into our midst in this manner. Barely 3 percent of all cargo containers on US-bound ships are inspected upon arrival. According to Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, that fact "may be our single greatest vulnerability that we have not yet made much progress toward addressing."

We know that at least two of the terrorist conspirators who plotted the foiled Los Angeles International Airport millennium bombing illegally entered the US aboard ships from Algeria. The INS reports that at the Norfolk, Virginia seaport alone, the crews of at least forty foreign cargo vessels have been permitted ashore without proper authorization since the 9/11 attacks. Such a state of affairs would hardly even qualify for a television script, as no intelligent audience could realistically be expected to believe it.

For aspiring terrorists prone to seasickness, there’s plenty of elbow room to be found along the land routes. Our country’s 4,000-mile border with Canada is guarded by fewer than 400 Border Patrol agents – barely one for every ten miles. Half a world away, the US military has been deployed to seal the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan in an effort to prevent the escape of al Qaeda terrorists, but political correctness prevents us from similarly protecting the borders on the very doorstep of our nation. And as we learned so painfully on 9/11, terrorists in our midst can harm us much more than can their counterparts in the Afghan mountains.

But would-be terrorists don’t need to go far out of their way to find unpatrolled locations where they can sneak into the US. They can casually saunter – with very little likelihood of detection – across the very same roads and bridges that everyone else uses. Indeed 99 percent of the 8.5 million motor vehicles and trains that crossed the Buffalo-Niagara border bridges last year were permitted to enter our country without inspection. In the south the situation is much the same, as Malkin explains: "Bin Laden operatives can pay cheap prices for escorts, join global smuggling rings, . . . or ride the rails undetected from Mexico along with hundreds of thousands of other ‘undocumented workers.’ "

Even in the comparatively few cases where illegal aliens are identified and ordered deported, the violators are generally released on own recognizance – rendering their deportation rulings toothless and hollow. The Washington Post reports that at least 314,000 illegal aliens who have been ordered deported – including 6,000 Middle Easterners – have simply disappeared and cannot be located.

Predictably, the self-destructive insanity of our immigration policy has not escaped the notice of aspiring illegal immigrants. As a result, they have become emboldened to the point of shamelessness, in some cases actually suing the US for failing to provide water stations along their illegal routes into our country. Presumably, those who break our immigration laws have a right not to get thirsty while doing so.

Incredible though it may seem, our immigration authorities have been cowed by such brazenness, as evidenced by INS commissioner James Ziglar’s recent announcement of the activation of several thirty-foot-tall "rescue beacons" with strobe lights and alarm buttons that sick or weary illegals can use to call for help. Malkin reports that a similar initiative will station horses and hovercraft in remote regions of America’s southern border, so as to protect illegal immigrants from drowning or getting lost. Could there be a more blatant slap in the face of American taxpayers, than to have them fund such disgraceful boondoggles? These are the symptoms of a nation gone mad.

The legal loopholes available to those seeking to enter our midst and plot our eventual doom are virtually limitless. Consider, for instance, the widespread prevalence of marriage fraud. A would-be terrorist can marry an American to obtain legal residence, and eventually even citizenship. Among those who have done precisely this was El Sayyid Nosair, who married an American-born Muslim woman just as he faced possible deportation for having overstayed his visa. Nosair not only went on to become a naturalized US citizen, but also to help carry out the 1993 World Trade Center (WTC) bombing.

Similarly, bin Laden aide Ali Mohammed’s route to citizenship began with his marriage to an American woman, after which he helped execute the 1998 US embassy bombings in Africa. Khalid Abu al Dahab became a citizen after marrying no fewer than three American women, and thereafter distinguished himself by joining the aforementioned Mohammed in plotting the embassy bombings. The San Francisco Chronicle describes Dahab as "a one-man communications hub" for al Qaeda, not only recruiting American citizens of Middle Eastern descent for bin Laden’s network, but also sending cash and phony passports to terrorists around the world from his California apartment.

The pitiful saga does not end there. Malkin reminds us that eight Middle Eastern men who plotted to bomb various New York City landmarks also married American citizens in order to obtain permanent legal residence. Even Osama bin Laden’s personal secretary married an American in 1985 and became a naturalized citizen four years later. It is enough to demoralize anyone who truly loves this land.

Of course, for the commitment-phobic terrorist who prefers not to marry, there is always the option of invoking political asylum – whose original intent was to offer safe haven to those fleeing political tyranny. Tragically, our country’s generosity toward that end is habitually abused and exploited by those committed to destroying us – people like murderer Mir Aimal Kansi and WTC bomb plotters Ramzi Yousef and Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. Each day, untold numbers of asylum seekers such as these are released on their own recognizance and promptly disappear. Their asylum hearings are often delayed for many months, by which point they are no longer traceable. According to a 2002 General Accounting Office report, a preliminary review examining 5,000 petitions for asylum found a 90-percent fraud rate. In a more comprehensive follow-up analysis of 1,500 of those petitions, only one could be verified as legitimate. These figures, as documented by Malkin, are nothing short of astonishing.

Yet another escape hatch for illegal aliens is to simply wait for a general amnesty to "adjust their status." The 1993 WTC bomber Mahmud Abouhalima demonstrated how to do this quite effectively. Having come to the US with a six-month tourist visa in 1985, he overstayed his visa and patiently waited for Congress to grant amnesty for illegals the following year.

Moreover, a federal program allows those who violate our immigration laws to avoid potential legal hassles by simply paying a $1,000 fee to – again – "adjust their status" and gain permanent residence. More than half a million illegals took advantage of this loophole between 1994 and 1997. Incredibly, some of our nation’s most eminent political figures – in both major parties – seem oblivious to the dangers of this policy. A mere ten months ago Richard Gephardt asserted that "we need to expand and extend" such programs. Senator Ted Kennedy echoed Gephardt’s call for a "meaningful extension" of the program. President Bush joined the chorus as well, characterizing the law as a safeguard for "family values."

Such words are uttered notwithstanding the fact that illegal aliens have, as Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies explains, "taken part in almost every major attack on American soil perpetrated by Islamic terrorists, including the first attack on the World Trade Center, the Millenium plot, the plot to bomb the New York subway, and the attacks of 9/11." Further, those words are uttered despite the fact that illegal aliens of all nationalities comprise an astonishingly high proportion of convicted criminals in several American states. They are 24 percent of New York State’s prisoners, for instance. In California the figure approaches 15 percent.

We are a nation that too readily turns a blind eye to the malevolence that surrounds us. Our refusal to take seriously the current terrorist threat is evident even in the airline industry – the very realm wherein bin Laden’s henchmen attacked us on 9/11. For example, in a study conducted at 32 airports between November 2001 and February 2002, when airports were on their highest alert, undercover government testers successfully snuck knives past security checkpoints 70 percent of time; for simulated explosives, their success rate was 60 percent, and for guns 30 percent. A similar study conducted seven months ago by the Transportation Security Administration found that simulated guns and explosives were successfully smuggled past security checkpoints at 32 airports about once in every four attempts.

These staggering numbers are not themselves the problem. They are symptomatic of a mindset that is unwilling to fight evil with tireless, focused resolve. Thus we have effectively rendered ourselves helpless in the face of potential future attacks by terrorists already in our midst, who are merely awaiting an opportune moment to strike. A December 14 New York Post story reported that, in the event of a threatened city transit strike, NYPD officers would aggressively inspect vehicles deemed capable of hauling explosives designed to destroy the city’s bridges and tunnels. Such catastrophes are quite obviously within the realm of possibility, yet political correctness keeps almost every political leader in our nation from endorsing strict control over our borders, a control that would bar the admittance of anyone deemed potentially dangerous to our homeland security.

One might have thought that a calamity like 9/11 would have opened our Congressional representatives’ eyes to the need for greater safeguards. But alas, not enough people died to spur them into meaningful action. Perhaps when a future attack inflicts a death toll that exceeds 9/11 by a hundredfold or a thousandfold, we will finally hear them acknowledge what any thinking person understands already: If we do not end illegal immigration immediately, there’s really no point in getting all worked up about Social Security, 401-K’s, school vouchers, or any other issue whose relevance is founded upon an expectation that the sun will rise tomorrow.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Perazzo is the author of The Myths That Divide Us: How Lies Have Poisoned American Race Relations. For more information on his book, click here. E-mail him at wsbooks25@hotmail.com

[Ff--150]

Ping.

I recall when those who pointed out the dangers in our immigration policies, or lack of, were flamed the way you two are for state's rights.

It appears some sense has come to us, at least in this forum, about our open borders, so maybe the return of the tenth amendment is on its way.

[taxed2death]

This post should be pulled.

It makes entirely too much sense.

It's been my experience that when you post something about the pitiful border situation, you get branded as a racist.

[Ff--150]

bump

[RKV]

Conservatives are afraid of what the media have done to Pat Buchanan - demonized him for his ideas. I don't buy his economic theories, which are pitiful, but Americans need to wake up to the consequences of uncontrolled borders. If we can't do it now (post-9/11) we never will. This is not nativism in the sense that the academic historians (read marxists) mischaracterized historical efforts to limit immigration. Controlling our borders and limiting immigration is not on the politicians (REP and RAT) agenda, and we need to be unrelenting in efforts to change their minds and behaviors. Tancredo for President!

[robowombat]

U.S. public, 'elites' differ on immigration Stephen Dinan THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Published December 17, 2002

---

Sixty percent of Americans believe present immigration levels are a "critical threat to the vital interests of the United States," but only 14 percent of the nation's leaders think so, a new analysis finds. And when asked whether immigration levels should be kept the same, increased or reduced, 55 percent of Americans opted for a reduction, while 18 percent of "elites" thought so, according to a report being released today from the Center for Immigration Studies.

The center advocates lower legal immigration and a stronger effort to prevent and expel illegal immigrants. They say the polls show that the public agrees with them. Those who defend the current immigration levels say their surveys reveal the opposite.

The gap between private and elite opinion is the largest among foreign policy issues and goes a long way toward explaining United States' conflicted public policy on immigration, says report co-author Steven A. Camarota.

For example, it explains why the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents doubled in the 1990s, but interior enforcement to identify and expel illegal immigrants became more lax, he says. "How does one make sense of a schizophrenic policy like that? The only way you do make sense of that is by looking at these poll numbers," Mr. Camarota says.

He and co-author Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, analyzed data from the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations' 2002 survey of opinions of the public and "elites," who were defined as members of Congress, top business and labor union executives, religious leaders, and newspaper editors and television and radio news directors.

In addition to the 60 percent of the public who view immigration as a critical threat, 31 percent deem it important, and 8 percent don't see it as a threat. By contrast, 41 percent of leaders were not concerned. There is also a similar gap between the public and leaders on illegal immigration.

Among the public, 70 percent think that controlling and reducing illegal immigration should be an important goal of foreign policy, about the same number that ranked energy supplies and military superiority as important. Only 22 percent of "elites" say reducing illegal immigration is an important foreign policy goal, about the same percentage that ranked trade deficits and protecting weak nations as important.

"Immigration is simply not on the radar of the elite, whereas the public seems to be quite concerned about the issue," the report said. "There is a very small percentage of the American public that is die-hard anti-immigrant, and there is a small percent that is die-hard pro-immigrant, and there are a lot of people in the middle," says Angela Kelley, deputy director for programs at the National Immigration Forum.

Mr. Camarota says the best example of the perceptions gap on immigration was seen this year when President Bush proposed to offer legal status to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. Several congressional Republican leaders, almost the entire Democratic congressional leadership, unions and business leaders, and religious leaders all supported versions of the amnesty proposal, which Mr. Bush had promised Mexican President Vicente Fox.

But although it was set to pass by an anonymous voice vote, a grass-roots public outcry spearheaded by conservative talk radio made it a public issue and almost prevented it. "Every interest group is lined up on one side of it, there's just one group that hasn't bought into it, and it's the public," he says. In essence, he says, support is not strong enough to force a cut in illegal or legal immigration, but it is enough to prevent a pro-active policy.

But Ms. Kelley says that what really happened on the amnesty bill was that the sides were pushing very different proposals and couldn't agree on a unified plan. "This was not an issue that received the full-throttled effort of a wide range of constituencies, including this organization," she says. "The timing wasn't right and the proposal didn't go far enough." "To connect it up with public opinion is a pretty incredible contortion that lacks credibility," she says.

Mr. Beck says that the survey numbers also point to a political opening. "It does suggest that if a party or if a candidate that was in a competitive position raised this issue, they could really gain a lot of extra support," Mr. Beck says. If they tried to use the issue as a rallying point, it could move even higher on the list of foreign policy concerns. "The public doesn't tend to start acting until they see a leader mobilizing them to act, and we've basically been without such a thing," he says.

Ms. Kelley says history has been unkind to those who have taken on that role. "The most ardent restrictionists who are public figures are those like a Pat Buchanan, has never been able to garner much support for his views." On the other hand, she says, pro-immigration politicians such as President Bush, his brother Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New York Gov. George E. Pataki have all done well.

The analysis nevertheless revealed some bad news for Mr. Bush on his immigration policy. Among the public, 41 percent rated him "poor" in that area — his lowest foreign policy showing. His next poorest showing was on global warming, where 32 percent ranked his performance "poor."

[4CJ]

Actually, IMHO there are two problems - 1) open, undefended borders, and 2) our citizenship laws.

I'm all for legal immigration, and welcome to those that seek to become American - but not those that enter illegally or seek overthrow our government, or mold America into a version of what they escaped.

The fact that any child born on American soils bestows instant American citizenship is just an open invitation for women to enter the US and give birth here - which happens quite a lot. The child should be a citizen of the same country as the parents. If you were visiting England on vacation and your wife happened to deliver a month early, does that mean your child is a British citizen?

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[joesnuffy]

Homeland Security...disarming the citizen-patriots making the place safer for conquest of illegal invaders

[Ff--150]

All this breaking of the immigration laws were so that one political party could dominate this country, and to inflate deficit spending to continue the tax-spend scheme to bankrupt this nation.

The politicians are stuck pretending illegal immigration is no issue whatsoever, for now this is a huge segment of the voting block thanks to x42's mafia cronies.

State's rights was brought up for if the states had real rights the citizens could ban together to stop this onslaught...

[4CJ]

All this breaking of the immigration laws were so that one political party could dominate this country, and to inflate deficit spending to continue the tax-spend scheme to bankrupt this nation.

Of course, and under the mantra "no child left behind" is the push for government handouts/welfare/entitlement programs.

State's rights was brought up for if the states had real rights the citizens could ban together to stop this onslaught...

Legally the states can stop the invasion of their borders. The problem is that Washington will attempt to prevent it.

[Dark Wing]

This is another example of how the alternate media is having a conversation the mainstream media ignores as politically incorrect.

The case against open borders is being made "under the radar" until it reaches a critical mass that makes it unavoidable.

The open borders lobby is going to get mugged by reality after the next 9/11 class attack on American soil.

[Richard Axtell]

"Homeland Security...disarming the citizen-patriots making the place safer for conquest of illegal invaders"

There was a time that I would vigorously diagree with you statement, but not after watching politico after politico mouth the same empty sophistry about how "immigrants are essential to our economy" and "they contribute to our society" etc. and then give lip service to protecting the border, while undermining any real attempt to do so, and punishing citizens who dare to point this out. A gulf wider than the Rio Grande exists between both the Republican and Democrat political leadership, and the citizens of this country on this issue. And just as in the last paragraph of John Perazzo's article, it will take another massive attack by terrorists that came in illegally across our border to force this issue to the absolute forefront. When some Al Quaida suicide lunatic that came across the Mexican border blows himself up in an Orange County shopping mall, killing dozens of innocent Americans, then the reality of Malkin's book might well dawn. Then, who knows what will happen?

[Tailgunner Joe]

bump

[wjcsux]

There is another problem as well. Many countries, including Mexico, recognize DUAL CITIZENSHIP! We need to reform Citizenship laws that if you are a U.S. citizen, you cannot be a citizen of another country.

[Cindy]

IMMIGRATION ISSUES American Patrol.com The Stein ReportCenter for Immigration Studies Numbers USA California Coalition for Immigration Reform Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform CensusScope.org "Immigrants, Not Americans, Must Adapt"

[tracer]

buildthewall bump....

[SJackson]

There is another problem as well. Many countries, including Mexico, recognize DUAL CITIZENSHIP! We need to reform Citizenship laws that if you are a U.S. citizen, you cannot be a citizen of another country.

I believe the recent history of "dual citizenship" revolves aroung several USSC decisions in the early 50's. Probably would require a constitutional amendment (won't happen) and the real problem is illegals anyway. Better to expend your energy there.

[madfly]

Legally the states can stop the invasion of their borders. The problem is that Washington will attempt to prevent it.

The States can but they won't.

The problem is that the states that share borders with Mexico will not stop the invasion and are preventing Washington from stopping it, threatening action from International Migrant Rights groups. Jane Hull, now Janet Napolitanok, Gray Davis, Texas and New Mexico Governors become "automatic" members of the Border Governors Conference agenda 21, Western Governors, Northern Compact, Environmental Border Groups, blah blah blah. Fox and Bush were member governors before they were prezedentays. This has gone on for 20 years. They have an open border agenda and ultra-secretive meetings where they gather to influence gov't policy on all border matters.

This all revolves around NAFTA and UN human rights etc. so that Washington cowtows to the NGO's and gloablists when considering laws, or enforcement of current laws.

That's why the INS and Border Patrol have been told not to "upset" the Mexican consulate, by being told not to do their jobs.

It's not Washington that's sending the message, it's NGO's that are sending Washington the message. This, in my mind, is anti-American and treason. This border governors group has 4 US guvnahs and 6 Mexican guvnahs and we as border state citizens get no vote nor any feedback from them whatsoever on their Agenda's . . . 21 or otherwise. This is a UN organized plan and has been for some time. Obviously it has reached far into our Federal Gov't and We the People are not questioned or given any chance to speak up on their Master Plan. I've learned all this from this forum and from trying to debunk it and using discernment, which is how everyone should approach this information. I don't know where to go from here, but I know better than to think that our Gov't is interested in our citizen voice and I'm damned ashamed of that. God Bless America.

[madfly]

ping

[madfly]

ping

[madfly]

It won't be long until those of us who go out in the desert and have too much fun laughing and disturb a pygmy owl or look at a group of 100 illegal aliens cross-eyed, find ourselves violating an international law and being tried by the ICC.

[Brownie74]

The single greatest threat to the lives of America’s 280 million people remains, to this day, utterly unaddressed by political leaders afraid to lose the votes....

Which makes our political leaders just as guilty if not moreso than the illegal aliens.

Exercise your power at the polls in 2004.

[Travis McGee]

bttt

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Thanks for the ping.

[MissAmericanPie]

You could not possibly be more on the mark. We need to keep spreading these facts around to anyone who will listen. The Americans guarding our border should be the line in the sand.

[FreedomPoster]

Check out the link in #16. In fact, I think I'll post it as it's own thread.

[blackie]

Be Well - Be Armed - Be Safe - Molon Labe!

[spodefly]

BTTT

[Tailgunner Joe]

bttt

[MissAmericanPie]

I get that lable all the time from anti-american seditionists. If I am, then I am a product of my environment, living under a race conscience government that discrimnates against my race while promoting others.

I suppose acknowledging the racism against you makes you a racist, so what? Water off a ducks back.