| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Ludicrous US Asylum Policy Opens Door to Moslem Terrorists |
| 2004-06-17 |
| From Town Hall, an article by Michelle Malkin Do you know how the alleged "shopping-mall" bomber entered our country? He didn’t cross the border illegally. He didn’t sneak in on a ship. He came through the front door at America’s invitation. Nuradin M. Abdi, who was indicted last week for plotting with al Qaeda to blow up an Ohio shopping mall, flew here from Somalia and received bogus "refugee" status in 1999, according to authorities. Prosecutors allege that Abdi then fraudulently obtained a refugee travel document, which he used to fly to Ethiopia for jihad training. After returning, Abdi blended back into the American landscape along with tens of thousands of other refugees from a country known to be a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists. Columbus, Abdi’s home base, is home to more than 30,000 Somalis -- the second-largest Somali community in the United States, after Minneapolis. The Somali-al Qaeda connection is well-established. .... Not every Somalian refugee or asylum-seeker is a terrorist, of course. But the system for screening out the well-meaning from the menaces is completely overwhelmed. Claims of "credible fear of persecution" are almost impossible to document but are rarely rejected. Federal homeland security officials are unable to detain asylum-seekers for background checks without the civil liberties brigade screaming "racial profiling." And there is still a woeful shortage of detention space -- just 2,000 beds nationwide -- to hold those with suspect claims. As a result, thousands of refugees and asylum-seekers who have made flimsy claims of persecution are let loose. As the Department of Justice’s inspector general reported, 97 percent of all asylum-seekers from any country who were released from immigration custody were never found again and deported. Abdi’s case cannot be viewed in isolation. At least three other high-profile Islamic militants that we know of exploited the asylum system over the past decade: * Ramzi Yousef landed at New York City’s JFK airport from Pakistan and flashed an Iraqi passport without a visa to inspectors. He was briefly detained for illegal entry and fingerprinted, but was allowed to remain in the country after invoking the magic words "political asylum." The then-INS released him because it didn’t have enough space in its detention facility. Yousef headed to Jersey City to plot the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. |
| Posted by:Mike Sylwester |
| #12 Much of their earned $ are sent back to Mexico to support the family (which is one of the reasons Fox is so hot on amnesty), and their many children flood the schools with non-english speaking special ed cases. Payroll taxes for Social Security / Medicare come off the top, that's why I singled them out. Employers are liable for SS/MC taxes whether the worker is legal or not thus it's normal for an employer employing illegals to go ahead and pay the payroll taxes. Employing illegals earns one a slap on the wrist, tax evasion earns one an invasive IRS procedure. You're right WRT the consumption of social services but who pays for education? Mostly the states & local communities. Who funds programs for indigent health care? Mostly the states or the medical industry through state pressure. What constituency benefits from not having to tackle the problem of entitlement programs for the elderly right now? Holders of elected office in the federal government. See the trend here? Federal politicians are serving their own political needs while passing much of the cost of their decisions on down to the state and local levels. As the followups to my original post pointed out, there are plenty of perfectly valid reasons to control our borders and I agree with those. But we need to see this game with illegal immigrants for what it primarily is: a last-ditch attempt to shore up our bloated and failing entitlement culture. As a practical matter we can't address illegal immigration effectively until and unless we first address our gross overspending on entitlements. In other words, we first have to break our dependence on the "population pyramid" that's necessary to support our entitlements. Then, and only then, will we find politicians with the political will to shore up our immigration policies. Until that time (or until most of the population realizes that we really are at war), look for the southern border to remain fairly open. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-06-17 6:37:01 PM |
| #11 AzCat There is one difference between the 'Legal Aliens' and 'Illegal Aliens' which you fail to mention. The legal aliens are here LEGALLY and are for the most part law-abiding people. They often have to wait years in order to get here legally. The illegal aliens (sometimes misnamed 'undocumented') on the other hand are here in violation of federal law - by definition they are not law-abiding. I do not have a problem with LEGAL aliens. I am married to an alien (sounds like the title to a sci-fi movie huh?). Did you know that in order for an alien to come here legally they undergo a interview and background check? There is no 'vetting' or background checks of illegal aliens so we don't know if they are murders, or terrorists, etc... (Tho the INS sometimes let them in anyway legally on 'humanitarian' grounds -- another failing of theirs). Did you know that for the most part legal aliens cannot get simply welfare or other 'means based' aid? Their Sponsors have to sign an affidavid that they will support them for about 10 years. Did you know that illegal aliens get free medical simply for being illegal? The legal alien's sponsor is responsible for the medical of legal aliens. My wife just had a baby and it cost us about $5-6K (including insurance) -- illegal aliens get it for free. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-06-17 5:25:04 PM |
| #10 I'm just pointing out that, aside from language differences, we have an awful lot in common with those folks who cross it. Absolutely. And the majority are as you say, hard-working, believe in God, care for their families. What this approach to immigration doesn't address is: 1.) The demographic bias in favor of Hispanic-Americans to the detriment of people of other nationalities, at least as far as residency goes. For me, you shouldn't favor one group and create a loss for another group based on their race, and you shouldn't award residency/citizenship to a law breaker while denying it to a law-respecter. (To law-abiding Hispanic Americans--I am not painting you with this brush-we are proud to have you here.)IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW. 2.) In terms of effective assimilation, what are communicating about rule of law if we let illegal aliens' first and very important encounter with law slide? We adhere to rule of law but only part of the time? What part? |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-06-17 5:22:40 PM |
| #9 Azcat - disagree with the benefit of the influx of uneducated cheap labor. Much of their earned $ are sent back to Mexico to support the family (which is one of the reasons Fox is so hot on amnesty), and their many children flood the schools with non-english speaking special ed cases. I favor a worker program, but not citizenship, and their children born after they illegally sneak in shouldn't get citizenship either |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-06-17 5:15:44 PM |
| #8 The US government doesn't even have the will to stop illegal immigration from Mexico.... Say instead that the US government doesn't have the will to touch our ponzi scheme entitlement programs for the elderly. Said programs of course depend on payroll taxes drawn from a a pyramid-shaped population with a very large working age base transferring wealth to a smaller elderly tip. Since Americans aren't doing their part by having enough children to ensure the continual rapid expansion of the population we're forced to turn to massive, and even illegal, immigration to fill the gap. The fact is that it's politically expedient to allow quite a bit of illegal immigration and that's not likely to change no matter who's in charge. But before we go too far down the road of condemning our illegal immigrants from south of the border, stop a moment and consider just who it is that comes here. The average Mexican or Central/South American immigrant (legal or not) probably: works harder than the average US citizen, cares for his/her family to the best of his/her ability, comes looking only for a better life, views the US as a land of opportunity, believes in God, etc. In other words, they're a lot more traditionally American than many US citizens, particularly those on the LLL. I'm not defending the practice of throwing open our southern border, I'm just pointing out that, aside from language differences, we have an awful lot in common with those folks who cross it. Compare that with the waves of Muslim immigration into western Europe that they're using to prop up their ponzi scheme socialist welfare states and count your blessings that our nation is an ocean away from that morass. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-06-17 5:02:18 PM |
| #7 " . . . our insane asylum laxity." Ha! Great double-take there, Mike. Works for me. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2004-06-17 4:48:07 PM |
| #6 I am afraid that it will take (at least) a couple more 9/11's before the idea sticks. To have to suffer more 9/11/2001-style attacks would seem to me that instead of a burnt hand situation, we're talking more in terms of an amputated limb... |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-17 1:02:30 PM |
| #5 The refugee issue is simple. Don't accept any "refugee" that is not from the Western hemisphere. There is no reason why some jackoff from Somalia (who somehow could afford to travel halfway across the world in the first place) has to come across the Atlantic as a "refugee". Why can't he go to France? Germany? Spain? Or any of the Peace Loving Arab states? Nah. Head these people off at the border. Case closed. |
| Posted by: Chris W. 2004-06-17 12:38:19 PM |
| #4 Bomb-a-Rama- That's true. You won't hear me defending George Bush's (or the previous administration's) policy on immigration law enforcement. But I can tell you that there is currently ZERO oversight of the legality of students in these types classes. Students |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-06-17 11:19:41 AM |
| #3 The burnt hand teaches best -- after that advice about fire goes stright to the heart. Unless you are an american member of congress (or president). I am afraid that it will take (at least) a couple more 9/11's before the idea sticks. (After all they kept the Visa Express program in Saudi-arabis going even after 9/11 and the idiot who created it even received a BONUS for it (she only had to enable 3000 people to get murdered....)). I dont think one more 9/11 would be enough for our elected officals to get the picture. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-06-17 11:16:39 AM |
| #2 The US government doesn't even have the will to stop illegal immigration from Mexico - something that requires far less investigative effort - and it's expected to spmehow determine who is and isn't really a "refugee"??? |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-17 11:02:53 AM |
| #1 I used to run an English as a Second Language program in a community college. During my nine years with the program, I saw requirements for registrees to provide legitimate identification for entrance to the program go from something weakly enforced to something we were not "legally allowed" to do and back to something we tried hard to get but often were unable to obtain if not caught on the original application. We need to have clear legal definitions set up in our schools (think about it--I have seen reports that some of the 9/11 hijackers WERE taking English classes). There is an unintended protective boundary around "visitors" because of domestic indifference and legal ignorance... |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-06-17 9:59:56 AM |