Did You Know...

   

REPEAT AFTER ME: PRO-ENFORCEMENT IS NOT “ANTI-IMMIGRANT”

Share
By Michelle Malkin  •  December 1, 2004 11:44 AM

My column today is dedicated to the OBL–the Open Borders Lobby. If you are sick and tired of hearing La Raza and the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the White House(!) smearing supporters of real border security as “anti-immigrant,” get off your duff. Intro:

The obtuseness of the open-borders lobby never ceases to amaze. Here we are, three years after the 9/11 hijackers easily exploited lax borders, and the OBL continues to argue that cracking down on illegal immigration and tightening terrorist-friendly loopholes are “anti-immigrant.”

Banging. Head. Against. The. Wall.

How do you maintain sanity when wading through the emotional drivel that passes for the OBL’s reasoning? Tip: Whenever they say “anti-immigrant,” substitute “pro-enforcement.” And shout it at the top of your lungs.

Political correctness is the handmaiden of terrorism. By smearing the overwhelming majority of Americans who support real borders as racists and xenophobes, the OBL obscures its deadly agenda: sabotaging our existing immigration laws and blocking any new efforts to punish those who abuse the system…

Whole column is here: What part of ‘enforcement’ don’t they understand?

Blogger John Hawkins has more here on the stupidity of the “anti-immigrant” card players.

It is vitally important that this message–pro-enforcement is not anti-immigrant— get across to Washington in the next week when the debate over the “intel reform” bill reignites. The OBL and the media will continue to hammer heroic Rep. Sensenbrenner and the maverick House Republicans in an effort to strip the bill of vital immigration-related provisions. As I note in my column, mainstream reporting by OBL-sympathizing journalists on these specific measures has been skimpier than a Bratz doll’s wardrobe. It’s not just the driver’s license provisions that the anti-enforcement crowd opposes. They oppose all of the following as well:

— Adding at least 2,000 new border patrol agents, 800 new interior enforcement investigators, and 150 additional consular officials overseas.

— Increasing illegal alien detention facility space by 2,500 beds.

— Expanding the number of foreign airports with counterterrorist passenger prescreening programs.

— Creating a uniform identity document rule for all aliens present in the United States

— Toughening criminal penalties for using or trading false identification documents.

— Reducing bureaucratic delays that allow illegal aliens who obtained fraudulent visas to re-enter or remain in the country even after their visas have been revoked.

— Creating an information- and intelligence-sharing system at the Department of Homeland Security to track terrorist travel tactics, patterns, trends and practices and disseminate the data to front-line personnel at ports of entry and immigration benefits offices.

— Making it easier to deport terrorists and alien supporters of terrorism by curbing their avenues for appeal and delay.

— Speeding up the development of a long-delayed entry-exit system to guard against terrorists slipping through the cracks.

— Requiring asylum-seekers tied to guerrilla, militant or terrorist organizations, and who claim asylum without submitting corroborating evidence, to provide credible proof of their “persecution.”

Read what was struck out of H.R. 10 for yourselves here.
More background and info on taking action here.

Update: La Shawn Barber is on La Raza and AG nominee Al Gonzalez’s case.

Update II: The Diplomad has an on-point analysis, making many of the points I raised in Invasion.

Dumb sensors, deadly consequences

November 22, 2017 04:40 AM by Michelle Malkin

Yes, we need a Canadian border wall

April 19, 2016 10:31 PM by Michelle Malkin


Categories: Border Patrol, Feature Story, Homeland Security, Immigration