2004 October 28 Thursday
Asylum Status Still Risk For Terrorists To Get Into United States

Writing for Tech Central Station attorneys Jonathan E. Stern and Michael M. Rosen show that immigration law still contains major holes for terrorists to enter the United States.

Imagine a foreign national who enters the United States via Iraq and Syria; whose niece married one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers; who once lived with her niece and the bomber in Seattle; and whose husband remained in close contact with the bomber and shepherded an undocumented Egyptian to the Canadian border in a taxicab shortly after the 1993 attack. Do this woman and her family sound like good candidates for asylum in America? The U.S. Court of Appeals apparently thought so in August when it permitted Haifa El Himri and her son Musab, both facing deportation to Kuwait, to remain in the United States.

Aside: Stern and Rosen are probably in favor of illegal immigration. Note the term "undocumented Egyptian" rather than "illegal alien Egyptian". Undocumented? If the Egyptian carried a passport or other ID (as seems likely) then wasn't the Egyptian documented? Also, if an undocumented alien is arrested then doesn't that create a documentation trail? Heck, if all the illegals caught entering the country are put into a database (not sure if this is done on the Mexican border but I am pretty sure it is done in airports when people are turned back) then there is a documentation trail for anyone so caught. Yet those who repeated enter the country are referred to as "undocumented" by those who are not really against illegal alien immigration in principle.

In fact, under current asylum law, national security considerations do not enter into the judicial analysis. While the Attorney General may, under the Patriot Act and other regulations, deny asylum to individuals who have engaged in terrorist activity, skilled applicants can skirt these provisions even in the wake of the September 11th attacks. The 9/11 Commission Report reveals that, even though federal law authorizes the use of classified evidence in deportation cases, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) removed very few individuals linked to terrorist activity, none of whom were associated with Al Qaeda.

Meanwhile the Bush Administration is opposing the implementation of 9/11 Commission recommendations for tougher immigration and asylum law changes. Just because Bush strikes a very hawkish pose does not mean he's aggressively trying to shut down the obvious paths of attack for terrorists who want to strike in America. No, he thinks Hispandering comes before national security.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2004 October 28 11:43 AM  Immigration Terrorism


Comments
John S Bolton said at October 28, 2004 7:10 PM:

The asylum policies traitorously put the aggrandizement of foreigners ahead of the interest of the citizen and the net taxpayer. They leave national security out of consideration, as if there were no enemies or terrorists in the world. They pretend that there is only one country which can accomodate the asylum-seeker, but that is an obviously irrational assumption. Liberty means freedom from aggression, not welfare for the third world. It means freedom from aggression for the citizenry, not a blank check for officials to start conflicts with whatever despotisms are out there. As citizens, we are being asked to ~value~ the ~devaluation~ of our citizenship, but that is a contradiction-in-terms. Rationality cannot support such policies; from this it follows that nonsensical pseudo-arguments or attempted defamations will have to be used instead.

Jeff said at October 28, 2004 11:49 PM:

Hispanipandering? Piffle. Bush is just a pro-immigration president and has made no bones about it. And good for him! One of many reasons I support him.

Jeff


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright