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 is "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.
Flavia Jimenez of the National Council of La Raza illustrates perfectly this blustering open-borders tactic in a hysterical "action alert" this week titled: "STOP ANTI IMMIGRANT PROVISIONS FROM BECOMING PART OF THE INTELLIGENCE REFORM BILL."
La Raza and their fellow travelers argue that tough enforcement measures "needlessly scapegoat all immigrants," are "extraneous" and "harsh," "would not have prevented the terrorist attacks and will not make us safer," and are "non-solutions that will only drive people further underground and cause panic among immigrant communities."
"Extraneous?"
These same critics had no problem when a $1 billion illegal alien health care bailout for border hospitals was tacked on to the mammoth Medicare Prescription Drug bill.
"Non-solutions?"
The 9/11 commission itself blamed "a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as part of border security, and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism."
If you actually read the immigration enforcement provisions supported by House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner and his fellow maverick House Republicans (side note: just once, I'd like to see the mainstream media call a Republican other than John McCain a "maverick"), you will see clearly and unequivocally that these vital measures are anti-terrorist.
Anti-criminal. Anti-fraud. And above all, pro-enforcement.
Open-border activists not only oppose the most-publicized provision that would deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens, they also oppose provisions:
As usual, mainstream reporting on these specific immigration-related measures at issue has been skimpier than a Bratz doll's wardrobe. That's because so many national editors themselves subscribe to the open-borders gospel. Since 9/11, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post have published countless news items and editorials decrying immigration enforcement: sob stories about families caught evading deportation orders; foreign students complaining about new registration requirements violating their "privacy;" Latino activists outraged about Border Patrol agents doing their jobs; Middle Eastern tourists protesting visa screening measures; illegal aliens clamoring for protection of their "rights."
Rep. Sensenbrenner and his GOP colleagues face not only the OBL on the left and in the media, but also at the highest echelons of the Bush administration.
The mavericks need all the help they can get.
Before it's too late, call the White House now and yell:
It's the enforcement, stupid!
Michelle Malkin [email her] is author of Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. Click here for Peter Brimelow's review. Click here for Michelle Malkin's website.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
