May 28, 2007


Study: Immigration agencies talk big on anti-terrorism (MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, 5/28/07, The Associated Press)

U.S. immigration agencies say anti-terrorism is their primary mission, but they tried to deport only 12 people on terrorism-related charges from 2004 through 2006, according to a private research study released Sunday. [...]

The overwhelming majority of deportation cases – 86.5 percent – were based on traditional immigration violations such as sneaking past border inspections, not having a valid visa or overstaying a student visa, TRAC said.

...that nativism hides behind.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 28, 2007 9:16 AM

9/11 had nothing to do with this????

For those who are not "yahoos?"

Posted by: Sandy P at May 28, 2007 9:48 AM

Yes, 9-11 stoked hysteria.

Posted by: oj at May 28, 2007 12:20 PM

Well, it's not like we've ever had any terrorists sneak across the Mexican border. Oh, wait!

"The father of three men charged in the foiled Fort Dix terror plot was arrested this week on immigration violations and is in federal custody, two law enforcement sources said today.

Ferik Duka, the father of Eljvir, Dritan and Shain Duka, is being held pending a hearing, the said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Duka's wife, Zurata, was also issued a summons but was not taken into custody because the couple has a 16-year old son.

Federal investigators have found no evidence linking the parents to the alleged plot to kill soldiers at Fort Dix. But, the source said of the parents, "You can't ignore the fact that they are here illegally."

The Duka family entered the United States illegally through Mexico in October 1984, according to the sources. In 1989, Ferik Duka made an application for asylum with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and acknowledged the family's illegal entry into the country.

Nobody in the family was ever given legal residency status, the sources said. It was unclear why the Duka's had not been charged with immigration violations earlier."

That one's for you, Sandy!

Posted by: Rick T. at May 28, 2007 3:07 PM

Except that they're Europeans, not Latinos.

Posted by: oj at May 28, 2007 5:58 PM

Pray tell, why should we care whether the illegal immigrant came from one place or another, when we know this: that he is an illegal immigrant. One of the marks of a just law is that it be of general application, treating like cases alike, and unlike cases unlike.

Well, there is an implication in pointing out that the Ft. Dix terrorists are not latinos, the implication being that it should matter, one way or the other. What is further implied is that wetbacks are to get some sort of preferential, privileged positions ahead of would-be immigrants from the rest of the world.

If that is not what you are saying, then let immigration law be of general application, governing Mexican, Pole and Hindu alike.

We are hearing that there is to be one rule for Europeans, Africans, Asians, and another for Western Hemishere border-jumpers.

It should not matter whether the would-be immigrant hails from Mexico or South Asia or Eastern Europe. Our objection to his presence has nothing to do with that. On the contrary, they should, all of them, be equally welcome, or not, according to the law.

Posted by: Lou Gots at May 28, 2007 8:15 PM

I don't get it. Wouldn't this imply we ought to toughen enforcement if we're catching so few of them? I know most of the folks trying to cross the border aren't terrorists, but it's obviously worthwhile to stop even one of them from killing a lot of Americans.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at May 28, 2007 8:26 PM

Why? The benefit is dwarfed by the cost.

Posted by: oj at May 28, 2007 8:43 PM

Because legality is a fiction. All that matters is why they come. If they want to be American they are.

Posted by: oj at May 28, 2007 8:44 PM


Yes, until some nut blows up Hanover...

Posted by: Matt Murphy at May 28, 2007 9:58 PM


Letting everyone in if they want to be Americans is a great concept, it just gets tricky in the execution. We want to make sure everyone who comes in wants to assimilate -- attempting to learn English is a good sign, although I concede it's a tough language and not easy to learn. It's also a good sign if they are willing to work, and admittedly most Hispanic immigrants (the ones I've known, anyway) work very hard. I think some of the enforcement provisions in the new bill seem like a step forward, although obviously much depends on how they are enforced. It shouldn't be uncontrolled on one hand and a bureaucratic nightmare on the other hand for those folks who follow the rules.

Terrorists, by definition, don't want to assimilate. We should be looking out for them.

I'm genuinely okay with an amnesty, I'd just like us to keep a better eye on both of our borders from now on. I don't want some large city to be a crater in the ground because we weren't paying attention. This new bill has some interesting provisions but you're quite possibly right that the system will be overloaded and we won't enforce them.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at May 28, 2007 10:16 PM

We stopped them, no? The system worked.

Posted by: oj at May 28, 2007 11:53 PM

Thousands of Moslems from Kosovo are here legally because they were designated "political refugees" and set up at Fort Dix at the behest of bubba and the bubbette.

Posted by: erp at May 29, 2007 8:53 AM