“Killing America…Twice”: Jihadists And The Immigration Compromise
Defreitas and his fellow jihadists, most haling from Guyana but with ties to Trinidad’s ruthless Jama’at al Muslimeen (the Muslim Group), wanted to do their part in what they unflinchingly called “the war for Islam.” They wanted to kill JFK, and kill us. A second time.
They know there’s a war out there. Not just Iraq or Afghanistan, but Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb – jihadists versus civilization. Global. For us to win, it will not be enough to stabilize Baghdad, sow democracy and empower moderates. It’s about breaking the enemy’s will, as they are working feverishly to break ours.
Thanks to excellent police work, this time they were stopped. But there will be a next time, and another. The jihadists know what’s at stake. Do we?
Giving the jihadists who are in the country illegally the ability to move around it at their leisure and the right to work the day after the new limmigration law passes remains the most absurd of all the aspects of the “compromise.”
The senators return to D.C. and to the debate on Monday. Be sure to keep calling. Ask them what the effect of the new law will be on a jihadist who entered the country illegally from Guyana, Somalia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia etc and who has not been detected by our counterintelligence professionals.
Here is one study from the Center for Immigration Studies of immigrants by country of origin, based upon census data (yes, illegal aliens reply to the census takers in huge numbers and they are counted within these numbers):
If we make the obviously incorrect, but nevertheless useful-in-identifying-the-scope-of-the-problem assumption that all jihadists here illegally are among those who came from the Middle East in the past five years, we still have a population of 246,000 within which those hostiles hide.
The answer to detecting them is not to issue 601(h) visas to that portion of the quarter of a million within which they hide in the hopes that they are too timid to step forward and claim their work and travel permits.
The answer is to amend the law to except out all the illegals within the 246,000 from the new law’s bestowal of probationary status (as well as Guyanans, Trinidadians, Somalis and illegals from other “countries of interest” with know jihadist networks.)
And, yes, that includes Great Britain and France. Illegals from those countries should have to make a positive showing of loyalty to the west and absent a confirming investigation, remain undocumented and subject to deportation. With such a provision, the new law becomes the very useful tool in stopping jihadist attacks within the U.S. that its backers argue it is already.
It isn’t fair to treat “good” illegals from Somalia differently from “good” illegals from mexico –but it is necessary. There is no constitutional bar to doing so, but once the new law passed, there would be likely be challenges to any differential treatment of the 601(h) probationary visa holders.