| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In Human Events today I discuss the porous border in terms of questions of national security.
Three Afghanis were arrested Wednesday at an international airport in India’s Kerala state for flying with forged Mexican passports. They had just arrived there from Kuwait, where officials examined the passports identifying them as “Antonio Lopez Juan,” “Javier Sanchez Alberto,” and “Atonio Lopez Ernesto,” and found that they didn’t understand any Spanish. Maybe they were also suspicious of these inept attempts to ape Spanish names.“Antonio,” “Javier,” and “Atonio” insisted they were trying to get to France, but given their newly-minted Mexican identities, that seems about as likely as the possibility that Hillary Clinton will cede the Democratic nomination gracefully to Barack Obama. Now what could Afghan nationals who don’t speak Spanish want with Mexican passports? Maybe they were really tired of Afghan fare and were craving some enchiladas. Or maybe they were hoping to craft a new brand of Afghan/mariachi music.
From the general level of concern exhibited in official Washington after other evidence of jihadist attempts to cross into the U.S. from Mexico, one might reasonably assume that nothing more worrisome than mariachi is going on. But in the real world, this incident is yet another indication of the national security aspect of the immigration issue.The warnings have been coming in for years. In June 2004, border patrol agents arrested 77 “Middle Eastern” men attempting to enter the U.S. illegally. Congressman Solomon Ortiz (D-Tex.) said that such attempts are “happening all over the place. It’s very, very scary.” In October of that year, intelligence officials began investigating allegations that 25 nationals from another hotbed of jihad, Chechnya, had crossed into the country across the Arizona border. And the next month, a captured Egyptian jihadist named Sharif al-Masri told interrogators about Al-Qaeda’s plans to “smuggle nuclear materials to Mexico,” where “operatives would carry material into the U.S.” A Bangladeshi Muslim, Fakhrul Islam, was arrested in December 2004 while trying to cross into Texas from Mexico. With him were members of the Central American Mara Salvatruchas gang, which some officials allege has ties to Al-Qaeda.
In June 2005, the FBI uncovered an operation dedicated to smuggling Iranians into the United States from Mexico. Five months later, Congresswoman Sue Myrick (R-NC) said: “They just arrested, down on the border, a couple of weeks ago, three al-Qaeda members who came across from Mexico into the United States.” And in December of that year, immigration crusader Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) revealed that 51 illegal immigrants were arrested on terror-related charges between October 2004 and December 2005. In November 2007, the FBI issued an advisory about a plan by jihadists in league with Mexican drug lords to cross the border via underground tunnels and attack the intelligence training center at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, twenty miles from the border with Mexico. “The Afghanis and Iraqis,” one official explained, paid the Mexicans $20,000 or “the equivalent in weapons” for their help in getting into the U.S., and “shaved their beards so as not to appear to be Middle Easterners.”
If all this isn’t an argument for border security, what is? Perhaps the most curious aspect of these stories that are two and three years old is that they didn’t get national attention, and didn’t result in genuine action to secure our borders. But with the latest incident in India, McCain, Hillary, and Obama should be asked pointed questions about their immigration policies, and asked to go beyond the dismissal of immigration controls as “racism” to address the genuine national security issues involved in the continued porous state of our southern border.
There is no way to estimate how many jihadists may already have crossed into the U.S. from Mexico. But the time to play politics with the border issue is long past. The shallow sloganeering and race-baiting that have dominated the national debate about border controls should be recognized as what they are: hindrances to sane and sensible national defense measures.
Why should we stand idle while those who have vowed to destroy us cross the border with relative impunity? And why isn’t such a question being asked of our presidential candidates at every stop they make on the hustings?
Posted by Robert at February 19, 2008 5:32 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
This news is alarming. So, just how did these fellows manage to obtain Mexican passports?
It would be great if someone asked the presidential candidates about this. I doubt if they have time these days to read anything at all, leaving such details to their staff, but it would be great if someone took the trouble to feed this info to their campaign organizations - and find a way to make sure the question gets asked.
How about making sure the talk show hosts are aware of it? I could easily see Glenn Beck or Michael Savage going ballistic with this material, and I'm betting Michelle Malkin will have a field day with it.
Posted by: Eastview![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 19, 2008 6:06 AM
The party that grants illegals amnesty figures these new immigrants will get them re-elected. Has anyone thought about the fact that if amnesty is granted, it cannot be based on race, creed or country of origin. It seems to me that another major terror attack on America is imminent, because we have returned to the same state of mind we were in on September 10,2001. Eight years elapsed between World Trade Center attack #1 and 9/11. Does anyone here think the fact that Ramsi Yousef (perpetrator #1)is Khalid Sheik Mohammed's (9/11 mastermind)nephew? These people are patient and calculating. I usually like to be right, this time, I pray that I am wrong........................."There is no greater mistake than to suppose that platitudes, smooth words, and timid policies offer a path to safety."-Winston Churchill
Posted by: Infidel One at February 19, 2008 6:27 AM
Correction:Ramsi Yousef is Khalid Sheik Mohammed's nephew.
Posted by: Infidel One at February 19, 2008 6:29 AM
Re: Spencer: National Security At the Border
This is what Islamic culture produces and exports. This exploitation culture produces only one nation (Saudi Arabia-because of oil) with a Gross-Domestic-product in the top 40 nations of the world. Egypt, with 51 million people, produces as much wealth (technology, industrial goods, food, etc.) as New Zealand (4 million people). Turkey, with 70 million people, has a GDP equal to Sweden with 9 million. One can just imagine what an industrious people (China, e.g.) would do with Saudi oil money. They would become a great producing people. Saudi Arabia is a "cargo culture" that even exploits foreign workers.
Supremacist sneering, delusions of grandeur and violence are what Islam exports. No one needs their product. Close the border.
Posted by: Frank at February 19, 2008 6:33 AM
Correction: This exploitation culture produces only one nation ARAB NATION (Saudi Arabia-because of oil) with a Gross-Domestic-product in the top 40 nations of the world. Egypt, with 51 million people, produces as much wealth (technology, industrial goods, food, etc.) as New Zealand (4 million people). Three Muslim nations (besides Saudi Arabia) are in the top 40 producers: Indonesia (24), Iran (30) and Malaysia (37).
In any case, it is striking how little is produced in the Islamic world. No wonder they need jizya.
The world does not need what Islam exports. Close the border.
Posted by: Frank at February 19, 2008 6:44 AM
Correction again: Egypt has 70 million people and produces as much as New Zealand. It's early in the day-LOL as I look over the data. In any case, I'm not a Muslim, so exactness on fact and truth matter to me. I don't want such a corrupted mind that that permits their deception. It changes brain waves and produces a mind that is bizarre when it comes to plain-speaking and exactness on facts.
Posted by: Frank at February 19, 2008 7:09 AM
... and Bush told America "They come for jobs that Americans won't take". Coming from the president/commander-in-chief/leader-of-the-free-world, it would see that:
- 9/11 did not happen.
- The world just loves America.
- There is no Dar-al-Islam c/s Dar-al-Harb.
- There is freedom of religion all over the world (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Pakistan included).
- That there is no Hamas, Hezbollah.
Worse, Americans elected, then re-elected him.
Posted by: Alert at February 19, 2008 7:36 AM
Frank:
China would take the money and do exactly what they are doing right now. Test our defenses, steal our military and tech secrets, and wait, plan and finally carry out an aggression against us, probably started with an invasion of Taiwan. We helped the Russians, and what did they do with it?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UODA4G0&show_article=1
I see the point you're making, but China is no friend of ours. How does one translate "taqiyya" to it's equivalent in Mandarin?
ABS
Posted by: Drewbenstein at February 19, 2008 8:10 AM
These stories are old news and they have been repeated countless times. There have been stories of discarded passports found in the desert, the assumption being that terrorists crossed the border with them and then got rid of them. There are known smuggling operations that will charge five figures to bring someone into the US, small change to al Qaeda. Even AFTER these stories were publicized you still had John McCain (why does ANYONE think he'll do better at fighting terrorism?) supporting amnesty and what amounts to open borders. Anyone who opposes his plan is a bigot. So said Lindsey Graham.
None of the presidential candidates can pay attention to these stories because they might upset the open borders coalition or Hispanic voters. These stories give the lie to the idea that everyone who crosses the southern border is merely a poor Mexican peasant looking for work. If you're Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John McCain, it's better to close your eyes and pretend not to see. There is none so blind.
Posted by: PMK at February 19, 2008 11:28 AM
Drewbenstein,
"China would take the money and do exactly what they are doing right now. Test our defenses, steal our military and tech secrets, and wait, plan and finally carry out an aggression against us, probably started with an invasion of Taiwan."
We caused this by engaging in stupid trade policies that let them use their human rights abuses to kick our butts economically.
Blame China all you want, this was predictable, it was a sell out from Washinton (under Clinton if I remember) that really caused it. It is like, a smoker can blame the cigs and Big Tobacco for his lung cancer all he wants, but he was the one lighting up and inhaling.
"We helped the Russians, and what did they do with it?"
What are you talking about?
We helped them by ... what? OK, so Ron helped by being supportive and cooperative of Gorby. Since then, what?
Doing nothing at their transition to market economy was hijacked by the equivalent of robber barons? Inviting countries on their border into a military alliance that was historically hostile to them? Taking the Muslim side in a long ethnic conflict, with crimes on both sides, and in which the Russians backed, and with some very good reasons, the Orthodox Christian side?
My earliest memories of Russia are of a oppressive Communist hellhole. It fell and there was a short window for actually helping these people and making a powerul friend. That change was, like, earth-shattering. But, we so totally couldn't deal with change--I mean, our policy makers and analyists are so mentally and institutionally inflexible--that we blew it, and are now making them out to be worse than the Islamofascists that *ACTUALLY* murdered thousands of Americans on American soil.
We have shared *actual* interests with the Russians, because Islamofascists want to take over the world and institute Shariah, and neither of us really wants that. Except, Washington has gone crazy, and seems to think our interests are in line with opening the door to Shariah in and city where Muslims make a numberical majority. That's a utopian/psychotic interest of some sort, not an actual one.
Good luck with that. Stick with that and let's see what, say, Michigan looks like in a few years.
Posted by: hope_and_justice at February 19, 2008 11:33 AM
Alert wrote:
... and Bush told America "They come for jobs that Americans won't take".
The Indian officials were concerned that the "Mexicans" would take Call Center jobs away from Indian citizens.
IBM, CSC and many other US outsourcing firms hired people in India for jobs that the Americans they laid off didn't want. ;)
at February 19, 2008 12:11 PM
IBM, CSC and many other US outsourcing firms hired people in India for jobs that the Americans they laid off didn't want.
CT Yankee,
Tell me about it.
Add AT&T to the list. They were very clever, using IBM and CSC as decoys. First the jobs were "outsourced" and then they were offshored.
Posted by: PMK at February 19, 2008 12:19 PM
Eastview wrote:
This news is alarming. So, just how did these fellows manage to obtain Mexican passports?
....................................
I am virtually certain that "Antonio Lopez Juan,” “Javier Sanchez Alberto,” and “Atonio Lopez Ernesto,” had fake Mexican passports.
The Mexican government is not just lax regarding illegal immigration to the US, they actively encourage it. However, I imagine they would spot these Afghans, with their garbled "Spanish" names, as fakes right away. I'm pretty sure that these guys never got any closer to Mexico than Kuwait.
at February 19, 2008 2:33 PM
There is a growing moslem presence in the Hispanic community.
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/09/Hillsborough/America_s_Muslim_popu.shtml
at February 19, 2008 2:38 PM
hope_and_justice,
"Drewbenstein,
"China would take the money and do exactly what they are doing right now. Test our defenses, steal our military and tech secrets, and wait, plan and finally carry out an aggression against us, probably started with an invasion of Taiwan."
We caused this by engaging in stupid trade policies that let them use their human rights abuses to kick our butts economically."
Do you subscribe to the notion that America is to blame first? Jeanne Kirkpatrick coined that phrase, the "Blame America first crowd". It seems as though you may, but forgive me if I'm wrong.
My point is that China is no friend of ours, and they continue to prove this by constantly trying to break into (with some success) our military computer systems, shadowing our ships with subs, etc. I agree that the downfall began with the Clinton administration.
As for Russia, I stand by my words. Didn't we assist the Russians with drilling technology? (3-D Imaging computers for oil exploration, etc) Haven't they used that money to build up their military and now are blustering with cold warlike rhetoric? Didn't Putin say the breakup of the USSR was a "catastrophe"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4480745.stm
In 2002 things looked just peachy.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44054
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/13/business/worldbusiness/13russogas.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E2D71131F936A35756C0A9649C8B63
I have to agree on some of the other things you wrote.
jcom972, help me out here.
ABS
Posted by: Drewbenstein at February 19, 2008 9:27 PM
Also,
As far as inviting former USSR satellites into NATO, didn't we extend the same to Pooty? NATO was formed to offset Soviet aggression.
"The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
If the Russians were truly "with" us after 911, why would they be acting so belligerent now?
Your turn...
Posted by: Drewbenstein at February 19, 2008 9:43 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)