Happy Jihad New Year!
From Jihad Watch, without commentary:
U.S. agencies missing links between illegal immigration and jihad terrorism
Another story highlighting the howling need for immigration reform, and underscoring its status as a national security issue. As the embattled Congressman Goode said, illegal immigration must be stopped, and legal immigration drastically curtailed -- with an eye toward keeping jihadists from entering the country. "Of special interest: U.S. agencies missing links between illegal immigration and terrorism," by Sara A. Carter in the San Bernardino County Sun, with thanks to Doc Washburn:
COLUMBUS, N.M. - On Sept. 5, a man calling himself Miguel Alfonso Salinas was apprehended off a deserted highway near the U.S.-Mexico border.
The tinted windows on Alfonso Salinas' vehicle aroused the suspicion of Border Patrol agents patrolling a dark and desolate stretch of Highway 9, which runs parallel to the border and is the site of large numbers of illegal crossings.
The agents discovered three Mexican migrants in the vehicle with Alfonso Salinas.
But what they discovered several days later made a far greater impression.
Alfonso Salinas was not who he seemed, according to U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security documents. He lied to the agents about who he was, where he came from and what he was doing.
It would take nearly a week of interviews with federal agents before Alfonso Salinas would give his real name: Ayman Sulmane Kamal, a Muslim born in Egypt - a country designated as "special-interest" by the United States for sponsoring terrorism.
Kamal's case is not an isolated one.
Evidence of "special-interest aliens" using the Mexican border to gain entry to the United States has been kept secret from the American public, according to federal law-enforcement agents, terrorism experts and critics of U.S. foreign policy with Mexico.
In 2005, the Border Patrol apprehended approximately 1.2million people illegally in the U.S. Of those, 165,000 were from countries other than Mexico, and roughly 650 were, like Kamal, from special-interest countries, according to the Border Patrol.
Those interviewed by the Sun's sister newspaper, the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin of Ontario, say agencies including the FBI and CIA are not using information from Border Patrol and Drug Enforcement Administration agents to make connections between the drug trade, illegal immigration and terrorist organizations.
"For us to believe that Mexican smugglers will not assist, knowingly or unknowingly, foreign terrorists trying to enter the United States is incomprehensible," said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who, along with other representatives, has pushed for stricter border security policies.
Read it all.
Congressman Goode said nothing about curtailing immigration "with an eye toward keeping jihadists from entering the country", he wanted to curtail immigration with an eye towards keeping Muslims from entering the country.
Spencer's article that you linked is a piece of shit. "All these criticisms share a common core assumption: that Goode has no reason to be concerned about Ellison, the Qur’an, or Muslims, and that any suspicion he does have is simply evidence of his bigotry and ignorance." So instead he should be suspicious of all Muslims?
The piece is filled with red herrings and strawmen. Spencer asks "Is it reasonable to ask Ellison if he shares such views? When he speaks at a conference sponsored by such organizations, is it simply bigotry to ask him if he holds views they are on record as having? When Muslim leaders around the globe have spoken about the necessity to impose Islamic law upon the world, is it sheer nativism to ask Ellison and American Muslims if they hold the same views?" Goode asked none of these questions. He didn't even mention Ellison by name, nor did he "ask" any questions. Goode has his mind made up. No more Muslims, no Koran. Here's another quote from Spencer: "On the basis of what evidence do Goode’s many detractors assume that neither Ellison nor any other Muslim in the United States subscribes to these views?" Right, the detractors are arguing that there are no Muslim terrorist sympathizers in the US. The piece is like a goddamn strawman convention.
Dork -- an appropriate name I might add -- you'll make a wonderful dhimmi.
I like Val. I've liked his blog for a while. I like to think that if Val had disagreed with me, he would've attempted to make an argument with the slightest bit of substance.
I'm seeing too much of this sort of thing just sliding by people I respect.