August 30, 2007 by DKShideler |
910 Group | 18:25:21 | |
Calls are increasing for the implementation of HR2265, the Bill before congress sponsored by Representatives Blumenauer and Shay (and its Kennedy sponsored Senate counterpart 1651). I waded through the bureaucratic goop to get to the heart of HR 2265 here, and Christine did us a great turn by coming up with a FAQ to show our readers just how bad this bill really is. Yesterday this article highlighted how few of the Iraqis who worked beside us in Iraq are being processed as refugees:
This year, Bush administration officials began publicly discussing the special dangers faced by Iraqis working with Americans here and acknowledging the need to grant them safe haven in the United States. The administration has set up a special program for a small number of Iraqis, which gives preferential treatment to full-time employees of the U.S. Embassy, currently about 125 in Baghdad, and to 500 interpreters by allowing them to skip the lengthy U.N. refugee process once they leave Iraq. But thousands more Iraqis work for the United States through contractors or the subcontractors working for them. In all, 69,000 Iraqis work on contracts with the Pentagon through Iraqi and foreign companies, according to the U.S. military. They are cleaners, construction workers, drivers and security guards, and although they face the same reprisals as anyone working more directly with the U.S. government, they do not fall into the special category.
This comes roughly the same time as the nation’s top Intelligence chief announces that terrorists (specifically from Iraq) have been entering the United States through the southern border,
Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell revealed to the El Paso Times that the United States had caught Iraqi terrorists trying to get into the country across its still-unfenced southern border. According to a report subsequently published in WorldNetDaily, Adm. McConnell’s office revealed that, “During fiscal 2006, there were 14 Iraqi nationals caught trying to enter the U.S. illegally, while so far in 2007, that number is 16.” The online publication quoted the DNI as saying, “The goal is for terrorists to gain admittance to the United States, and then produce ‘mass casualties.’”
If caught, the report goes on to say, the Jihadists are being coached to cry out for “amnesty”.
HR 2265, as we have documented provides absolutely no safe guards to prevent infiltration by terrorists, and IN FACT, removes any significant barrier to entry for KNOWN terrorists, not just in Iraq, but worldwide. The Shamnesty bill (which people rightly despised) was a towering work of staggering legislative genius by comparison.
We are sympathetic to the plight of Iraqi nationals who have sacrificed much to work alongside the United States. Sympathy is not the issue. The correct solution is not to bring them here, but to continue the fight to establish their homeland as a safe and viable country. It is not an accident that the same people calling for HR 2265 and its counterpart are the same who push for retreat and failure in Iraq. They have worked long and hard to undermine the efforts for which these Iraqi nationals have risked their lives. It is their demands for a precipitous withdrawal which puts the Iraqis in danger. And now they sponsor this bill, or one like it, which will insure that terrorists do indeed follow us home, as the war’s supporters have long claimed would happen. Right now HR 2265 is in the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs Committees. We must not let it see the light of day.
6 Comments
»
This is incredible.
You seem to think that if our troops stay long enough, a stable Iraq where those that have assisted occupation authorities will be safe from reprisals is guaranteed.
Wishful thinking. We don’t know how things will turn out, and to assume the best would just put those that have assisted us at risk.
The Netherlands brought Iraqis who assisted them in the war and their relatives to the Netherlands and they saw it as no big deal. They were just doing their duty to those that helped them. None of these Iraqis has been involved in a terrorist attack in the Netherlands. We should do the same.
We have an obligation to allow non-terrorists who have assisted us in Iraq and their families to come to the U.S. and get residency so that they can get jobs and start up their lives in a place where they don’t have to worry every day about getting killed in a revenge attack.
Obviously, if people have been working for us, we could have them screened for connections to known terrorists.
It’s pathetic that the people that are the most outspoken supporters of the war, while safe in the U.S., ignore the risks to those Iraqis who have helped us while getting hysterical over the very unlikely possibility that some of our Iraqi employees might intend to stage a terrorist attack in the U.S. if we bring some of them over here.
If you start stabbing your friends in the back, or leaving them to fend for themselves and perhaps die when they’re no longer useful to you, you’ll eventually find it much harder to make friends, and your enemies will find it a lot easier.
AZ
There is no way to tell which muslims adhere to the violent teachings of the Koran and jihad from the ones that do not.
Unchecked and unlimited immigration of Iraqi muslims into the U.S. could mean the invitation of limitless numbers of jihadist who intend to take this nation apart from the inside. One only need to look across the Atlantic to Holland, Sweden and Denmark to see the dangers of unchecked and unlimited muslim immigration. See the Fort Dix Six here in the U.S. SJS (sudden jihad syndrome) can strike hermits and groups without warning and no connection or support from Al Qaeda or organized jihadist are needed. See this story http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017984.php#comments
Once again, not every Iraqi muslim has the intent of overthrowing his/her host country, but without a means of separating those who do believe in the will of Allah more than the magnificence of the U.S. Constitution is too dangerous a risk.
If we are to allow Iraqi muslim immigration, some system must be adopted to prevent entry of those who intend to do us harm.
As we explain in the links, the bill has serious problems beyond simply bringing in Iraqis who have worked with the US.
1. It undermines terror provisions by allowing the Secretary of State of Homeland Defense to simply and without review designate a person or group a non-terrorist. Additionally the method for doing so is to be published as a regulation. Any lawyer will tell you, that any regulation you publish is a regulation you can be sued for not following. So the chances of the government being sued and required to bring in people with suspicious connections is likely.
2. The bill undermines all terrorism provisions in the Immigration and Naturalization Act, by allowing anyone who has aided terrorism to claim “duress”, a claim almost impossible to disprove, whether its true or not. Note both 1 and 2 apply to ALL immigrants, not just Iraqis.
3. provides essentially no upper limit on the number of Iraqis being accepted. The bill would require NO LESS THAN 20,000 in the first year. No less than means any amount higher than 20,000, plus 15,000 more (plus regular immigration) until 2011.
4. The bill is not limited to simply Iraqis who have assisted us. As it is worded, every person in Iraq has a conceivable claim to refugee status in America.
5. While it is true that we do not know how the security situation will go in Iraq if we stay, it is almost certain to be a bloodbath if we leave. The solution is not to bring Iraqis here, it is to win there.
We are not ignoring the sacrifices made by Iraqis who have worked beside us. But they have made their sacrifices on behalf of an Iraqi nation, not the American one. Our obligation to them is to assist them in re-building their country. I find it fascinating that you can saying “if you start stabbing your friends in the back, ‘or leaving them to fend for themselves and perhaps die…”
That is exactly what withdrawal and surrender in Iraq is, it is leaving our friends to fend for themselves and perhaps die. The solution is not to import our friends, it is to not leave them to begin with.
DK
I am not unsympathetic to the plight of Iraqis who have fought side by side with U.S. forces who face danger upon a withdrawal. But it is no solution to the potential problems posed by this bill of unlimited muslim Iraqi immigration should the U.S. leave before the Iraq government can sustain itself.
You seem to want to deny that withdrawal COULD occur.
I realize what you believe SHOULD occur but it does not address the reality what could occur sooner than you’d like. It is possible democrats prevent funding for the war, or, a democrat could be elected as POTUS in Nov. 08 (I think that is highly probable should we still be in Iraq without any significant progress made towards making the Iraq government self-sustainable).
Also, whether it is in as a result of a new president or not, we will leave someday and unless the Iraq constitution changes to eliminate the Sharia law that is contained therein, it won’t be long that all the time and resources spent towards supporting Iraq will become worthless. This issue will become a real one somehow, whether it is this bill, this year, or some other legislation down the road.
Organized opposition to this legislation must be made on the reasons why it would be dangerous to national security. Opposing by arguing we shouldn’t leave in the first place is denying a real possibility. Whenever the day comes that the Us leaves Iraq, chances are Iraq will not be a very safe place for anyone. Many will seek refuge in the U.S. It is very difficult to deny their danger is unrelated to our presence in Iraq. Proponents of this bill will have many sympathizers. The “you broke it, you fix it” mentality will prevail.
The danger of the bill is the threat posed by thousands of unscreened muslims allowed to come into the country. Recall the Pew research poll of young American muslims who thought suicide bombs were acceptable (26%). What result of same survey taken of Iraqi muslims? 1 out of 10,000 is too many.
US,
I don’t deny at all that withdrawal is a distinct possibility. Its an argument underway right now. This bill ASSUMES withdrawal, which is not yet a forgone conclusion. I am saying that supporters for this bill are arguing cross purposes, since they are seeking to cause the events which will then make their bill necessary (necessary in their eyes anyway).
But assuming that the Withdrawal supporters win, we STILL can not accept this immigration. It undermines the national security provisions in our immigration law (which are too weak to begin with), and imports an enormous number of people whose ability to function in western society (and desire to do so) are very much in doubt.
>> AZ
There is no way to tell which muslims adhere to the violent teachings of the Koran and jihad from the ones that do not. > Unchecked and unlimited immigration of Iraqi muslims into the U.S. could mean the invitation of limitless numbers of jihadist who intend to take this nation apart from the inside. One only need to look across the Atlantic to Holland, Sweden and Denmark to see the dangers of unchecked and unlimited muslim immigration. See the Fort Dix Six here in the U.S. SJS (sudden jihad syndrome) can strike hermits and groups without warning and no connection or support from Al Qaeda or organized jihadist are needed. See this story http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017984.php#comments