It is impossible to calculate the damage done to this country by the immigration initiatives of Congressman Barney Frank.
In a Frontpage Magazine article entitled "Immigrating Terror" (4/4/06), columnist Rocco DiPippo does a great job writing about how Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank sponsored a series of immigration initiatives which were largely responsible for the influx of Radical Islamic extremists and terrorists into this country in the 1990’s. I would like to follow up with some observations of my own.
I believe that Frank was motivated in his sponsorship of the terrorism legislation by a belief that there is something fundamentally wrong with American laws that exclude the entry of foreigners based on their ideological or political orientation. Frank seems to believe that as long as a foreign visa applicant is not proven to be involved in “terrorist activities,” the applicant should be given a clean bill of health and granted entry. To do otherwise would, in Frank’s view, be politically incorrect.
As his congressional opponent in the 2004 election, I debated Barney Frank in this issue and he stated, in response to my questioning, that he had authored the immigration legislation because he felt that Americans had a right to hear Gabriel Garcia Marquez, whom he mentioned by name. The author of Memories of my Melancholy Whores and a friend of communist Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, Marquez had apparently been denied a visa because of his communist affiliations. As a sitting member of Congress, Barney Frank had the option to personally sponsor a trip for Marquez, not a security risk, and by doing so taking responsibility for the tour. Instead, he chose to steward legislation through Congress that would make it difficult for our government to deny visas to anyone with anti-American ideologies or associations.
He wanted to help a foreign left-wing poet come here so that he could make a ton of money selling books to gullible college students attending bourgeois institutions but, instead, his legislation opened the door to anti-Semitic Islamic extremists who would proceed to flock to our shores after the passage of his law. The Islamic radicals would come here, post Frank amendment, to recruit potential terrorists, raise funds for overseas “charities,” and, eventually, to engage in “terrorist activities” according to the congressional testimony of terrorism expert Steven Emerson, homeland security advisor Yossef Bodansky, Gerald Posner, the author of Why America Slept and many others. Thanks to the Frank legislation, the Islamic extremists were able to enter with greater ease and less scrutiny where they would proceed to operate right under the nose of our government and under the color of the law. It would henceforth be more difficult for our government to investigate, coordinate, detain, and deport potential foreign terrorists.
In referring to the Frank Amendment, the crowning jewel in a constellation of Frank initiatives stretching over his quarter century in Congress, and which became law in 1990, President Bill Clinton’s director of central intelligence R. James Woolsey stated in a Wall Street Journal article that “Congress had made it illegal to deny visas to members of terrorist groups.”
It is impossible to calculate the damage done to this country by the immigration initiatives of Barney Frank and it will take years, possibly decades, to correct the damage. Foreign terrorists, several of whom had legal visas, according to Congressman Curt Weldon (R-PA), blew up the twin towers and the Pentagon on 9/11, killing 3,000 Americans on our own soil. The Department of Homeland Security reports that Radical Islamic sleeper cells are operating within our borders today and could potentially act on a directive emanating from overseas. This is primarily why it is now necessary for law enforcement to tap suspicious overseas communications.
By removing the ideological and political exclusionary laws from the books, laws that date back to the founding of the Republic, Barney Frank struck a blow to one of the most basic and fundamental aspects of the sovereignty of this nation, and by extension of all nations. That is the inherent right and responsibility of governments, any government, to deny entry to a foreigner who is perceived to be a potential enemy of the state. There is no such thing as a right to visit another country, nor has there ever been such a right in international law or custom until Barney Frank decided that it was time for a change. The consequences of that change were disastrous and predictable.
If we draw the concept of what the Frank amendment purports into a microcosm, such a law would be akin to a law that would deny the right of an individual to deny entry to another individual into his home simply because he didn’t like the person. One would have to prove that the unwanted visitor might pose a direct threat in order to deny entry. Governments are charged with the moral and practical responsibility of protecting the national home and the lives and property of the citizens who reside therein.
During my 2004 campaign for Congress in Massachusetts, I was constantly told by friends and neighbors that Frank was “brilliant.” Former Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA), not known as a friend of the congressman, told me that he was “the smartest member of Congress” and that he wished Frank “had been a Republican.” This is why it is difficult to understand the appalling stupidity underlying this immigration legislation.
chuck@weim.com
http://www.chuckmorse.com/
Read more articles by Chuck Morse
Frank will continue to inhabit the halls of Congress for it would be politically incorrect to deny his fat ass entrance. His sister is of the same mind-set, which is why she was a professional Clinton apologist. A pox on their houses.
Comment by clyde hogg | May 19, 2006
Many smart people do stupid things. I believe it's time for the elected to truely stand up for what is the best for all of society. So stop tagging an agenda on to a stupid bill just to get yours passed. We need less and less laws and less and less done by government. This is best accomplished by doing nothing. A servents agenda is not more important than societies survival or well being.
Comment by Kurt Kronfuss | May 19, 2006
As a liberal (in the sense of leftist) intellectual, I was delighted to discover this website. I too am a fan of Hume, Burke, Hobbes, Oakeshotte, etc., though I arrive at different conclusions. I am seriously interested in learning more about the intellectual heritage of conservatism because I do believe its dominance in politics today is based on some valid principles and some serious failings on the part of liberalism. But after reading the idiotic ravings of Chuck Morse on Frank's "terrorist legislation" and the ditto-head "fat ass" comment by Mr. Hogg, I'm tempted to conclude that intellectual conservatism is after all an oxymoron. I'll continue to read and hope for better. -N
Comment by Nelson Alexander | May 19, 2006
Well, "N", as my mother used to say, "some people are too smart for their own britches". And from your comment, you either don't follow Frank's stupidity, or perhaps those britches have squeezed your fat ass up to your brain.
Comment by Bill Ferguson | May 21, 2006
it is a complicated issue: we want cheap concrete, framing, hotel maids, oil field roughenecks as biz owners but then we expect the rest of the US to pick up the slack when it comes to health care etc. We cannot expect these people to come here to a first world nation, survive on wage only. American workers are not lazy but very expensive, throw in mandatory health care for common colds and back aches, day care for every divorced mom, personal days off for feeling depressed and hungover then throw in 3$ gas and make it too expensive to drive to work 5 or 6 edays a week because Cronkite and a few rich republican and democrap servants won’t drill offshore in view of their precious beach houses well…. who will make your bed at the Wrynn?
Remember this if anything: microsoft and billy gates cannot legally take your hard earned wages, but the lowest public servant who now lives like royalty can with the force of every dimwitted Judge, lawyer, FBI, IRS and police officer out there can. Little man billy cannot make you buy windows but teddy can make you pay for every black and brown lazy immigrant around.
Comment by Dean | May 22, 2006
Yes, Congressman Frank is a smart man, and whether his contribution had unintended consequences is irrelevant. He sponsored it and stood by it and now does nothing about it. As to N. Alexander's remarks. The first sentence screams the typical elitiest leftist marxist rabble that sees right through the truth and embraces anything that is anti-american. I don't know if intellectual conservatism is an oxymoron or actually redundant, but it is clear the elitist marxist leftist treasonous party are oxen and morons.
Comment by Michael Holloway | May 22, 2006
What do you expect from an individual who also has no respect for God's laws and continues to live in sin? Mr. Frank will face the ultimate judge some day, as will all of us.
Comment by Bruce Brodt | May 22, 2006
After reading your intelliegent and common sense statements and then reading the responses, I can only assume that these knucklehead responsers are from "Marx-achusetts". To prefer Frank, one must be more than nuts over him!
Comment by Linda rapoza | June 9, 2006
I long for the day when the laws enacted by our traitorious "leaders"
turn against them, and instead of innocents killed on 9/11, the planes fly
into the offices of Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, and all the psuedo
conservatives like Governor Schwarzneggar. Personally, I think this
country is doomed. As far as Barney Frank, who is nothing more than
a child molesting faggot, I can only hope that HIV will find its target.
Comment by j bell | July 9, 2006