Home  |   Jihad Watch  |   Horowitz  |   Archive  |   Columnists  |     DHFC  |  Store  |   Contact  |   Links  |   Search Saturday, January 20, 2018
FrontPageMag Article
Write Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article
Font:
Memo to the Wall Street Journal By: Debbie Schlussel
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, April 07, 2006


The Wall Street Journal is typical when it comes to the sob story coverage of illegal aliens by the Mainstream Media.

For a newspaper that claims to know so much about what is the best immigration policy for America, the Journal betrays itself as completely clueless on the issue.

The pro-"guest workers" paper is so much a hostage of big business looking for cheap labor that its editorial writers apparently missed the memo: There isn't an INS anymore and hasn't been for years.

In an editorial on Friday's Taste Page, the Journal emphatically stated its opposition to House language in the immigration bill that makes it a felony for anyone--including religious workers--to help illegal aliens. Here's part of what the Journal wrote:

It is not the job of ordinary citizens to act as INS agents. More to the point here, though, it should not be the job of INS agents to arrest human-rights workers dispensing water and other basic aid.
icebadge.jpg
ICE Replaced INS, Sort Of

Beside the fact that this absurd statement sounds like many American Muslims who say it's "not their job" to tip off the government about potential terrorists, it's hard to take the Journal seriously on immigration when it's no-one's job to act as "INS agents" because the agency was eliminated under the 2002 Homeland Security Act and hasn't been in existence since about early 2003. The portion of the INS made up of investigative agents merged with the U.S. Customs Service to become ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The latest unqualified ICE chief, Julie L. Myers a/k/a "The ICE Princess" must be very upset the Wall Street Journal doesn't even know she--or her agency--exists. (With all of her phony dramatics in press conferences about child porn tape owners, it's easy to forget she's supposed to be--but hardly is--pursuing illegal aliens.)

If the paper--one of the most important in the nation--hasn't noticed this news in three years, can we really believe they've taken notice of the immigration problems that have hemorrhaged in the same time period?

Then there's the crux of the Journal's editorial. The paper is mad that soup kitchens and priests might evoke scrutiny for helping illegals. The paper thinks, for some reason, that religious-affiliated parties should be exempt from abiding by immigration laws.

And, of course, the Journal cites the more palatable Red Cross and a Catholic Cardinal. It pointedly only decries government encroachment upon rabbis, priests, and pastors. But, what about mosques?

We know that a Brooklyn mosque-- not far from the Wall Street Journal's offices--the Alkifah Refugee Center not only aided and abetted Muslim illegal aliens entering the country, but it was the mosque where al-Qaeda terrorists prayed and plotted the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

In an Associated Press story on immigration, running today, Jamal Badawi, an Islam expert at St. Mary's University says that "Islam emphasizes a moral duty toward immigrants" above U.S. immigration laws. "The Quran also speaks of a Muslim obligation toward anyone seeking a haven."

Given this, is it really a good idea to exempt religious groups from following the law? Why not also allow religious figures to evade other laws, too, like robbery, rape, murder, etc.? Why is illegal immigration any different? Why should conspiracy to help in this crime be permissible?

The Journal is--shocked, shocked!--that government would insert itself "directly into the affairs and faith-based prerogatives of churches." But isn't this the same Wall Street Journal that on a different day, in a different editorial endorsed government doing exactly that...with faith-based funding of billions of our tax dollars? Why, yes it is. Where's the consistency?

The Journal goes on to complain that "technically, even soccer moms picking up their Mexican baby sitter at a bus stop could get five years." But isn't it illegal to have an illegal alien baby-sitter? Didn't several parties in the administrations of Bush the father, Clinton, and Bush the son, lose out on prospective judicial and cabinet positions for hiring undocumented workers and not paying social security taxes? Yes. So why the contradiction to protect soccer moms who break the law and won't hire an American baby-sitter?

Finally, back to the religious groups. The Wall Street Journal thinks House legislation prosecuting anyone helping illegal aliens, including religious groups, is new. It isn't. The House language would not "change decades of law with respect to religious organizations" and illegal aliens, says Rep. Tom Tancredo in a USA Today op-ed. "From 1986 until this year, no organization was allowed to conceal, harbor or shield an alien from law enforcement." Religious groups were not exempted and not one was shut down, not even the Alkifah Refugee Center.

We can't expect the Journal editorial writers to know this because, hey, they don't even know the INS is gone. But yet they know what's best for the country: dangerous, unfettered immigration that has already overtaken our country beyond the point of invasion.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.


Visit Debbie Schlussel's website at DebbieSchlussel.com. She can be reached at writedebbie@gmail.com.


We have implemented a new commenting system. To use it you must login/register with disqus. Registering is simple and can be done while posting this comment itself. Please contact gzenone [at] horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you have any difficulties.
blog comments powered by Disqus




Home | Blog | Horowitz | Archives | Columnists | Search | Store | Links | CSPC | Contact | Advertise with Us | Privacy Policy

Copyright©2007 FrontPageMagazine.com