Lax Immigration Policies To Blame For LAX Massacre


If it`s proof of the sheer,

homicidal
insanity of American immigration policy
you want, consider the case of the late

Hesham Mohamed Hadayet,
who achieved immortality of
a kind when he shot and killed two people at Los Angeles
International Airport last week on July 4. Mr. Hedayet
may or may not have been a “terrorist,” actually
connected to some formal terrorist organization. But he
certainly was an immigrant.

Mr. Hedayet, himself shot down by an El Al security
guard after he began blasting by-standers at the El Al
ticketing area on

Independence Day
, was in this country legally,
through the grace of a program known as
245(i)
, which is supposed to let in aliens who meet
certain work qualifications and which both

President Bush
and a

bipartisan
coalition of the

Open Borders lobby
have been trying to expand. But
the only way that Mr. Hedayet was even able to apply for
legal status under 245(i) is that his wife won a
lottery.

The

lottery in question
awards a green card, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service`s ticket of legal
immigration status, on the basis of “diversity” to some
55,000 foreigners every year. Once she got her green
card and became legal, then her husband could apply for
legal residency himself under 245(i) and stay here if he
paid a fine of $1,000.

Welcome to America in the 21st century.

At no stage of this labyrinthine and utterly
irrational process did anyone ask whether the presence
of Hesham Mohamed Hadayet within the borders of the
United States was

good for this country
. At no point in it did
anyone—either his wife or he—receive legal immigration
status because of what she or he brought to us. The only
reason he was here at all was because of what was good
for him and what sheer chance, in the form of his wife`s
winning lottery ticket, gave him.

That is, or should be, the epitaph of the Open
Borders lobby, on whose head responsibility for the
massacre Mr. Hadayet committed ultimately rests.

For once, even congressmen are beginning to grasp
this.

“I think the two dead bodies lying in a pool of blood
at LAX on the Fourth of July should give pause to these
people who`ve been relentlessly pushing for 245(i)
enactment,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California
Republican.[Washington Times, July 11, 2002,

LA Shooter Exploited `Loophole`
]

Just so. So should the blood of the thousands dead in
the Sept. 11 attacks “give pause” to the Open Borders
lobby for the insane and murderous system their ideology
of endless immigration has helped construct and which
allowed the 19 killers of 9/11 to come here in the first
place.

Of course, neither the violence of Mr. Hadayet nor
that of Sept. 11 were the first such instances of mass
atrocities committed by immigrants. Throughout the last
decade

similar incidents
took place. Immigrants committed
the World Trade Center bombing in 1992, taking six
lives. Pakistani immigrant Mir Aimal Kansi killed two
people outside CIA headquarters in 1993. Jamaican
immigrant

Colin Ferguson
murdered six passengers on a New York
commuter train in 1993. Immigrant

Ali Abu Kamal
shot up the tourists at the Empire
State Building in 1997. And we could go on, about
organized crime
gangs from the

Caribbean
,

Asia
,

Russia
,

Africa
and

Latin America
, not to mention the

5,000 Al Qaeda terrorists
and their supporters whom
American intelligence authorities believe are present in
this country.

The point is not that all aliens or all immigrants
are violent wackos, but that our immigration system,
both in the massive numbers it allows to enter and in
the standards it applies for entry and in the
enforcement of those standards, is grotesquely
incompetent in distinguishing those who are violent from
those who aren`t.

In fact, the system seems to be entirely indifferent
as to whether the immigrants it accepts are violent,
unstable, criminals or outright terrorists.

And the reason it seems to be indifferent is that the
system was not designed to meet the interests and needs
of the nation in permitting some to immigrate and
forbidding others. It was designed to meet the needs of
Big Business for cheap labor—precisely the whole
rationale of the

245(i) clause
—or to conform to the ideological
fixations of those who

insist
that the United States is a

“nation of immigrants”
 that can`t refuse entry to anyone.

Congressmen like Mr. Rohrabacher and

others
may finally be starting to grasp who`s really
responsible for the pools of blood that
not-too-well-wrapped immigrants have committed against
Americans in the last decade or so, but it remains to be
seen if, after several decades of immersion in the
propaganda and cant of the cheap labor-open borders
dogma, any public leader can any longer think of an
immigration policy that would actually serve the
interests of the nation and not some

special interest
or ideological fantasy.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS
SYNDICATE, INC.

July 15, 2002