Most liberals returned to their usual mode by 9/11/02, if not by 9/12/01. The president himself cannot name the enemy, but instead declares war on a mode of warfare. The “refugee” industry is booming. Immigration lawyers and refugee “sponsors” (typically liberal Protestant and Catholic church agencies) feed at the government tough to import more Somalis and other incompatibles into states that are deemed “too white.” Refugees are given the full panoply of welfare benefits at taxpayer expense.

One can make a moral case for supporting the Hmong (not necessarily bringing them here) because they fought against the Communists in Vietnam and are subject to real persecution there. The Somalis dragged the bodies of US Army rangers through the streets cheering. Admitting a Palestinian fleeing “persecution” in Israel because he’s a member of a Islamic terrorist organization shows just how crazy things have gotten.

Michelle Malkin continues to be a thorn in the side to the unholy alliance of leftists, parasites, RINOs and treasonous business interests who’ve created this disaster.

I like Ms. Malkin writing as much as a next guy. But it must be said that Ms. Malkin is a strong supporter of INCREASED legal immigration. In fact her views on immigration are the same as professed views of neocons, not that neocons really are against any limits on legal and illegal immigration.

Yes, Malkin is effective and hard-hitting in going after certain narrowly focused, no-brainer issues like illegal immigration, abuse of asylum, and so on. But I’ve never detected much of a larger conservative perspective in her columns.

Mr. Auster’s “Shopping Mall Bomber Is Political Asylee” is one of THE best critiques of insane liberalism (the ultimate self-cancelling phrase) I have read to date. While there are undoubtedly other examples of our government giving asylum to terrorists who then plotted against us, Mr. Auster hits this one out of the ballpark.

I have heard Ms. Malkin interviewed on talk radio programs, and she SEEMS to be conservative enough. After all, finding a female traditionalist conservative as well spoken and seemingly unflappable as she is is a bit like finding a needle in a haystack. I’d have to say that, at least as far as WND and the conservative talk shows go, she is “the darling of the Right” on the illegal immigration. Whether she goes far enough, however (a moratoreum on ALL immigration for “x” number of years) is a valid criticism. No one’s perfect. Perhaps we can help her go that extra distance.

Thanks, Mr. Levin. That narrowly prevented attack in 1997 was one of the incidents in recent years that made my brain explode. This horrendous attack had been planned, thankfully an informer helped the police stop it, and I expected that that this would set off a huge discussion about the danger of Moslem terrorists in our midst. But instead, within a couple of days, the story vanished and was never heard about again. And to hear people after 9/11 say, “Oh, we were innocent before, but now we’ve lost our innocence,” blows my mind just as much as their initial ignoring of the planned attack.

I guess I’m a writer because things that most other people grow accustomed to, I never grow accustomed to.

And the self-congratulatory statements we constantly hear from the political establishment (for example in the 9/11 Commission), “No one can be blamed for the failures to act before 9/11, before 9/11 was the old world, now we’re in a new world, now we’ve lost our innocence, now we’re facing the reality,” is still not true. They’re just as evasive about the reality as they were before. And the reason for this is that despite 9/11 they are still _liberals_, meaning that they cannot maintain steadily in consciousness the thought that enemies and evil exist. They can only think it intermittantly, when reality grabs them by the neck and forces them, against their own principles, to think it.

This is lend-lease terrorism. It signals a shift in tactics, in response to our own shift.

The cases from the ’90s which Mr Auster mentioned were Arabs. But Arab asylum applications have been getting a bit more scrutiny the past 33 months, don’t you think? So they need another route into the U.S.

Tens of thousands of Somalis were given asylum here in the 1990s and, for all their weirdness, the results have been relatively benign. (That is, relative to Chinese tongs, Mexican irredentists, Santeria priests, Nigerian scam artists, and the rest!) So the government isn’t looking that closely at Somali claims anymore. It’d be easy to slip such a recruit into the target country.

Okay, we know what the Arabs get out of this; what about the Somalis? Well, they don’t have a beef with us, but they do with the Ethiopians. There’s a border dispute, and large numbers of Somalis, or close kin of Somalis, live on the Ethiopian side. Arabs can supply all kinds of help in such a situation, and I bet they do.

The tougher we get with Arabs, the more of these proxy tactics we’ll see.

I hope Reg Caesar had his tongue in his cheek when he suggested that dumping Somalis here had so far had benign effects. Sam Francis and others at VDARE have documented also sorts of costly results. I seem to recall, although I do not remember where or when I heard this, that at a school in a US town where there were a lot of Somalis, the latter were so obviously happy on September 11, 2001 that there was an out and out riot. I would appreciate it if someone could pin the facts of this down — I apologize for being so vague.

Mr Cæsar writes:

“But Arab asylum applications have been getting a bit more scrutiny the past 33 months, don’t you think? So they need another route into the U.S.

Tens of thousands of Somalis were given asylum here in the 1990s and, for all their weirdness, the results have been relatively benign. (That is, relative to Chinese tongs, Mexican irredentists, Santeria priests, Nigerian scam artists, and the rest!) So the government isn’t looking that closely at Somali claims anymore.”

You assume that Immigration beaurocrats track behaviour of an immigrant group and adjust their screening policies and procedures.
Any evidence that they are even capable of that?

Most likely it would be called racial profiling and career-ending event.

At best INS and State can produce some extremely mild guidelines that probably perfectly useless given incompetence and apathy of your average INS employee and virtually total lack of background information on applicants.

Mchelle Malkin has a nice response to a typically vicious from OpenBorders jihadists at WSJ:

http://michellemalkin.com/index.htm

The Somali high school incident that was referred to happened in Minnesota. Perhaps Minneapolis? I believe it was discussed on VDare.com. Searching there comes up with an old Sam Francis column in which he relays the information sent to him in email by a woman from Minneapolis: http://www.vdare.com/francis/more_welcome.htm

I don’t know if there is a newspaper report on this.

Mchelle Malkin has a nice response to a typically vicious from OpenBorders jihadists at WSJ:

http://michellemalkin.com/index.htm

I’d like to thank Clark Coleman for digging up the item on the Somalis. I am pretty sure it was the Francis column that I recalled; further facts would certainly be desirable… if they haven’t been suppressed by the school authorities and the news media. Checking some of the links listed within it, I was a bit surprised to find that in 2002 Minneapolis had 47 murders, which, I think, is considerably higher in proportion to its population than the New York rate…

I was not aware that Michelle Malkin was in favor of unlimited legal immigration and had narrowed her immigration stand to opposing the illegal kind. Even so, she is generally quite conservative on social issues like abortion, sexual morals. etc. As Mik pointed out, the Open Borders jihadis at the WSJ have basically placed her on the censored list. The WSJ editors are really behaving like Stalinists in three-piece suits. And so the mask comes off.

RE: Michelle Malkin

Last year I have heard her on radio promoting her book. She said she is a strong supporter of legal immigration being a child of immigrants, etc. She also said she is in favor of increasing legal limits, she was not specific.

A good rule of thumb: anything one racial minority says about another must be taken with a grain— or granary— of salt. Sam Francis got his doctorate when the degree still meant something, so I’m surprised he offers as evidence an unverified letter from an American Indian woman— or possibly a white woman shacking up with an Indian. (In fact, he doesn’t offer it as evidence, being careful not to state plainly that any of it’s true.)

Some fact-checking is in order. She claims 60,000 Somalis live in Mpls., 1/6 of the city’s residents. Uh, not quite: http://www.geocities.com/ronwhisler/somali.html
She says they routinely spit at cashiers. Then these assaults before the ubiquitous video cameras should be well-represented on the city police blotter. Has she, or anyone else, bothered to ask them? And the alleged cheering incident at Jesse Ventura’s alma mater— the school is 1/5 white, 2/5 Somali, and the rest black, American Indian, Central American and Indochinese. Before I believe an incendiary story like this, I’d like a somewhat less impeachable source than resentful inner-city colored kids. (Especially the day after a black-Somali knifing incident took place.)

Minneapolis indeed had a higher murder rate than Giuliani-era NYC some recent years. Almost all the increase was due to the arrival of American blacks from Chicago, Gary, L.A. and similar places. (As it happens, the second-to-last homicide in the record year of 1995 was charged to an appropriately named local Indian teen, Sherman Killsplenty. Really. Don’t take my word for it— here’s the story: http://www.mndaily.com/daily/1996/01/02/news/murder/ )

Somali neighbors are not a middle-class white man’s cup of tea (or wad of khat), but they hardly compare unfavorably to other blacks, to other immigrants, or— especially— to degraded urban Indians.

And why make up stories when that’s totally unnecessary? The woman is an Indian. She makes an argument she can’t possibly win— quality of life— when she has a much more powerful moral case at her disposal. Squatter’s rights!

Thanks to Mr. Caesar for his fact-checking. With Minneapolis’ reputation for being a city full of self-hating, Kool-Aid drinking white liberals - the story was all too believeable.

Nevertheless, Somalis are Muslims and therefore fundamentally incompatible - unless they have in effect abandoned Islam. I still remember Somalis cheering and dragging the dead American soldiers through the streets of Mogadishu. Why are these people allowed into the country?

In contrast, the Hmong (who have their own set of problems) were at least alongside our troops in Vietnam against the communists. The desire to grant them refuge, misguided as it may be, does at least have a moral component. The importation of Somalis is just another symptom of what a weak and degenerate nation we’ve become.

Shhh. Don’t tell anybody, Carl, but in the City of Lakes, the most prominent one is named for John C. Calhoun:
http://www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=4&parkid=263

My belated good wishes to Alan Levine and apologies for not tracking this story from 9/15/01:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/524211/posts

Granted, it was just one Somali, but there must be other stories like this one.

Just for the sake of accuracy, the Somalis who dragged an American soldier’s body through the streets of Mogadishu were not Somali Bantu. The Bantu are a persecuted tribe from the southern region of Somalia who are getting in primarily as refugees because of their persecution at the hands of the same people who DID drag the body through the streets.

Not that this means that America is a good place to settle them; they should be relocated to Bantu regions of Mozambique, for example, where they could fit in, rather than to a 21st century society where they will go on welfare.

Michelle Malkin refers to this thread thusly: “Lawrence Auster comments on asylum and liberals…and damns me with faint praise.”
Yesterday at www.michellemalkin.com (“These are the People in My Neighborhood.”)

I assume Malkin is referring to this comment I made about her:

“Yes, Malkin is effective and hard-hitting in going after certain narrowly focused, no-brainer issues like illegal immigration, abuse of asylum, and so on. But I’ve never detected much of a larger conservative perspective in her columns.”

That was harsher sounding than I intended. Malkin does make a very useful and welcome contribution to the immigration debate. But I also feel that her fact-filled columns would be more effective if they displayed some larger intellectual or political framework, including an overall view of immigration as distinct from just illegal immigration.

I say this because the illegal immigration issue cannot be understood apart from the question of immigration as a whole and of our society’s whole attitude toward it. Without that larger picture, all you have is an endless collection of discreet outrages—the federal authorities allowing this violation, the federal government failing to enforce that law, and so on. But those failures to enforce the law are not happening in a vacuum. They are happening as an expression of the whole direction and philosophy of our society, our decision to be open to the world, and our identification of that openness with goodness itself. Why didn’t that woman in the Agriculture Department report Muhammad Atta to the authorities when he behaved in such a strange and threatening way? Because she believes in complete openness to and acceptance of the alien. Why do Bush and others call for open immigration and amnesty for all illegals? Because for them legal and illegal is all one, it’s all the expression of our being welcoming and non-discriminatory toward everyone in the world. Therefore to look at illegal immigration outrages without any consideration of that larger landscape creates a distorted picture. It’s probably unfair of me to say this in this case because Malkin with her solid research and her passion makes a true and substantial contribution to the debate. But I nevertheless get impatient with writers who keep going after the most obvious outrages, and fail to consider the larger problem—the problem in OURSELVES—of which those outrages are a symptom.

Hmmm. I wonder what Mrs Malkin would make of the fact that the only celebratory voice I encountered in the days after the WTC and its occupants were taken down — and I’m surrounded by Mohammedans at work— was from a legal Philippine immigrant.

He only did this to goad me, but I told him he was not quite a citizen yet, and I could report this to the INS, who were a literal stone’s throw away.

Mr. Caesar, I expect she would be horrified. As I recall from one of her articles, she is the daughter of a Philippino who was marched alongside the US troops in the notorious Bataan death march. In light of this, her patriotism is not surprising, and she appears to be an example of genuine successful assimilation - which has now been made nearly impossible thanks to the ravages of multiculturalism.

As some some similarly sucessfully assimilated Philippinos have told me, Mindinao (the southern island) is heavily infected with Islam and all of the consequent ills that emanate therefrom. The rest of the country is fairly solidly Christian - mainly Catholic with some Protestants thrown in. The American control the country for nearly half a century also had an effect in terms of cultural influence that enabled some Philippinos to make the cultural leap more easily than others.

The liberal country which says it has no enemies, has a very big enemy: the existence of absolute universals which condemn them. They will try to ignore it, but the enemies keep attacking, ever more ferociously, the more that a liberal country insists that it accepts everyone. The more cultures and the more diversity such a country pretends to be able to accept, the worse the diversity will become, which is offered for acceptance. It is anti-moral to say that one is the more enlightened, the worse the evil is that one can accept.

The moral inversion of nihilism is now so nearly complete, that a reputedly conservative leadership apparently believes that the only evil is to try to exclude evil. We’re against every kind of discrimination, cried out the unprincipled politicians, and they meant it quite literally. There is henceforth to be no discrimination between good and evil; otherwise how will bad men keep their positions of influence? The majority supposedly has no right to exclude any population; not even terrorists. On this premise the control of terrorism can occur anywhere in the world, except at the border. Power tends to corrupt, and this pushes them towards believing the contradiction that there is no evil but the wish to exclude evil.