How Barney Frank opened the U.S. to enemies and jihadists

Worth reading is Rocco DiPippo’s April 2006 article in FrontPage Magazine on the amendment to the 1990 Immigration and Nationality Act which made it impossible to bar people from the United States because of their political views. The language, added to the Act by Rep. Barney Frank, held that a person could not be kept from entering the U.S. nor deported “because of any past, current or expected beliefs, statements or associations which, if engaged in by a United States citizen in the United States, would be protected under the Constitution.” In other words, any speech allowed to a U.S. citizen under the First Amendment could not be a basis for excluding an immigration applicant from the United States.

At least since 1940, DiPippo explains, the U.S. had had the power to reject immigration applicants based on their beliefs. But under the changes in the law included in the 1990 INA, with regard to radical Muslims, only actual terrorism or membership in terrorist organizations was sufficient to prevent a person’s entry. This remained the case until after the 9/11 attack, when the Patriot Act effectively removed Barney Frank’s amendment from the immigration law, and made it possible to deny immigration status to people who had spoken in favor of terrorism. But that leaves the question, what about people who have spoken in favor of jihad without mentioning terrorism? And what about people who support the spread of sharia by peaceful means? We know the latter are not excluded, since they are the “moderates” who are considered the “solution” to the Islam problem.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 10, 2007 07:44 PM | Send