Benazir Bhutto's assassination on Thursday morning is a terrible tragedy. Is this the time to be letting in thousands of Pakistanis illegally--with many more legally?
But closer to home, we Americans have some work to do. Specifically, we must make sure that our own country is defended. George W. Bush might see his grand mission, and his world-historical legacy, as depending on the triumph of democracy 10,000 miles away, but the rest of us have to live in this country, and we would like to be safe in our homes and homeland.
Looming large on our mind is the fact that Pakistan has some 75 nuclear weapons. Do we know where all of them are? And does Osama Bin Laden or any of his henchmen have any of them within their possible reach?
And oh yes, as we ponder those questions, we might recall that young men of Pakistani descent blew up London mass transit in 2005, killing 52 innocent passengers. At the time, those UK-based jihadists cited the British government's Iraq policy as the source of their discontent. Or maybe they were just angry at the world--who knows?
But the point is that that conflicts around the globe have a way of blowing back to other countries. And so as Americans absorb what happened in Pakistan, we should redouble our efforts to protect our homeland--we should keep angry people on their side of the fence, and peace-loving Americans on our side of the fence. (The neocons, of course, should be free to go fight anywhere they wish, although, of course, darn few of them choose to do so.)
In the meantime, all crossings in and out of the US should be legal and monitored. That's sorta common sense, isn't it?
But common sense is in short supply in the Bush administration, especially when it comes to immigration and sovereignty. As The Denver Post reported back on March 26, 2006, headlined, "Mexico is global turnstile to U.S. - More non-Mexicans are crossing border," the US-Mexican border is being crossed by many non-Mexicans. How many? Nobody really knows. So the best we can do is guesstimate, based on the rule of thumb that for every illegal apprehended at the border, at least two illegals get across. Citing data from the Border Patrol, the Post's Bruce Finley dug out these stats, below. And remember, these are the ones who were caught--probably twice as many actually got through!
Non-Mexican migrants caught entering the United States illegally in fiscal years 2002 to 2005 came mostly from Central America and Brazil. Also among them were: Iranians (95), Iraqis (74), Pakistanis (660), Syrians (52), Yemenis (40), Egyptians (106) and Lebanese (91).
Those figures cover all ports of entry. Along the southwestern border, non-Mexican migrants caught from 2002 to 2004 - the latest years for which data could be obtained - included Pakistanis (113), Egyptians (41), Jordanians (55), Iranians (39), Iraqis (22), Yemenis (15) and Saudis (13).
Note that that's 773 Pakistanis apprehended--and again, that means that a lot more got through.
And what sort of folks are these? Well, here's one: Note that Shabbir Ahmed left Pakistan for the United States in January 2002--that's four months AFTER 9-11. And so check out this story, from The Los Angeles Times:
How Visa System Failed to Flag Lodi Imam
Shabbir Ahmed's anti-U.S. invectives were widely known before he was granted entry.
By Rone Tempest
Times Staff Writer
July 3, 2005
SACRAMENTO — As Shabbir Ahmed sits in the county jail on immigration charges connected to an FBI terrorism investigation, federal officials are at a loss to explain how a man who publicly demonstrated his rage against the United States and advocated violence against the U.S.-backed regime in Pakistan could slip so easily through the State Department visa system.
In October 2001, after U.S. military aircraft began bombing Al Qaeda bases and Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan, Ahmed — then a 35-year-old imam of a small mosque in Islamabad — was one of the main speakers at an anti-U.S. demonstration at a market near the U.S. Embassy in the Pakistani capital.
While demonstrators burned American flags and effigies of President Bush, Pakistan Press International news service reported that the slight, bearded Muslim cleric exhorted the crowd to join a jihad, or holy war, against the United States.
A month later at another rally, the Boston Globe quoted Ahmed as calling for a rebellion against Pakistan's president, U.S. ally Gen. Pervez Musharraf: "Whoever is against Islam," said Ahmed, "we will destroy him. If this is rebellion, we are not afraid of rebellion. Blood is going to be spilled in Pakistan."
These events were widely reported by Pakistani and foreign media. But a short time later, probably in January 2002, Ahmed walked into the consular section of the heavily fortified U.S. Embassy compound, where he was granted an uncontested three-year "religious worker" visa to the United States.
He arrived in San Francisco on Jan. 23, 2002, and immediately assumed a position as imam of a Lodi, Calif., mosque that is the center of religious life for that San Joaquin Valley city's large Pakistani American immigrant community. Since then he has made at least two trips back to his native Pakistan.
One might ask, in hindsight, what is wrong with the Bush administration? And with due trepidation, based on this terrible track record, why should Americans have any confidence in the Bush administration in the future?
