How the 9/11 Terrorists Got Here
And what they had in common.
13 comments
The commercial aircraft that al-Qaida terrorists flew into the twin towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001 — killing 2,977 people — did not take off from some foreign land before flying toward targets here in the United States.
They were all domestic flights that took off from American cities and were headed toward American cities.
American Airlines Flight 11, which struck the north tower of the World Trade Center, took off from Boston and was heading to Los Angeles.
United Airlines Flight 175, which struck the south tower of the World Trade Center, also took off from Boston and was heading to Los Angeles.
American Airlines Flight 77, which struck the Pentagon, took off from Northern Virginia and was heading to Los Angeles.
United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, took off from Newark and was heading to San Francisco.
Almost three years after the 2001 attacks, the staff of the national commission that Congress created by statute to investigate the event published a report on "9/11 and Terrorist Travel."
This report began by making a fundamental point: "It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country."
We let the hijackers in. But did they come here legally? Did they follow our visa and immigration laws? Not according to this 9/11 Commission staff report.
"The story begins with 'A Factual Overview of the September 11 Border Story,'" says the preface to the report. "In it, we endeavor to dispel the myth that their entry into the United States was 'clean and legal.' It was not."
"Three hijackers carried passports with indicators of Islamic extremism linked to al Qaeda; two others carried passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner," the report explained. "It is likely that several more hijackers carried passports with similar fraudulent manipulation. Two hijackers lied on their visa applications. Once in the United States, two hijackers violated the terms of their visas. One overstayed his visa. And all but one obtained some form of state identification. We know that six of the hijackers used these state issued identifications to check in for their flights on September 11. Three of them were fraudulently obtained."
More than two dozen al-Qaida terrorists whom the commission associated with the 9/11 conspiracy tried to enter the United States. Most of them succeeded.
"Twenty-six al Qaeda terrorist conspirators — eighteen Saudis, two Emiratis, one Egyptian, one Lebanese, one Moroccan, one Pakistani, and two Yemenis — sought to enter the United States and carry out a suicide mission," said the commission's staff report. "The first of them began to acquire the means to enter two years and five months before the 9/11 attack."
"The 19 hijackers applied for 23 visas and obtained 22," said the report. "Five other conspirators were denied U.S. visas. Two more obtained visas but did not participate in the attack for various reasons."
One thing these terrorists tended to have in common when they applied for visas to enter the United States was a newly minted passport.
"Most of the hijackers applied with new passports, possibly to hide travel to Afghanistan recorded in their old ones," said the report.
The terrorists who actually piloted the hijacked planes had another thing in common. This was a remarkable ability to enter, leave and re-enter the United States.
"The four pilots passed through immigration and customs inspections a total of 17 times from May 29, 2000 to August 5, 2001," said the report.
Ziad Jarrah, who flew United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, "was the most frequent border crosser, entering the United States seven times."
Had they only let this terrorist into the United States six times, he would not have been on that flight.
Mohamed Atta, who flew American Airlines Flight 11 into the north tower, and Marwan al Shehhi, who flew United Airlines Flight 175 into the south tower, "came in three times each, entering for the last time on May 2 and July 19, 2001, respectively."
Had they only let these terrorists in twice, they would not have flown into the twin towers.
Hani Hanjour, who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, had made repeated journeys to the United States in the 1990s before coming back as a student — who never went to school — in 2000.
"Hani Hanjour was the only hijacker to enter on an academic visa, arriving on December 8, 2000," said the report. "He had already attended both English and flight training schools in the United States during three stays in the 1990s. Hanjour was also the only pilot who already had a commercial pilot's license prior to entry, having acquired it in 1999 in Arizona."
"Hanjour did not attend school after entering on a student visa in December 2000, thereby violating his immigration status and making him deportable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B)," said the report.
He, of course, was not deported.
This staff report concluded that "all of the hijackers violated some aspect of U.S. immigration law."
The good news is that our government has succeeded for nearly two decades in preventing another terrorist attack like 9/11. The question now: Will it continue to do so?
Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor in chief of CNSnews.com.
How Islam Conquered 2/3s of the Christian World
Revisiting the “most consequential battle in all world history.”
2 comments
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Recently in history, on August 20, 636, the single most consequential battle between Islam and the West took place—that of Yarmuk. Occurring just four years after Muslim prophet Muhammad had died, not only did the military engagement decide whether the Arabian creed thrives or dies; it became a chief source of inspiration and instruction for jihadis throughout the centuries, right down to the Islamic State. And yet, very few in the West are even aware of the Battle of Yarmuk’s existence—much less how it motivates contemporary Islamic terrorists.
The contestants were the Eastern Roman Empire, under Emperor Heraclius, and the newly born Arabian caliphate, under the second caliph, Omar. After a couple of years of Muslim depredations in then Christian/Roman Syria, the two forces met along the Yarmuk River. The pre-battle exchange between the two generals, the Roman-Armenian Vahan and Khalid bin al-Walid—Islam’s much revered (and near cannibalistic) “Sword of Allah”—is instructive:
The Christian commander began by diplomatically blaming Arabia’s harsh conditions and impoverished economy for giving the Arabs no choice but to raid Roman lands. Accordingly, the empire was pleased to provide them with food and coin on the condition that they return home. “It was not hunger that brought us here,” Khalid responded coolly, “but we Arabs are in the habit of drinking blood, and we are told the blood of the Romans is the sweetest of its kind, so we came to shed your blood and drink it.
Vahan’s diplomatic mask instantly dropped and he launched into a tirade against the insolent Arab: “So, we thought you came seeking what your brethren always sought” — plunder, extortion, or mercenary work. “But, alas, we were wrong. You came killing men, enslaving women, plundering wealth, destroying buildings, and seeking to drive us from our own lands.” Better people had tried to do the same but always ended up defeated, added Vahan in reference to the recent Persian Wars, before continuing:
As for you, there is no lower and more despicable people — wretched, impoverished Bedouins. . . . You commit injustices in your own nation and now ours. . . . What havoc you have created! You ride horses not your own and wear clothes not your own. You pleasure yourselves with the young white girls of Rome and enslave them. You eat food not your own, and fill your hands with gold, silver, and valuable goods [not your own]. Now we find you with all our possessions and the plunder you took from our coreligionists — and we leave it all to you, neither asking for its return nor rebuking you. All we ask is that you leave our lands. But if you refuse, we will annihilate you!
The Sword of Allah was not impressed. He began reciting the Koran and talking about one Muhammad. Vahan listened in quiet exasperation. Khalid proceeded to call on the Christian general to proclaim the shahada—that “there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger”—and thereby embrace Islam, in exchange for peace, adding, “You must also pray, pay zakat, perform hajj at the sacred house [in Mecca], wage jihad against those who refuse Allah, … and befriend those who befriend Allah and oppose those who oppose Allah,” a reference to the divisive doctrine of al-wala’ wa al-bara’. “If you refuse, there can only be war between us. . . . And you will face men who love death as you love life.”
“Do what you like,” responded Vahan. “We will never forsake our religion or pay you jizya.” Negotiations were over.
Things came to a head, quite literally, when 8,000 marching Muslims appeared before the Roman camp carrying the severed heads of 4,000 Christians atop their spears. These were the remains of 5,000 reinforcements who had come from Amman to join the Roman army at Yarmuk. The Muslims had ambushed and slaughtered them. Then, as resounding cries of “Allahu akbar” filled the Muslim camp, those Muslims standing behind the remaining 1,000 Christian captives knocked them over and proceeded to carve off their heads before the eyes of their co-religionists, whom Arabic sources describe as looking on in “utter bewilderment.”
So it would be war: 30,000 Christian Romans against 24,000 Muslim Arabs along the Yarmuk River in Syria. On the eve of battle, writes historian A. I. Akram, “the Muslims spent the night in prayer and recitation of the Quran, and reminded each other of the two blessings that awaited them: either victory and life or martyrdom and paradise.”
No such titillation awaited the Christians. They were fighting for life, family, and faith. During his pre-battle speech, Vahan explained that “these Arabs who stand before you seek to . . . enslave your children and women.” Another general warned the men to fight hard or else the Arabs “shall conquer your lands and ravish your women.” Such fears were not unwarranted. Even as the Romans were kneeling in pre-battle prayer, Arab general Abu Sufyan was prancing on his war steed, waving his spear, and exhorting the Muslims to “jihad in the way of Allah,” so that they might seize the Christians’ “lands and cities, and enslave their children and women.”
The battle took place over the course of six days. On August 20, 636, the sixth and final day, a dust storm — something Arabs were accustomed to, their opponents less so — erupted and caused mass chaos, particularly for the Romans, whose large infantry numbers proved counterproductive. Night fell. Then, according to historian Antonio Santosuosso,
[T]he terrain echoed with the terrifying din of Muslim shouts and battle cries. Shadows suddenly changed into blades that penetrated flesh. The wind brought the cries of comrades as the enemy stealthily penetrated the ranks among the infernal noise of cymbals, drums, and battle cries. It must have been even more terrifying because they had not expected the Muslims to attack by dark.
Muslim cavalrymen continued pressing on the crowded and blinded Roman infantry, using the hooves and knees of their steeds to knock down the wearied fighters. Pushed finally to the edge of the ravine, rank after rank of the remaining forces of the imperial army fell down the steep precipices to their death. “The Byzantine army, which Heraclius had spent a year of immense exertion to collect, had entirely ceased to exist,” writes British lieutenant-general and historian John Bagot Glubb. “There was no withdrawal, no rearguard action, no nucleus of survivors. There was nothing left.”
As the moon filled the night sky and the victors stripped the slain, cries of “Allahu akbar!” and “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger” rang throughout the Yarmuk valley, the Arabian chronicler narrated.
Mere decades after Yarmuk, all ancient Christian lands between Syria to the east and Morocco to the west — nearly 4,000 miles — had been conquered by Islam. Put differently: Two-thirds of Christendom’s original, older, and wealthier territory was permanently swallowed up by the scimitar of jihad. (Eventually, and thanks to the later Turks, “Muslim armies conquered three-quarters of the Christian world,” to quote historian Thomas Madden.)
But unlike the Germanic barbarians who invaded and conquered Europe in the preceding centuries, only to assimilate into the religion, culture, and civilization of Christianity, and adopt its languages, Latin and Greek, the Arabs imposed their creed and language onto the conquered peoples so that, whereas the “Arabs” were once limited to the Arabian Peninsula, today the “Arab world” consists of some 22 nations across the Middle East and North Africa.
This would not be the case, and the world would have developed in a radically different way, had the Eastern Roman Empire defeated the invaders and sent them reeling back to Arabia. Little wonder that historians such as Francesco Gabrieli hold that “the battle of the Yarmuk had, without doubt, more important consequences than almost any other in all world history.”
Moreover and as the alert reader may have noticed, the continuity between the words and deeds of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and those of its predecessors from nearly 1,400 years ago are eerily similar. This of course is intentional. When ISIS proclaims that “American blood is best and we will taste it soon,” or “We love death as you love life,” or “We will break your crosses and enslave your women,” they are quoting in verbatim — and thereby placing themselves in the footsteps of — Khalid bin al-Walid and his companions, the original Islamic conquerors of Syria.
Similarly, ISIS’s invocation of the houris, Islam’s celestial sex-slaves promised to martyrs, is based on several anecdotes of Muslims dying by the Yarmuk River and being welcomed into paradise by these immortal concubines. So too is the choreographed ritual slaughter of “infidels,” most infamously of 21 Coptic Christians on the shores of Libya, patterned after the ritual slaughter of 1,000 captured Roman soldiers on the eve of battle.
The Eternal Jihad
Understanding what really happened in Afghanistan.
Raymond Ibrahim, author of Sword and Scimitar, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Although August 15, 2021 will forever live in infamy as the date when the Taliban reconquered Afghanistan, for over 13 centuries that date was famous for another event—Constantinople’s defeat of the caliphate, August 15, 718. While these two events separated by exactly 1,303 years are vastly different in nature—not least that in 718 Islam lost, while in 2021 it won—they both confirm one irresistible point that the confident West should take to heart: the tenacity of Islamic jihad—this relentless snake of war that always bides its time, even if by remaining coiled for many centuries, before striking.
Consider the first event. In 718, the Eastern Roman Empire (“Byzantium”) repulsed, in dramatic fashion, the Arabs. It was such a spectacular victory, and Muslim losses were so bad, that, for many centuries, the caliphates never dared make another attempt against the walls of Constantinople.
Put differently, for many centuries after the year 718, anyone living in Constantinople would have thought—and would have apparently been justified for thinking—that the Islamic threat, whatever it was elsewhere, was well behind them.
And yet, in the early 1400s—700 years after the people of Constantinople had thought they’d seen the last of jihad—it was back again besieging them, with the city finally falling to Islam on May 29, 1453.
More significantly, those who besieged and conquered Constantinople in 1453 had little to do with those who besieged it in the eighth century. The latter were Arabs, under the Umayyad caliphate centered in Damascus. Those who actually conquered Constantinople were Turks, whose capital was Adrianople (now Edirne).
On the surface there is no connection or continuity between those who in the eighth century tried to conquer, and those who in the fifteenth century did conquer, Constantinople—except, of course, for one thing: both were Muslims, and both articulated their hostility for and need to conquer Constantinople in distinctly jihadist terms: like every other infidel, the Christian kingdom had two choices before it: submit to Islam—which it rejected—or fight.
Thus, while the jihad was down in the eighth century, it was never out for the final count. It bided its time, even as empires rose and fell, and finally manifested itself again in the guise of the latest newcomers to the stage of world conquest, the Turks (who, even more ironically, were greater devotees and practitioners of jihad than even their Arab predecessors).
Seen this way, Constantinople’s mortal enemy was never really the Arabs or Turks; it was Islam, which, while experiencing highs and lows in the intervening centuries, still transformed its adherents, first Arabs then Turks, into existential enemies devoted to the slaughter and subjugation of infidels, whenever possible.
Now consider how this “ancient” and “distant” history applies to recent events. At the height of U.S. victory in Afghanistan in 2005, when both al-Qaeda and the Taliban had been all but rooted out, Ayman al-Zawahiri (current leader of al-Qaeda) was asked about the statuses of those two organizations’ leaders, who were missing in action. His response, which follows, has, in the aftermath of August 15, 2021, proven true:
Jihad in the path of Allah is greater than any individual or organization. It is a struggle between Truth and Falsehood, until Allah Almighty inherits the earth and those who live in it. Mullah Muhammad Omar and Sheikh Osama bin Laden—may Allah protect them from all evil—are merely two soldiers of Islam in the journey of jihad, while the struggle between Truth [Islam] and Falsehood [non-Islam] transcends time (Al Qaeda Reader, p.182; emphasis added).
Similarly, consider what Muhammad Arif Mustafa, a Taliban commander, just said last week:
One day mujahedeen will have victory and Islamic law will come not just to Afghanistan, but all over the world. We are not in a hurry. We believe it will come one day. Jihad will not end until the last day [emphasis added].
When one considers the state of the world, the current military and economic dominance of the West, and the general weakness of the Muslim world, surely such claims sound laughable. As seen, however, time has a way of switching the tables, making what once seemed impossible imminent.
In short, as long as Islam exists, the jihad may be down but it is never out for the count. It may take years, decades, and centuries; its name and guise may morph and change from eighth century Arab caliphates, to fifteenth century Turkish sultanates, to the twenty-first century’s loose amalgam of ISIS, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, etc.—but it is always there, often lying dormant, yes, though ever ready to strike at the first opportunity.
What will it be called, what guise will it take, and what new inroads will it have made in the decades and centuries to come?
Here, then, is a reminder that, when it comes to the military history of Islam and the West, the lessons imparted are far from academic and have relevance to this day — at least for the jihadis, whose mindset many in the West still refuse to acknowledge.
Note: The above account was excerpted from Raymond Ibrahim’s Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West.
Bringing in Afghan Refugees with All of Their ‘Luggage’
What's not being talked about.
56 comments
Afghanistan has fallen to the Taliban and American forces are withdrawing. As with such ventures, this has resulted in tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees fleeing their own country. And as night follows day, this has also resulted in calls by many American individuals and organizations to bring in as many of those refugees as possible, because we “owe” it to the Afghans.
To hear such claims, one would think that these many thousands of refugees will immediately become part of America, sharing our values and ideas, and contributing to our communities.
What is not being talked about are the values, ideas, and culture those refugees are bringing with them.
In order to better understand the people many are calling to be brought in by the tens of thousands, let’s look at some considerations about the society from which these refugees are coming.
National Security
There are two national security issues that must be acknowledged.
First, a 2019 study found that 13% of Afghans had a lot of (4%) or a little (9%) sympathy for the Taliban.[1] This means that for every 100,000 Afghan refugees brought into the United States, we could expect about 13,000 of them to have varying degrees of sympathy for the Taliban.
Then we need to take into consideration that 39% of Afghans think that “suicide bombing” in defense of Islam is often or sometimes justified.[2] If we use the 4% number for those with a lot of sympathy for the Taliban, this means that out of every 100,000 Afghans we could have up to about 1,560 Afghans believing that “suicide bombing” could often be justified.[3]
Combining these two issues means we could be bringing in a potentially significant base of support for a jihadist group; and that base of support could include a large number willing to engage in jihadist attacks in the United States using explosives.
History of Violence
Then there is Afghanistan’s violent history. What is the impact of this history on many of those refugees we are bringing in? Consider this 2018 article:
…Afghanistan is home to nearly two generations that have grown up knowing only conflict and war. As a result, violent and aggressive behavior—particularly from young men—has become an accepted norm of Afghan society…a significant number of Afghan youth have become involved in organized crime or other illegal—and often violent—activities to fulfill their perceived obligations and duties to family…In many parts of Afghanistan, displays of aggression and intimidation represent a rite of passage for adolescent boys and a symbol of manhood for men. The social acceptance of such behavior, however, heightens the risk that intolerance of diversity and interpersonal violence, including violence against women and children, become an everyday fact of life. A 2009 report…described violence as “an everyday occurrence in the lives of a huge proportion of Afghan women.”…a majority of Afghans are exposed to violence beginning at an early age, including physical abuse at home by parents and relatives as well as the liberal use of corporal punishment at mosques, madrassas, and schools. Children witness their mothers and sisters being violently abused at the hands of family members, which comes to be accepted as a social and cultural norm, resulting in the acceptance of violence as a first—and sometimes only—option for resolving conflicts.[4]
We are importing from a culture of violence.
Rights of Women
What is the attitude many of these refugees have toward women? Here are two assessments:
Women and girls in Afghanistan continue to face widespread discrimination and human rights abuses. The country ranks among the least favourable on the Gender Inequality Index and the literacy rate for women is among the lowest in the world. Violence against women and girls is rife and the majority don’t go to school.[5]
And,
About two-thirds of men thought women in Afghanistan had too many rights and that women were too emotional to become leaders, compared to less than a third of women. And while nearly three quarters of women said a married woman should have equal rights with their partner to work outside the home, only 15 percent of men agreed. More than half of men also agreed with the statement that “more rights for women mean that men lose out”.[6]
Wife-beating is largely acceptable in Afghanistan:
Overall, 92 percent of women in Afghanistan feel that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife for at least one of these reasons: going out without telling the husband, neglecting the children, arguing with the husband, refusing sex, and burning the food. Seventy-eight percent of women believe that going out without telling the husband is justification for beating, while 31 percent think the same about burning the food…The Afghanistan survey added an additional question to reflect local attitudes—wearing inappropriate clothes. Sixty-three percent of Afghan women feel a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife if she wears inappropriate clothing.[7]
94% of Afghans completely or mostly agree that a wife must always obey her husband,[8] and two-thirds of Afghan men agree or strongly agree with the statement, “Women in Afghanistan have too many rights.”[9]
Considering the information in this and the previous section, it is not surprising to hear this warning from Pierre-Marie Seve, the director and spokesman of the French think tank Institute for Justice. He noted that migrants are over-represented in nearly all categories of crime [in France] and stated that Afghans, in particular, commit more crimes than asylum seekers from other countries.[10]
Prepubescent Marriage
Prepubescent marriage is acceptable in Afghanistan. In 2016, the Pew Research Center released a report titled “Many countries allow child marriage.”[11] An appendix to that report titled “Marriage Laws around the World” provided this interesting information about approaches to child marriage in Afghanistan:[12]
Despite a law setting the legal minimum age for marriage at 16 (15 with the consent of a parent or guardian and the court) for girls and 18 for boys, international and local observers continued to report widespread early marriage… By law a marriage contract requires verification that the bride is 16 years of age, but only a small fraction of the population had birth certificates…some girls as young as six or seven were promised in marriage, with the understanding the actual marriage would be delayed until the child reached puberty. Reports indicated, however, that this delay was rarely observed and young girls were sexually violated by the groom or by older men in the family, particularly if the groom was also a child.
Will instances of prepubescent marriage soon be coming to your community or to a community nearby?
Sharia as the official Law of the Land
Afghans almost uniformly agree (99%) that Sharia should be the official law of the land.[13] And among those Afghans who say Sharia should be the law of the land, 61% say it should apply to all citizens.[14]
81% of the Afghans who support Sharia as the official law of the land favor corporal punishments for theft; 85% favor stoning as the punishment for adultery, and 79% favor the death penalty for apostasy.[15]
In terms of honor killings for pre- or extra-marital sex, 60% of Afghans believed honor killings of women were often or sometimes justified; 59% believed the same about killing men in those circumstances.[16]
These are majority views among Afghans that are incompatible with American values and laws.
Integrating into American society
The Afghan values and beliefs mentioned above are major hurdles to the idea of Afghans integrating as a group into American society. In addition, only 5% of Afghans speak English,[17] and the adult literacy rate is only about 43% (although the numbers vary). 66% of Afghans believe Western popular culture harms morality in their country,[18] and 96% believe that trying to convert others to Islam is a religious duty.[19]
These are not harbingers of widespread social/cultural integration by these refugees into American society.
Conclusion
Those on the side of bringing tens of thousands of Afghan refugees into the United States have been able to rely on noble sounding rhetoric and emotional arguments to confront those who are not as enthusiastic about that venture.
However, the facts presented in this article show that in reality these refugees are coming from a culture and a land whose values and history are completely different from, and largely incompatible with, those of the United States.
What is being generally overlooked is that there are more socially/culturally compatible countries for these refugees that actually border Afghanistan. Perhaps what we might “owe” these refugees is assistance in finding refuge in those neighboring countries.
Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of six books about Islam. His latest book is Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.
[1] “A Survey of the Afghan People, Afghanistan in 2019,” The Asia Foundation, p. 315, https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019_Afghan_Survey_Full-Report_.pdf.
[2] “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” Pew Research Center, April 30, 2013, pp. 29 and 70, https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
[3] For why it is not accurate to use the term “suicide bomber” in these circumstances, see my article “Suicide or Paradise?” Arutz Sheva 7 – Israel National News, June 7, 2017, https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/20604.
[4] Belquis Ahmadi and Rafiullah Stanikzai, “Redefining Masculinity in Afghanistan,” United States Institute of Peace, February 15, 2018, https://www.usip.org/publications/2018/02/redefining-masculinity-afghanistan.
[5] Gender Focus, UNICEF, accessed on August 27, 2021, https://www.unicef.org/afghanistan/gender-focus.
[6] Sonia Elks, “Afghan men oppose more women’s rights; elders less hardline,” Reuters, January 29, 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-women-equality/afghan-men-oppose-more-womens-rights-elders-less-hardline-idUSKCN1PN0TZ.
[7] Donna Clifton, “Most Women in Afghanistan Justify Domestic Violence,” PRB, September 13, 2012, https://www.prb.org/resources/most-women-in-afghanistan-justify-domestic-violence/.
[8] “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” Pew Research Center, April 30, 2013, p. 93, https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
[9] “Afghanistan Flash Surveys on Perceptions of Peace, Covid-19, and the Economy: Wave 1 Findings,” The Asia Foundation, 2020, p. 43, https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Afghanistan-Flash-Survey-Wave-1_fullreport_.pdf.
[10] Chris Tomlinson, “French Think Tank Warns Afghan Migrant Increase Means Increased Crime,” Breitbart, August 28, 2021, https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/08/28/french-think-tank-warns-afghan-migrant-increase-means-increased-crime/.
[11] Aleksandra Sandstrom and Angelina E. Theodorou, “Many countries allow child marriage,” Pew Research Center, September 12, 2016, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/12/many-countries-allow-child-marriage/.
[12] “Marriage Laws around the World,” Pew Research Center, https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2016/09/FT_Marriage_Age_Appendix_2016_09_08.pdf.
[13] “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” p. 15.
[14] Ibid., p. 48.
[15] Ibid., pp. 52, 54 and 55.
[16] Ibid., p. 89.
[17] “A Survey of the Afghan People, Afghanistan in 2019,” p. 336.
[18] “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” p. 136.
[19] Ibid., p. 112.
Migration Groups Want $8 Billion for Afghan Migrants
Pro-migration groups want at least $8 billion in Americans’ money — and a new citizenship law — to help fast-track at least 50,000 mostly unvetted Afghan migrants, according to the Washington Post.
“The number we’ve been floating around, just on the back of the napkin, is $5 billion for [the Department of Health and Human Services], $2 billion for [the Department of] State, and $1 billion for [the Department of Homeland Security], at a minimum,” said Mark Hetfield, president of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.
The advocates also told the Washington Post that they want the incoming Afghans to jump the line in the nation’s asylum courts. The line is several years long because Democrats have allowed at least two million Central American migrants into the United States since 2009 under the claim that they need asylum from crime and poverty. The Post reported:
Congress could create a mechanism to allow them to “adjust” to legal permanent residency, aid groups say, along the lines of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 or more recent programs to aid Iraqis.
The [Afghan] parolees could apply for asylum, stating a fear of persecution if returned to Afghanistan, but the U.S. asylum system is badly overloaded by applicants from the Mexico border.
A survey by Rasmussen Reports shows that the public does not approve of the Democrats’ rush to naturalize tens of thousands of Afghans. A majority of Americans oppose the resettlement of more than 50,000 Afghans in the United States, according to an August 18-19 survey of 1,000 likely voters by Rasmussen.
Refugees walk through the departure terminal to a bus at Dulles International Airport after being evacuated from Kabul following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan on August 31, 2021, in Dulles, Virginia. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Many of the migrants could impose more chaotic diversity to Americans’ society, in part, because many are fundamentalist Muslims who lack passports.
Many pro-migration lobby groups are lavishly funded by wealthy pro-migration donors, including Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft, and others who hide their identity.
But the groups say they cannot get access to usual spigots of taxpayer cash because many Afghan migrants are being sneaked into the United States via small a side door in U.S. immigration law.
For example, only a few of the Afghans fought alongside the U.S. military, so only a few can get “Special Immigrant Visas” (SIV) created by Congress.
Also, only a few of the migrants were legally approved as refugees amid the rush by thousands of Afghans into American aircraft.
Afghan citizens pack inside a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III, as they are transported from Hamid Karzai International Airport in Afghanistan, August 15, 2021. The Taliban on Sunday swept into Kabul, the Afghan capital, after capturing most of Afghanistan. (Capt. Chris Herbert/U.S. Air Force via AP)
So most of the roughly 20,000 migrants now in the United States were allowed into the United States via the little-used “parole” side door in U.S. immigration law. The parole side door was intended for a few charitable cases such as sick passengers on an international flight, “on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” according to federal law.
President Joe Biden’s border chief, Alejandro Mayorkas, may try to admit 50,000 Afghans via the parole door, Hetfield told the Washington Post.
The requested $8 billion in cash “would give [Afghan] parolees the same amount of assistance as refugees or SIVs would get,” Hetfield said.
The changed citizenship laws would allow the paroled Afghans to quickly win green cards and citizenship, many of whom lack vital identification documents or even endorsements by U.S. soldiers. That fast-track process could deliver tens of thousands from Afghanistan to the polling booths by 2028.
Afghan refugees arrive at Dulles International Airport in Northern Virginia while en route to military facilities in the U.S. (Jack Gruber-USA TODAY)
Meanwhile, many millions of Americans are unemployed, earn little money, and have difficulty paying their rents. Much of that economic distress is caused by the federal government’s policy of encouraging migration into the United States.
Overall, Biden’s government is expected to import 1.6 million migrants in 2021, or roughly one migrant for every two American births in the year. This policy extracts many new workers, consumers, and renters from poor countries for the benefit of U.S. employers, investors, and government agencies — and also to eventually deliver many potential voters to the Democratic party.
This policy of extraction migration damages ordinary Americans’ career opportunities, cuts their wages, and raises their housing costs.
More migration also means that coastal investors can hire cheap foreign labor on the coasts instead of investing in heartland jobs or deploying wage-boosting robots. Immigration also shrinks Americans’ political clout and wrecks their open-minded, equality-promoting civic culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment