When will the neocons admit how the terrorists got here?
the latest in my occasional series of e-mails to prominent neoconservatives about the immigration issue.
The occasion was a comment by David Frum at National Review Online
on the report that al Qaeda raised many of its millions in the United States
, specifically in Brooklyn, from the worshippers at the al Farooq mosque (as told in more detail by the New York Times
). Frum surmised that since these are not wealthy people, many of them must have given small gifts, “which in turn raises the disquieting possibility that the number of givers was quite large.”
How deep into the American Muslim community does support for al Qaeda go? There is as yet no clear answer to this question Ė nor does there seem to be much eagerness in either government or the media to find that answer out. But itís rather an important question, isnít it? Over the months since 9/11, many Americans have wondered when they would hear a complete and categorical rejection of all its forms by the leaders of the US Muslim community. They’re still waiting.
To which I replied:
Yes, Mr. Frum, just as many Americans are wondering when we will hear an admission from you and your fellow neoconservatives that the only reason all these terror supporters are living in America in the first place is because of the non-discriminatory immigration policies that the neoconservatives have helped foist on our country for the last several decades. And we’re still waiting.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 06, 2003 01:13 AM | Send
Well, Mr. Auster is back to an issue that probably 95% of the readers of this forum can agree on — immigration.
It would have been nice if Mr. Auster had pointed out to Frum that some of the 9/11 attackers were aided by Latin American illegals in the document forging business — some of those great immigrant entrepreneurs we hear so much about.
Or maybe Mr. Auster could examine of the logic of empire as put forward by Kagan and Krystol. Does not hegemony require dominance in all aspects of power, including demography? Given American’s reluctance to have more than 2 children, the only way to ensure America’s continued demographic power is to encourage immigration from nontraditional sources. In other words, we need immigrants and their children to serve as cannon-fodder.
A few weeks ago I posted a series of thoughts on a possible quid pro quo; traditionalist and/or paleo conservatives support the war on Iraq, and neocons start addressing our concerns, especially immigration. Well, one immigration realist policy maker, the great Tom Tancredo, has voiced his strong support for the war. He went so far as to call me (as an antiwar marcher) an America-hater. That’s fine with me, Tancredo is so good on immigration he could call me anything he wants.
I am still waiting, however, for our President and Karl Rove to embrace Tancredo’s agenda, or even give him the time of day. I am still waiting for Tancredo to be lauded by NRO. No joy. Apparently immigration realist conservatives can’t make themselves more relevant by wholeheartedly supporting this war.
While on the subject of War and Immigration, readers should notice the story of Sam Brownback and the Somali Bantu on vdare.com . Yeah, Brownback is a hypocrite, but ask yourselves why *Somali* Bantu. Why not South African Bantu, or Angolan Bantu. The obvious reason is we intervened in Somalia, and have left the other places alone. Intervention breeds do-gooder networks which breeds new immigration streams. Mr. Auster should prepare for new streams of Muslim Kurds, Muslim “marsh Arabs”, and ordinary Muslim Iraqis once we go into Iraq.