Immigration, Glenn Beck, etc.

Submitted by J.S. (Canada), Nov 7, 2006 at 20:30

Glenn Beck is host of a cable television show broadcast through CNN Headline News (yeah, it's surprising that an affliliate of CNN would actually feature someone from a non-Leftist point of view). He has a web site at www.glennbeck.com (I believe he also has a radio talk show program -- available through the Internet). I think Glenn Beck is one of the few commentators who tells it like it is (he doesn't fear political correctness.)

I grew up in the United States, but I'm now living in Canada. I read (I can't find the source) that the U.S. has been granting visas to Arabs at very high rates (I'm assuming that most of these visa entries would be Muslims, not Christians). (Canadians recently discovered that there are an estimated 40, 000 to 50,000 Lebanese "Canadians" living -- where esle? -- in Lebanon. The Canadian government at great expense was forced to rescue them -- many of them Muslim -- not all, but I believe the majority. Then, immediately after hostilities ended, many of them returned to Lebanon. Canada has got to change its citizenship laws...it's ridiculous. No country can have thousands and thousands of "citizens" living elsewhere -- they're not really citizens, they're just citizens of convenience -- they return to Canada whenever they require medical treatment or some other benefit, etc.)

Oh, and just the other day (speaking of Canada as the country of masochists), the UN (the pro-Islamist league) criticized Canada -- accused Canada of being racist -- etc. -- the usual -- for Canada's past treatment of Native Americans (Canada put Natives on reserves and gave them welfare). Anyway, the Arabs at the UN were all hot and bothered since Canada's Prime Minister Steven Harper had said something about the not so spotless Human Rights record of Arab countries. Thus, the Arabs started denouncing Canada as the land of "racists." Then, of course, Canada announces at the UN that it will be accepting 66 more Palestinian Iraqi "refugees" -- this, more than any other western country . Meanwhile, we're the "racists." We're already accepting TWICE as many immigrants as Australia. And I don't expect the Iraqi palestinians to be great lovers of the West or of Canada (they'll no doubt despise everything here -- yet more supporters of Hezbollah).

Anyway, briefly, about the ACLU. When I lived in the States the ACLU seemed to me to be a pretty decent outfit. They fought for the civil liberties of Blacks -- fought for their voting rights and de-segregation in the South. The ACLU stood up for the marginalized and oppressed minorities. But now it seems they've gone much too far -- they seem more to be an outfit fighting for psychopathic killers, mass murderers, letting criminals out of prison, freeing terrorists. They seem to want to hamper the U.S. government at every turn, particularly in handicapping the U.S. in terms of security (you've got to enable surveillance of wanna-be jihadists), and this is not a violation of Human Rights. Anyway, at the rate the ACLU is now going, I wouldn't be surprised if they freed all the criminals and locked up the police. (The same with all that whining about Gitmo -- it's as if the ACLU believes that foreign terrorists plotting the destruction of the U.S. should have precisely the same rights as any citizen of the U.S. -- complete with every protection imaginable. ) If the ACLU were only about protecting innocent Muslims from persecution or some form of harrassment, then I would be more sympathetic to the ACLU. But, I don't see that as the aim of the ACLU -- it's far too politicized (as in: "The terrorists are right!!" and "Down with Bush!" "Down with the terrorist Amerika!") they're like Howard Deans.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".