The Motive Behind the Frank Amendment
By Chuck Morse |
It is impossible to calculate the damage done to this country by the immigration initiatives of Congressman Barney Frank.
In a Frontpage Magazine article entitled "Immigrating Terror" (4/4/06), columnist Rocco DiPippo does a great job writing about how Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank sponsored a series of immigration initiatives which were largely responsible for the influx of Radical Islamic extremists and terrorists into this country in the 1990’s. I would like to follow up with some observations of my own.
I believe that Frank was motivated in his sponsorship of the terrorism legislation by a belief that there is something fundamentally wrong with American laws that exclude the entry of foreigners based on their ideological or political orientation. Frank seems to believe that as long as a foreign visa applicant is not proven to be involved in “terrorist activities,” the applicant should be given a clean bill of health and granted entry. To do otherwise would, in Frank’s view, be politically incorrect.
As his congressional opponent in the 2004 election, I debated Barney Frank in this issue and he stated, in response to my questioning, that he had authored the immigration legislation because he felt that Americans had a right to hear Gabriel Garcia Marquez, whom he mentioned by name. The author of Memories of my Melancholy Whores and a friend of communist Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, Marquez had apparently been denied a visa because of his communist affiliations. As a sitting member of Congress, Barney Frank had the option to personally sponsor a trip for Marquez, not a security risk, and by doing so taking responsibility for the tour. Instead, he chose to steward legislation through Congress that would make it difficult for our government to deny visas to anyone with anti-American ideologies or associations.
He wanted to help a foreign left-wing poet come here so that he could make a ton of money selling books to gullible college students attending bourgeois institutions but, instead, his legislation opened the door to anti-Semitic Islamic extremists who would proceed to flock to our shores after the passage of his law. The Islamic radicals would come here, post Frank amendment, to recruit potential terrorists, raise funds for overseas “charities,” and, eventually, to engage in “terrorist activities” according to the congressional testimony of terrorism expert Steven Emerson, homeland security advisor Yossef Bodansky, Gerald Posner, the author of Why America Slept and many others. Thanks to the Frank legislation, the Islamic extremists were able to enter with greater ease and less scrutiny where they would proceed to operate right under the nose of our government and under the color of the law. It would henceforth be more difficult for our government to investigate, coordinate, detain, and deport potential foreign terrorists.
In referring to the Frank Amendment, the crowning jewel in a constellation of Frank initiatives stretching over his quarter century in Congress, and which became law in 1990, President Bill Clinton’s director of central intelligence R. James Woolsey stated in a Wall Street Journal article that “Congress had made it illegal to deny visas to members of terrorist groups.”
It is impossible to calculate the damage done to this country by the immigration initiatives of Barney Frank and it will take years, possibly decades, to correct the damage. Foreign terrorists, several of whom had legal visas, according to Congressman Curt Weldon (R-PA), blew up the twin towers and the Pentagon on 9/11, killing 3,000 Americans on our own soil. The Department of Homeland Security reports that Radical Islamic sleeper cells are operating within our borders today and could potentially act on a directive emanating from overseas. This is primarily why it is now necessary for law enforcement to tap suspicious overseas communications.
By removing the ideological and political exclusionary laws from the books, laws that date back to the founding of the Republic, Barney Frank struck a blow to one of the most basic and fundamental aspects of the sovereignty of this nation, and by extension of all nations. That is the inherent right and responsibility of governments, any government, to deny entry to a foreigner who is perceived to be a potential enemy of the state. There is no such thing as a right to visit another country, nor has there ever been such a right in international law or custom until Barney Frank decided that it was time for a change. The consequences of that change were disastrous and predictable.
If we draw the concept of what the Frank amendment purports into a microcosm, such a law would be akin to a law that would deny the right of an individual to deny entry to another individual into his home simply because he didn’t like the person. One would have to prove that the unwanted visitor might pose a direct threat in order to deny entry. Governments are charged with the moral and practical responsibility of protecting the national home and the lives and property of the citizens who reside therein.
During my 2004 campaign for Congress in Massachusetts, I was constantly told by friends and neighbors that Frank was “brilliant.” Former Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA), not known as a friend of the congressman, told me that he was “the smartest member of Congress” and that he wished Frank “had been a Republican.” This is why it is difficult to understand the appalling stupidity underlying this immigration legislation.
Chuck Morse is the Republican candidate for Congress in the 4th District of Massachusetts |
