Yes, but... response to "Why is CAIR still around?"
Reader comment on item: Telephoning the Enemy
in response to reader comment: why is CAIR still around?

Submitted by Merry Whitney (United States), Apr 24, 2006 at 06:24

"Clearly, post 9/11 we are "suspicious", but time and time again, our suspicions have turned out to be a waste of effort and resources, contributing nothing to increasing our safety, yet increasing intolerance, racism (read: now we've re-targeted Mexican "illegals") and ethno-religious bigotry..."

There's a considerable difference between having 'our suspicions turn out to be a waste of effort and resources,' and simply ignoring red flags because the politically correct crowd turns up the volume.

It is incredibly naive, whether inadvertant or willful, to fail to recognize that CAIR consistently takes positions that are less compatible with American interests than with enemy interests. And it is not "intolerance, racism and ethno-religious bigotry" to keep close tabs on organizations and individuals actively seeking to undermine our way of life.

The immigration issue is a different breed of cat, but it also isn't "racism" to insist that our national sovereignty trumps President Fox's opinions on how much of his problem we should pay the freight for. We have a system for legal immigration. Foreign nationals who come here by means outside of our legal framework and requirements --- whether they're from Mexico, Ireland, or bufu Egypt --- demonstrate their indifference to, or contempt for, us and our laws by doing so.

Unfortunately, so do too many of our elected members of the House and Senate, in trying to play the angles of the illegal entry problem to their own political advantage.

---

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 for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.