The grass-roots rage in America over illegal immigration is heating up like never before:
What does this all mean? It's all just another sorry example of the mental disconnect between our globalist/internationalist ruling elite and the American people.
Welcome to the New America.
Nevertheless—at the risk of being accused of fiddling while Rome burns—VDARE.com readers sure had a lot to say last week about my take on the U.S. State Department's denial of a visa renewal request Sir Mark Thatcher, son of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
The most interesting exchange came from VDARE.com reader Michael Guignard, a self-identified former U.S. Foreign Service officer (FSO). For your reading pleasure, I include his comments, along with a sampling from other readers that I received via e-mail.
With the help of the VDARE.com audience, we just might get to the bottom of Sir Mark's visa intrigue sooner or later . . . even though Sir Mark already decided to live somewhere else (in Europe) after all.
From: Michael Guignard
"Just a couple of comments about your article on anarcho-tyranny. Spouses of U.S. citizens are eligible to apply for a waiver under different sections of law - depending if one is applying for a non-immigrant or immigrant visa (green card).
"If Mr. Thatcher is ineligible for the visa under the criminal provisions of the immigration law, the U.S. Consul has no discretion. It is his/her duty as a commissioned officer of the U.S. to deny the visa.
"The fact that Mr. Thatcher has a U.S. citizen wife and children all living in the U.S. is irrelevant to the finding of ineligibility. Thousands of spouses of U.S. citizens find themselves waiting outside the U.S. for months and sometimes years before gaining entry. Waivers take time.
"I am surprised that Mr. Thatcher seems to be able to obtain non-immigrant visas to enter the country, as the spouse of a U.S. citizen. That is not an easy feat to accomplish because under our law every non-immigrant visa applicant is presumed to be an intending immigrant [under] section 214 (b) of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] INA. Hundreds of thousands of applicants are refused visas under this section of law every year.
"If your U.S. citizen spouse is living in the U.S., it is not easy to convince the U.S. Consul that you will not stay in the U.S. after entering, let's say, on a tourist visa.
"U.S. Consuls perform yeoman work every day at our embassies and Consulates overseas. Your article does not reflect that fact. You praise U.S. CIS [Citizenship and Immigration Services] U.S. ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] even though there are 11,000,000 illegal aliens in the U.S., but give the State Dept short shrift.
[Juan Mann's reply:]
I have no idea what kind of status Thatcher had that "expired" – forcing the renewal request and denial. But if you were the FSO on the case, would you classify his crime as a CIMT to deny him??... probably not, right? Hence the mystery...
I take it that you're saying the real reason for the denial isn't mysterious at all, since any non-immigrant status would be denied outright because of his marital ties. Is this your guess on the subject (given the limited facts we have)?
"If I was the FSO in this case, I would check the list of crimes that are on the moral turpitude list and see if the charge and/or conviction was on that list. I live near D.C. and Sidney Ponson, a Baltimore Orioles pitcher, had his visa delayed because of a bar brawl. I guess he got a waiver though because he got his visa and is pitching. He also needed one to be able to pitch in Canada.
"There is also a lookout list that all Consuls check when issuing visas. I think it is called the NCIC list now. Perhaps someone at the Dept. of State put Mark Thatcher's name on it because of his recent legal troubles. This would be enough to preclude visa issuance.
"Spouses of U.S. citizens can receive tourist visas if it is clear that the family lives abroad or that the foreign national applicant lives abroad. It is just more difficult for U.S. citizen spouses to get a tourist visa than for the average applicant. Thatcher is British so he could come into the U.S. on a visa waiver if he is not on the lookout list.…
"As an aside, the 19 hijackers were on no 'look out lists.' Since Saudis (14 of the 19, I think) seldom stay and work in the U.S. illegally, their visas were issued rather routinely. See National Review Oct 28, 2002 issue "the terror visas" by Joel Mowbray. Mowbray focuses on the fact that the terrorists did not answer all the questions on their visa application forms. But even if they had completed each and every question neatly and exhaustively, any misrepresentations they would have made would probably have gone undiscovered.
"That happens all the time as evidenced by the fact the 40% of illegal aliens in the U.S. came in originally with valid visas."
Excellent point, my friend!
Just think . . . we're now three years and counting after 9/11, and there is still no logical system in place to detain and deport, let alone to even detect these very same "visa over-stayers" (AKA illegal aliens).
But the President of the United States still apparently wants to give these same uninvited "guest workers" an amnesty by any other name.
More reader comments on Sir Mark Thatcher:
From: Jason Megill:
"I read your recent VDARE.com column about Mark Thatcher and think it may miss the mark. I remember reading about him in Ari Ben-Menashe's "Profits of War."
"Granted, books by former spies have to be taken with a grain of salt. Spies lie for a living. But I think Mark Thatcher got bad press in the eighties for arms dealing with unsavory nations (when his mother was Prime Minister). One of those countries was Iraq. Another take on his visa denial is Mark Thatcher [may have] sold the Iraqis weapons which are now being used to kill American soldiers. However, I don't have any specialized knowledge and don't know what he actually did...
From: Bob Howland:
"I would venture to guess that the main reason he is being put through the wringer is that he is white, and it's so much easier to apply rules and laws to whites because they can't scream 'hate', 'racial profiling', 'prejudice', or any other of the currently popular phrases."
From: Anthony Lowry, Berkeley, CA:
[Juan's comment: Of course, this was not proved in a court of law. Maybe Anthony should consider moving to Equatorial Guinea to show his support for the Obiang regime? Berkeley's loss could be Malabo's gain!]