Unsurprisingly, CNN already has an article entitled Don't blame immigration for Boston bombings. Er, if they hadn't immigrated here they wouldn't have been here to blow up Americans. One of the Muslim immigrant brothers was a naturalized citizen and the other had a green card.
The brothers who are alleged to have planted bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on Monday reached the United States in 2002 after their ethnic Chechen family fled the Caucasus. They had been living in the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan and were prevented from resettling in war-racked Chechnya.
Look at 9/11 and the attacks that preceded and followed it. The implications for public safety of where Osama Bin Laden's followers were from (primarily Saudi Arabia and Yemen with the rest from other Muslim countries) had minimal impact on visa and immigration policy. The US government is still letting in Yemenis, Pakstanis, Saudis.
analysis by NBC News, Yemeni students received 279 visas in 2010, compared with 376 in 2001. Visas granted to Pakistani students dropped from 3,880 in 2001 to 1,093, a 72 percent decline. As for Saudi Arabia, student visas increased, but overall non-immigration visas declined.>
Our liberal elites have fundamental tenets of belief that caused them to resist learning too much from 9/11 and other events associated with it. They did not want to change any fundamental doctrines in their secular religion. Full learning would require abandonment of some of those doctrines. So they can not learn very much. Our elites ignore the fundamentalist Salafi Islam exported by our "ally" Saudi Arabia.
The Boston marathon bombing is a much smaller incident. In light of the resistance to 9/11 learning it seems highly unlikely our elites will accept any fundamental lessons from this latest tragedy. They've got too much invested in diversity and liberal manifest destiny.
We do not need more immigrations whose religion is incompatible with our values. We do not need more poor people.
“Low-skilled Americans are a significant part of that economy,” said Mr. Kirsanow, a former labor lawyer appointed to the National Labor Relations Board by President George W. Bush. “And I think they're being completely excluded from this discussion."
Others argue that immigration is great for the economy. But it is bad for per capita income. What about the existing populace?
Matthew Yglesias makes a ridiculous argument: "Limiting the number of immigrants encourages human smuggling, which makes it easier for bad guys to enter." The Boston bombers were here legally. There is an obvious alternative: Make both legal and illegal immigration far more difficult. There is no way an immigration screen for intensity of Islamic belief could have caught these guys. Their history suggests any screen against fundamentalists would have missed them at their time of entry.
I believe we should not have any risk of death from terrorists or drug gangs or street thugs.
|Share |||By Randall Parker at 2013 April 20 06:05 PM|