2013 April 20 Saturday
We Could Have Prevented The Boston Bombing

We could have kept Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev from immigrating in 2002.

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.

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.

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 


Comments
d7 said at April 21, 2013 7:27 AM:

When I heard they had been living in the US for a couple of years, I thought the media would also jump on this argumentation, i.e. a stronger control of immigration. Atleast I had expected a closer look at the incompatibility of Western values with Islamic values. But these topics have barely been scratched in the media.

I wonder why this is the case, but i cant come up with a reasonable explanation. Can the ideology in the western society make people so blind, that they really believe all cultures are equal?That religions just differ in the way you pray and fast?

tanabear said at April 21, 2013 7:41 AM:

"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."

Yes, and remember that the Republican Party is just as guilty, if not more, than the Democrats on this issue. For instance, in 1997(under Clinton) there were roughly 10,000 worksite arrests that year and a 1,000 notices of intent to fine employers for hiring illegals. By 2004, worksite arrests fell to 159 and notices of intent to fine employers fell to 3! That is roughly a 97% and 99% decline respectively in internal border enforcement. And this was after 9/11. Essentially, Bush stopped enforcing our immigration laws after 9/11.

Just Chillin said at April 21, 2013 11:44 AM:

Well it's clear that terrorism will not end anytime soon. As long as inequality prevails there's going to be terrorism, either by rebel groups, isolated persons or governments.

There's no way to avoid any future terrorist events, just wait and you'll see. It's impossible. It's called predestination, you have no free will.

PSP said at April 21, 2013 12:14 PM:

Yglesias is a rat bastard. A shame people like him never get killed in these attacks. Funny how Israel doesn't have these problems...

map said at April 21, 2013 12:53 PM:

The key point in all of these terror attacks is that, to liberals, nobody important died. What's going to happen when a terrorist attack hits Sidwell Friends?

PSP said at April 21, 2013 1:01 PM:

"What's going to happen when a terrorist attack hits Sidwell Friends?"

Chances are slim to none. And that is a real shame.

Randall Parker said at April 21, 2013 6:31 PM:

d7,

Secular faiths are just as strong as religious faiths. So to answer your questions: Yes.

Can the ideology in the western society make people so blind, that they really believe all cultures are equal? That religions just differ in the way you pray and fast?

I am amazed at the strength of secular mythologies.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©