Lurching From One Emotionally-Driven Piece of Legislation to the Next

The Left is worried that Conservatives will jump on the fact that the Boston killers were immigrants to slow down immigration reform:

the anti-immigration right has jumped on this morning's news to argue that this is not the time to loosen our immigration laws. After all, the two guys who set off bombs at the Boston Marathon have turned out to be a pair of immigrants. As radio host Bryan Fischer says, "Time to tighten, not loosen, immigration policy." Greg Sargent comments:

It’s unclear thus far how widespread the effort among conservatives will be to connect the Boston bombing suspects to the immigration reform debate. But it’s certainly something that bears watching. If this argument picks up steam, it will be

another indication of how ferocious the resistance on the right to immigration reform is going to get.

I think it's safe to say that this argument will pick up steam. Why wouldn't it, after all? It's a gut punch to the idea that immigrants are no more dangerous than natives, and it doesn't matter which side logic is on. It's a strong appeal to emotions, and it's probably an effective one.

Wow, it would not have occurred to me to justify immigration restrictions (in a nation where we are basically all immigrants) based on the bad actions of a couple of individuals.  But since the Left recently tried to do exactly this with gun control, to justify restrictions on millions of law-abiding people based on the actions of one person, I guess they know what they are talking about.  The whole demagogic tendency is sickening.  While I would love to see radical immigration reform, including the right of most anyone to be legally present and working in this country (though not necessarily in line for citizenship or safety net benefits), I have pretty low expectations.

Drum gives a good answer, but the question he is asked reflects this pathetic kind of political opportunism

A few days ago, someone asked: Who are you secretly hoping the bombers turn out to be? My answer was, whatever kind of person is least likely to have any effect whatsoever on public policy.


  1. mesaeconoguy:

    It was the leftist Salon (David Sirota) which mused "Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American."

    Yet more actionable stupidity from leftists (a.k.a. the stupid people).

  2. john mcginnis:

    "... While I would love to see radical immigration reform, including the
    right of most anyone to be legally present and working in this country
    (though not necessarily in line for citizenship or safety net benefits),
    I have pretty low expectations."

    Why?? It probably deserves an answer.

    Why should we extend to other citizens of other nations the free unimpeded access when those nations themselves will not do the same? Mexico -- An American is specifically forbidden from being a pilot for AeroMexico. Owning trucking operations in Mexico without a `partner` is not allowed. You can't compete openly against the state petroleum interests. Foreign nationals cannot own property within 75kilometers of the coast. India -- go and try and get a work permit. Has not been a recorded case in over a decade.

    A level of reciprocity is due before we go opening the flood gates.

  3. gregnullet:

    @google-ebc7fb0b3d69db2a5d02dcc7b4fd1b07:disqus : You sort of shoot down your own argument by describing conditions in Mexico. The way they act, why shouldn't we take advantage of them by using the labor that they can't employ? f they were more open to foreign investment, they wouldn't depend on us so much for remittances from their ex-pats.

  4. SamWah:

    The Chechens came thru the immigration process. We supposedly have (est.) 12 million who didn't.

  5. Dick Gillette:

    It takes leadership, which can only come from the strongest player.

  6. Patrick Loftus:

    It would be insane to allow anyone who wants to work here to come whenever they choose. How do we refuse them social benefits? Are you going to turn away a woman giving birth at the hospital? Refuse to treat a badly injured person? Should we let them go hungry? Refuse public schooling for the illegal children?

    Many can agree that there are some special talents which should allow sensible exceptions to the immigration laws. When the negotiations start the push is for letting in everyone and usually favoring immigrants who can't help but rely on the welfare systems. Among the illegals there might be a Linus Pauling or Albert Einstein. Odds are the overwhelming majority will need taxpayer help for generations, maybe forever. Meanwhile we run trillion dollar deficits.

    We have quite a large under class now. In some cities the high school graduation rate is 50%. Many graduates have never seen an algebra or geometry class. Many are barely able to communicate with the written word. It would be socially beneficial for these people to mostly be able to support themselves. If we can stop the importation of more needy individuals, with their dependents, the bottom wages will gradually increase. Many businesses are only viable because the cost of their employees is subsidized by taxpayers. Some homeowners might have to remember lawn mowing. Others might need to paint their own homes. Imagine packing a lunch four out of five days. That is how middle class people recently lived.

    We are creating a huge resentful population who will demand redistribution. Can you blame them?

  7. FelineCannonball:

    An 8 year old and a 15 year old and their family applying for refugee status, asylum, and citizenship. No other class of citizen gets the type of scrutiny we're talking about here. They likely had a hundred page bio written up for asylum, individual interviews with asylum officers, everything gets picked over for the slightest evidence of deception -- basically does the asylum officer have any reason to disbelieve. Moving forward with citizenship is a pretty rigorous process too.

    Plenty of Beavis and Buttheads and more dangerous folks with birthright citizenship are accepted as citizens because of the location of birth. Bundy, Rudolf, Unabomber, etc.

  8. dmon:

    Why is it just assumed that opposition to amnesty is an emotionally driven argument? I would like to see one argument in favor of it that is actually based on rational considerations. The proponents are advocating setting up a huge magnet to draw people into this country, and I have never seen one analysis which indicates that there is any economic benefit to the United States whatsoever. Once here, besides the disproportionate use of social services, these people are encouraged to nurse every historic grievance against their host country. They are allowed to skirt or just ignore both the laws and customs of America. Their offspring, automatically naturalized, are granted affirmative action benefits, minority set-asides, and special legal rights which are unavailable to my children and for which I have to pay. As a final insult, they are allowed to maintain dual citizenship, meaning that in the event of a situation in which the interests of say Mexico and the U.S. contradict, we have a huge chunk of the population whose loyalty to America is dubious at best. All of the arguments in favor of amnesty boil down to vague handwaving. "Diversity is our strength"-sort of like Yugoslavia. "Immigrants help the economy" - Good - send 20 million of them to Zimbabwe immediately. "Free exchange of labor is a human right" - Fine- Israel and Mexico first, we'll follow. "They're doing the jobs Americans won't do" - like computer programming. As far as I'm concerned, supporting unbridled immigration is not only irrational, but pretty much suicidal.

  9. perlhaqr:

    Who cares what other countries do?

    Let them have more restrictions, and we fewer. If we turn off the entitlements faucet, but let anyone who wants to work come in, then we're more likely to have a vibrant economy. Other countries wish to place restrictions on an influx of capital to certain areas, and specifically to areas traditionally known for being economic powerhouses? All the more for us.

  10. Ted Rado:

    The sympathy for the poor who want to come to the US is driving the argument. Billions of people around the world have a lower standard of living that the US. Given the opportunity, we would be swamped with immigrants. Clearly, open borders are nonsense.
    The problem started with Reagan's amnesty program, which was followed by a massive influx of people who expected another amnesty. It appears they were right.
    The Japanese restrict immigration severely. They want to keep Japan Japanese. Is wanting to keep America American such a bad idea?
    Another point: If sympathy for the poor and downtrodden is the driver, Mexicans should be thrown out and those from even poorer countries admitted, such as Bangladesh, India, Africa, etc.
    I have every confidence that our glorious leaders in DC will screw this up royally and we will have an even bigger mess. A cool, calm, study is needed from which a rational policy emerges. That should then be enforced to the letter! No more illegal immigration after that. Period.

  11. MARK:

    Here is the immigration problem that the Boston issue highlights:

    1. We let some foreign people into the country based on political asylum. The argument of whether we should have done so is secondary, but on that point I question granting political asylum to Checknyan Muslims to begin with.

    2. The entire concept of the political asylum then becomes even more questionable when the recipients of the asylum return to their own country, either (like the father) moving back, or the son traveling.

    3. The FBI was informed about the possibilities of one of the oldest son being associated with fanatical Muslim religious groups. They "investigated" but found no "compelling evidence".

    4. The oldest son then travels back to Chechnya for several months, then is allowed to return to the United States with absolutely no investigation.

    5. We are "shocked and surprised" that such individuals return and commit terroristic acts.

    Here is the deal. Once the political issues that created asylum have ended, their visas should expire and they should return to their home country.

    Next, individuals that travel back to their home countries in Pakistan, Afghanstan, Checknya, and many other states that have regions that train and support terrorist should not have automatic return privileges. If they return to the United States, their communitcations, travel within, and activities should be under survelience. If the number of such returns are beyond what the FBI and other agencies can monitor, then such travel should be restricted to the level that can be monitored. That is, if the FBI can only manage to monitor 50 of these individuals, then only 50 return visas should be allowed. If these people do not like this, then they can stay in their own home countries.

    We are a free and open country. But that does not mean that the same should apply for non US citizens.

  12. john mcginnis:

    The issue equivalent opportunity. By not having competition for say airline pilots the market labor here is lowered. Further suppressed by Mexican pilots to be in competition for American pilots jobs.

  13. obloodyhell:



    Because we need to protect children!!

    Petition to Ban Pressure Cookers

    Yes, it's total snark. Vote for it anyway.

    Because we all know pressure cookers exist only to kill.



  14. obloodyhell:

    Frankly, ***I*** am still trying to figure out how and why it is that the USA and Israel are the ONLY nations in the world who get shit for protecting their borders.

    You can't go from the US into CANADA without passing through customs and having a "purpose" and that's probably the most lax attitude between two nations in the entire world.

  15. obloodyhell:

    }}} Is wanting to keep America American such a bad idea?

    Well, since America is a melting pot....

    No, the REAL problem is not the notion of people coming here.

    It's the VOLUME of them.

    This only goes through to 2000, but it more than amply shows how the influx of hispanics from mexico is different from EVERY other influx in US history -- Set the time back to 1880, the start, and set the nationality to anything but mexico. Then move it forward slowly. Now pick another non-mexican group. Do the same. Now try it for mexicans. The difference is REALLY obvious.
    And this is from US Census data, so go ahead, claim "bias". :-S

  16. nehemiah:

    Mark, good post. I believe the current immigration reform scheme taking shape says something like all illegals (I mean undocumented individuals) will step forward to identify themselves and after a background check they will receive clearance (subject to background results) to stay and work here legally.

    The problem, as we just saw with the older brother in Boston, is that we aren't that good at background checks. We are hamstrung by bureaucratic inefficiencies, a stovepipe mentality and political correctness. My guess is that nearly everyone who steps forward will be cleared to stay. We may benefit from knowing who they are, but don't kid yourself that the background check will protect us from dangerous elements who intend to do us harm.

    The FBI ("I" standing for Investigation) did a pretty okay job after the folks were killed or injured. But as a prevention resource, not so much.