How was it the brothers Tsarnaev were guilty of offenses that should have revoked their legal status AND clearly emitting all kinds of violent warning signs (the “Terrorists” Youtube channel should have been a clue…) – and yet remained at large, free to kill and maim in the name of Allah?
From VDH’s column today:
Barack Obama has a habit of trying to energize his legislative agenda by stoking the fires of emotionally charged current events — and in ways usually illogical and incoherent. …arguments to shame opponents — in the president’s words, “lying” opponents — into accepting the administration’s proposals.
It’s just Chicago-style community organizing, writ large, imao.
After recounting the myriad ways in which the bombers were in violation of our immigration laws, the author writes, “Unlike Sandy Hook and gun control, the Tsarnaev case teaches real lessons about immigration.”
In short, if a Tamerlan Tsarnaev cannot be deported, then perhaps no resident alien can be under any circumstances.
Or, as Jonah Goldberg points out, they weren’t just deport-able, they were obviously high-risk candidates for terrorism:
The FBI interviewed Tamerlan and his family. It all went nowhere, which is understandable given the circumstances in 2011. But, the guy wasn’t on a list! How many people could the FBI have interviewed in the Boston area as a potential terrorist? Five hundred? Five thousand? I really have no idea. But I bet you whatever the number is, it’s smaller than the number of names in the Boston PD’s mug books. Mitt Romney had binders full of women when he was governor of Massachusetts. But apparently the Massachusetts FBI field office doesn’t have binders full of potential terrorists at the ready? Or, if it does have such lists, then Tamerlan’s YouTube channel, his ominous travel, the warnings of the Russian FSB: none of these things are enough to get you on it. As a friend said to me yesterday “Who do you have to blow-up to get on a terror watch list?”
Back to VDH again, on why this likely won’t change:
But what do such theoreticals matter if, for reasons of laxity or political correctness or connectedness, these statutes are ignored — and, in the Boston case, ignored to a degree that led to murder and mayhem on a vast scale?
These paradoxes will resonate with those skeptical of comprehensive immigration reform. We expect boilerplate and loud administration assertions of border security, well-publicized benchmarks for self-sufficiency, grand talk of the avoidance of crime, and continued emphasis on long-term residence, but — once de facto amnesty is conceded — all these requirements, like most of current immigration law, will not be worth the paper they are written on.
One final thought about the political use and abuse of contemporary horror. This generation of Americans has a propensity to prefer the showy and dramatic — but ultimately irrelevant — response to crises as psychosocial compensation for the fear or inability to embrace a useful, but difficult or controversial, remedy. We don’t dare deal with the felony, so we strut about addressing the misdemeanor…
We know this much about this therapeutic and dishonest age: When the next horrific act occurs, one of two things will follow. Either we will rush to pass laws that will make us feel good but do nothing to address the existential crisis. Or we will be silent about enacting reforms of our existing flawed laws that might have prevented the horror, but would make us feel far too uncomfortable.
Bret Stephens steps back to make a broader point in the Wall Street Journal. From The Evil in Boston:
That’s why so much of the commentary about Boston seems so curiously off point. It treats the horror of what was done, and the nihilism that was required to do it, as mere givens. Why spend any time staring mutely into the abyss when we could be speaking sagely about, say, the alienation of angry young Muslim men? Or the pros and cons of Twitter during the course of a manhunt? Or, for that matter, the uplifting example shown by the people of Boston in caring for the wounded and keeping their cool while the Tsarnaevs were still on the loose?
Aren’t these all fitter subjects for a constructive discussion?
Maybe they are. But we cannot begin to comprehend what happened in Boston until we think longer about the evil that has been done there. Before you go into constructive mode, reflect on what, and who, has been destroyed. Ask yourself: By whom? In whose name? For the sake of what?