Following the defeat of gun control legislation, President Obama had this to say:
… if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, … we had an obligation to try.
Shouldn’t that same philosophy extend to all federal policy?
On the day of the Boston Marathon, three persons, including one 8-year old boy, were murdered, and dozens more were badly maimed.
In the wake of 9/11, it became clear that thousands of Americans died as a result of grossly negligent immigration policy, procedures and oversight. Radicalized muslims overstayed their visas and roamed the country freely, learning to fly passenger planes with the intent to commit mass murder. The federal government didn’t care that they were here illegally and didn’t bother to monitor them or track them down.
As justification of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was often said, “if we don’t fight them over there, we’ll have to fight them here at home.” It begged the question that no one dared to ask: why would we have to fight them here at home if we don’t let them in? The most obvious corrective action that needed to be taken after 9/11 was a halt to the importation of high-risk immigrants – specifically, muslims from countries with a track record of Islamic extremism – and the revocation of visas and deportation of those already here. An extreme measure? Sure, but justifiable.
Those who knew the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombings all express astonishment that the “nice guys” they thought they knew could have done such a thing. If cold, calculating killer terrorists are able to hide their intentions so well from those closest to them, what chance does the federal government have of identifying potential terrorists during their screenings of visa applicants? And, as we all do, young immigrant children will eventually begin the process of exploring their own identity. Once they discover that their roots lie in a region that’s a hotbed for Islamic extremism, it’s inevitable that some will begin to identify themselves with that faction. Even if it’s a tiny percentage of them, does it really make any sense to take that chance? The world is teeming with people eager to emigrate to the United States. Immigration policy that’s blind to the risks associated with immigrants from certain countries is criminally negligent. If you or I committed some careless act that resulted in another’s death, we’d be charged with manslaughter.
Yet, nothing has changed. Immigration policy remains as liberal and lax as ever. Even in the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. granted visas to these people from Chechnya – a region that was a hotbed for Islamic extremists who have murdered hundreds of people, including children. The federal government knew full well that it was taking a risk with such immigrants. It knew that they were like cheap grass seed – that a few weeds would sprout here and there. But it calculated that the supposed macroeconomic benefits derived from population growth was worth a few American lives.
This is a bit off-topic for this blog, whose mission it is to argue for reduced rates of immigration out of concern for the harm done to our economy by the immigration-driven population growth that worsens unemployment faster than it grows overall demand for products. Such liberal immigration policy (merely a continuance by the Obama administration of the same policies pursued by Republican and Democratic administrations preceding it for decades) is destructive on so many levels beyond worsening unemployment. It dooms us to forever be dependent on foreign oil. It makes the challenge of reducing our carbon footprint even more impossible. And now we see once again that it needlessly raises the risk of terrorism.
Congress has decided to postpone debate on the immigration bill designed to streamline, liberalize and increase overall immigration. Why? Because the connection between immigration policy and the Boston Marathon bombings is so evident. It’s been merely postponed and not permanently tabled because they’re hoping that you’ll forget.