Can’t Let the Boston Bombing Stop Immigration Reform

don't let things go up in smokeYouTubeBefore a suspect was even identified, some politicians opposed to immigration reform were using the Boston Marathon bombing to try to delay it. With the FBI now identifying two immigrants (refugee status) from Chechnya as suspects, the calls to delay immigration reform are getting louder.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), for example, said at today's immigration hearing he was worried about gaps and loopholes in the system and wondered how security checks could be "beefed up" to prevent people like the Boston bombing suspects from coming to America.  Last week I argued that Kermit Gosnell has as much to do with the debate about abortion laws as Adam Lanza does to the debate about gun control. I think the analogy works just as well in this situation. It's just as preposterous to believe a background check of some sort would’ve stopped the Boston Marathon bombing suspects from ever immigrating to the United States as it is to believe that a background check would’ve stopped Adam Lanza. The issue of restricting student visas from countries where terrorists might come from, for example, comes up every time a foreign terrorist plot is foiled, yet students are among the most highly-regulated foreigners that visit the United States.

Millions of immigrants, legal and otherwise, live in America. Their radicalization, at home or abroad, is exceedingly rare.  Those intent on harming America are unlikely to abide by any new immigration controls, and like most criminals, will find a way around them. Just as gun control laws, then, only serve to impede otherwise law-abiding people, so would new immigration controls.

Read J.D. Tuccille’s take down of the instinct to demand more control after any kind of deadly attack here, and I still stand by my call to grant amnesty to America’s illegal immigrants, which can you read here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Loopholes are our generation's sequesters: bad news!

  • forestgombosi39||

    Brody. I can see what your saying... Earl`s blog is amazing, last friday I got themselves a Jaguar E-type since getting a cheque for $4865 this-past/five weeks and-in excess of, ten grand this past month. this is certainly my favourite job Ive ever had. I actually started five months/ago and straight away startad bringin home at least $87 per-hr. I work through this link tinyurl.com/d8v6duz
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  • ||

    ...yet students are among the most highly-regulated foreigners that visit the United States.

    A highly-regulated foreigner being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep immigrants out of the country shall not be infringed.

  • Hugh Akston||

    No classroom really needs more than 15 students.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    High capacity classrooms! Assault classrooms!

  • Nazdrakke||

    That's nice, but you know it's coming. Team Red will jerk it's knee, Team Blue will call them all racists, Team Red will get pissed and double down, Team Blue will double down on the invective, yada yada and so on.

    I've seen this movie before, but it seems to be the only one they show.

  • Acosmist||

    If Team Red is Republican leaders, they will grovel and apologize. For what? I have no idea. But they'll ram amnesty through even quicker, lest someone think them racist.

  • No Amnesty||

    "I've seen this movie before, but it seems to be the only one they show."

    Gee, I wonder why that is? Could it be that American workers don't want to be fired from their jobs either for Repubs to send them to Mexico or Dems to bring Mexicans to their jobs.

  • C. Anacreon||

    "Day took ar jerbs!"

  • RightNut||

    Dey turk err jurbs!

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Now look what you did, Nazdrakke! You opened the floodgates...

  • Nazdrakke||

    Oops.. Wrong Dog Whistle..

  • LTC(ret) John||

    So the derp invasion is going to be pinned on you - sorry.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Actually, I think we're about to hear some bipartisan anti-immigration talk.

  • ||

    Is the Gang of 8 also trying to tackle immigrant refugees too? If not, then what difference does it make?

  • Tim||

    If we can blame all gun owners for the crimes of one maniac, we can, indeed should blame all immigrants for what these two did.

  • Calidissident||

    Or we could not do that in both cases. A radical concept, I know

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Woah.

    Mind. Blown.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Immigrants don't kill people, guns kill people.

  • Old Johnnie Goggabie||

    Cosmotarians and Marxists. Two peas in a pod.

  • Zeb||

    Durrrrrrrrrrrrrr

  • ||

    Just what a a Cosmarxtarian would say!

  • Zeb||

    I'm just killing time until the next cocktail party.

  • XM||

    One of the brothers was an American citizen. The 9/11 hijackers were here legally on visas. The US government deemed them safe.

    The parallel to the gun control issue is so obvious. Of course, it's not illegal to own guns in this country. Crossing the border without going though any sort of background check is. So as rare as violence is, those who want undocumented aliens to receive citizenship with no strings attached are more "enablers" of violence than the NRA is.

  • ||

    "We just want to draft legislation that will allow all illegal gun owners to come out of the shadows, that's all. We don't care how you obtained your gun or how long you've owned your gun. It would be immoral to just round up every illegal gun owner and strip him of his preferred item for self-defense."

    -Alternate Universe

  • Calidissident||

    "So as rare as violence is, those who want undocumented aliens to receive citizenship with no strings attached are more "enablers" of violence than the NRA is."

    I fail to see how either group enables violence.

  • ||

    I find the alt-text/picture combination to be mildly tasteless. Which is just irritating. This is god damned HitampersandRun, either be all journalistically polite and shit, or be total assholes like the rest of us. If you're gonna snark, do it right for chrissakes.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Everything that happens in the world is proof of my theory!

  • MWG||

    YES WE CAN!... oh wait.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I just read some of Tulpa's posts regarding his "law".

    Fuck. God damn. Some people don't know when to stop hurling diarrhea out of their mouth (or fingertips).

  • AlmightyJB||

    Hey CNN, if you've been reporting it all freaking day it is not "breaking news".

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), for example, said at today's immigration hearing he was worried about gaps and loopholes in the system and wondered how security checks could be "beefed up" to prevent people like the Boston bombing suspects from coming to America.

    Telepaths, duh.

    We'll put them under the umbrella of the Ministry of Love.

  • Nazdrakke||

    That's Miniluv you thought-criminal!

  • No Amnesty||

    Here's a question: what do these mohamedian immigrants bring to America, other than rude gas station clerks? How about an immigration plan designed to benefit American citizens? How about we consider the economic effects on working Americans? How about the we have the party we all voted for represent the views of 90% of its voters, who don't want amnesty, instead of 17% of the population who didn't vote for them?

  • Zeb||

    How about you mind your own damn business? I don't owe any employment I have to offer to Americans over anyone else. The country is not collectively owned by its citizens.

    And which party did who all vote for?

  • No Amnesty||

    "How about you mind your own damn business?"

    My country is my business. I'm a patriot.

    "And which party did who all vote for?"

    The Republican party.

  • Zeb||

    "My country is my business."

    It may be your in the sense that you are a citizen, but you don't own the country. It's my business too and I want immigration and migration for workers to be easier.

    "The Republican party."

    I think you are in the wrong place.

  • No Amnesty||

    The majority of Americans want legal immigration reduced. But the GOP doesn't represent its base anymore.

  • ||

    [Citation needed]

  • Calidissident||

    I feel like this guy and Tony would get along well in an argument on the holy sanctity of majority rule

  • C. Anacreon||

    Wrong website, dimwit.

    Jeez, what is it with all these weirdo posters recently? Did they just get high-speed internet at Chin Dribble Acres?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Chin Dribble Acres, featuring our high speed, wi-fi Interderp Cafe?

  • ||

    You're right we should think about what the economic effect is on working Americans. So we should have completely open borders, which is the most beneficial to everyone.

  • No Amnesty||

    You really believe that horseshit? How are millions of low-skilled immigrants going to benefit the working class? You need to learn about the law of supply and demand. More supply, lower price. Are these immigrants going to offset that by creating more economic growth? Why? All they provide is cheap labor. That can lead to more production in turn, but only assuming that other costs do not matter, but other costs do matter. For example, there is only so much land to farm, having ten times as many farm-laborers is not going to lead to ten times as much produce. Libertarian vodoo economics is just that, vodoo.

  • Zeb||

    You also apparently need to learn about the law of supply and demand. If there is no demand for cheap low-skill labor, then the low-skill immigrants will stop coming, as has happened during the last several years of economic slowdown.

  • No Amnesty||

    How do you measure "lack of demand?" Suppose you have ten percent unemployment. Would this mean no immigration in an open borders state? NO!!! Look at Mexico(or other countries, like Nigeria, immigration would increase dramatically if the border was open). It might have an even larger unemployment rate. Even if it had a lower rate, the wages would be a lot less, thus, a 90% chance of a job that pays 5$/hour is better than 5$/day.

  • Calidissident||

    "How do you measure "lack of demand?"

    The market measures it.

    "Look at Mexico"

    Yes we should. Net immigration with Mexico has been negative since the recession started

  • No Amnesty||

    And how do we know what the market measures?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • No Amnesty||

    So when the price of labor in the third world is the same as that of America immigration will cease? Checkmate.

  • Calidissident||

    "So when the price of labor in the third world is the same as that of America immigration will cease? Checkmate."

    Not how it works. And there isn't just one uniform "price of labor" idiot

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You also apparently need to learn about the law of supply and demand. If there is no demand for cheap low-skill labor, then the low-skill immigrants will stop coming,

    What if the main demand for their labor is from socialist politicians looking for voters to enable them?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    You need to learn about the law of supply and demand.

    Name one other resource where having more of it reduces total utility? Why is labor the one exception?

  • No Amnesty||

    A factory having millions of gallons of oil when you only need thousands does not hurt the owner of the factory. Oil prices decline for him and he makes good money. Utility increases, from his perspective. But, look at labor in the same way. Having millions of laborers when you only need thousands is still good for the factory owner but is bad for the workers, because the prices for their labor decreases and their labor might not get bought at all.

  • ||

    A factory having millions of gallons of oil when you only need thousands does not hurt the owner of the factory. Oil prices decline for him and he makes good money.

    Huh? The factory owner has to warehouse millions of gallons of oil when he only needs thousands, and you say it does not hurt him? Oh, and the price of oil has declined while he was sitting on these millions of supply, and that does not hurt him either?

    Do you think before you type?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Name one other resource where having more of it reduces total utility? Why is labor the one exception?

    1) Name one other resource that the government actively suppresses.

    2) Total utility does not mean that the clearing price will be lower with a higher supply. Which is great for consumer, not so much for suppliers.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    What do YOU bring to America?

    People shouldn't need to justify their right to go about their lives without being hassled.

  • No Amnesty||

    Immigrants can go about their lives, go about their lives back to their homelands. Their homelands are hellholes? Gee, wonder why.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *TO

  • No Amnesty||

    We all know how good that turned out for the native Americans...

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Are you even trying to make sense anymore?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    And you can go about your life back in whereever your ancestors originally came from too. Again, if we're all gonna vote on who's allowed to state, why limit it to immigrants? Why do you deserve to stay.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Hey, NA's ancestors raped, maimed, killed those injuns, and took their land fair and square!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And you wonder why people like NA are worried about become the 21st century's injuns?

  • Calidissident||

    "represent the views of 90% of its voters, who don't want amnesty,"

    Source?

  • DanD||

    Well said, Ed. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

  • Zeb||

    Thinking that a few more restrictions on immigration woudl stop this is about as sensible as thinking that background checks for private sales would stop mass shootings. In both cases you are putting a huge burden on innocent people to try to stop extremely few crazy people. And in neither case would the new rules being proposed have prevented the tragedies that they are in reaction to.

    The only thing to do is clean up, try to catch the bad guys and move on. I'd much rather be able to travel around in a city without having to worry about getting my bag or person searched than to have a slightly smaller chance of getting blown up by a bomb, which is an incredibly tiny chance to begin with.

  • No Amnesty||

    How would not letting these people immigrate have not stopped them?

  • Zeb||

    Well, if you need everything explained to you.

    TO keep these people out would have pretty much required keeping everyone out. The alleged bombers came as refugees when they were children. Not exactly high on the suspicious immigrant chart. The parallel to that in the gun debate would be complete bans and confiscation, which may have stopped mass shootings too. So, yes, a complete ban in immigration including refugees might have prevented the bombing. But I don't think that is a good idea any more than a complete ban on private weapons ownership.

  • No Amnesty||

    False choice all the way. We could still let people from Canada, Britain, and other countries in an restricted, or at least reduced, immigration from mohamedians.

  • ||

    You probably don't realize how many Canadians and Brits are naturalized citizens, originally from Muslim countries. I am not sure if that will impede or encourage your racism. Neither outcome is particularly interesting, considering you are obviously a very racist one-note troll.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    "Mohamedians"? How's life back in the 19th century?

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, and we could also severely restrict who can own guns. Maybe make people pass a psych evaluation and get a recommendation from their local police before they can own a weapon. But I find that an unacceptable burden.

    And if you are going to use a deliberately archaic word for adherents of Islam, I'd go with "musselmen".

  • Stormy Dragon||

    NA is just such a zafty snoutfair that he is frequently driven to a pussyvan by his desire to pizzle those foreign pismires!

  • Nazdrakke||

    Well, looks like the right wing knee jerking has commenced.

  • Nazdrakke||

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, and Hitler's mom could have drowned him in the tub.

  • ||

    Nevertheless he would have been subject to removal for the arrest itself.

    As a Green Card holder myself, I really oughta know this, but is that true? Anyone can be arrested at any damn time, especially on charges as potentially un-provable as domestic violence. That seems like a really ridiculous reason to deport someone, absent a conviction of an actual crime.

  • Zeb||

    I would hope not. Then any cop with a grudge could fuck up your whole life.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Zeb, you say that like it's not already the case..

  • Zeb||

    I thought of that after I posted. I guess it just makes it a bit easier.

  • ||

    Hmm, it seems Clinton beefed up deportable offenses in 1996, sez Wikipedia. I am not sure if arrest alone will cut it, but it sounds like there is definitely some fucked up shit in that bill.

  • Paul.||

    Wow... I called this one.

  • edcoast||

    Good thing it's not troll-free Friday.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If immigration reform fails, it won't be because of the bombing in Boston. It'll be becasue after the president's failure to pass a gun control bill, Republicans no longer feel like resistance to the president's will is necessarily futile.

  • Boisfeuras||

    I'm ambivalent on immigration, but the doublethink at work is astounding. Senator Bitchtits, for example, sees no contradictions here:

    (a) Random psycho steals guns and murders people: A totally legitimate pretext to infringe upon fundamental human rights in violation of an explicit Constitutional protection.

    (b) Random psychos immigrate to U.S. and murder people: A totally illegitimate pretext to change federal law as authorized in accordance with a provision in the Constitution ("Rule of Naturalization").

  • MissMalevolent||

    As long as they're willing to learn the English language, and pledge allegiance to our flag and support this country and break ties with all other allegiances to other countries, religions etc...I'm fine.

    The problem is when we open our shit up without asking anyone to join this experiment in democracy. We instead twist ourselves into pretzels to conform to their way of thinking...this is not going to bode well for us in the end.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yes, because bending other people to our way of thinking is what being an American is all about.

  • KRoyall||

    And do you believe our government will make sure that happens? Are they even capable of doing it? No and no.

  • Jayburd||

    Harry Browne used to say "I think anyone who wants to enter this country should be able to as long as you take down the 'Free Lunch' sign at the border". Otherwise it's just politicians buying votes.

  • Homple||

    ^^Exactly. The argument that "they only come here to get work and improve their lives because free market...." ignores (1) our welfare state and
    (2) politicians' use of welfare goodies to buy votes.

  • MidasRex||

    "and I still stand by my call to grant amnesty to America’s illegal immigrants, which can you read here."

    I wish you had started with that; it would have saved me a few moments of reading the rest of the dreck in your piece had I known you were such a nitwit.

  • PD Quig||

    So, if we can't let the bombing stop immigration reform, can we at least slow it down enough that we can read the 800 pages and debate the myriad of issues associated with reform? How about that? Baby steps.

    Actually, we don't really need immigration reform. We just need two laws:

    1) make E-verify a universal requirement for every business in the country. First offense: a $100K fine for any business that hires an illegal by failing to verify their eligibility. Second offense: absolute, permanent revocation of their business license. Period.

    2) expand E-verify use to cover all government benefits. No valid SSN, no benefits. Period.

    Then stand aside to avoid the stampede of all those now 'living in the shadows' as they leave this great country. Once that is out of the way, maybe we can update our immigration policy so that it actually benefits the United States.

    What a concept.

  • ||

    How about these two laws:

    1) A new visa that allows unlimited legal residence and employment and has neither quota or expiration. Receiving this visa requires passing a background check that can take no more than two weeks. Present illegal immigrants can receive this visa without penalty. Since virtually no immigrants would be illegal, there would be no reason for employers to hire illegal immigrants, and therefore no need for employers to use E-verify.

    2) I can live with that.

  • KRoyall||

    The bill pending is crap and shouldn't go forward anyway. We have 90 million American citizens on the sidelines now, we don't have jobs for these people. The rule of law and our national sovereignty should mean something.

    If illegals can have a magic wand waved over them by government, then equal protection is meaningless. Where do I get amnesty for any misdeeds I may commit? That Libertarians are supporting this garbage betrays their idiotic, absolutist position on open borders.

    It is also an insult to the American people that 8 senators can cut some sort of deal behind closed doors and attempt to ram it through similar to how ObamaCare was passed. Where is the public debate on all of the points in this 850 page monstrosity?

  • ||

    The rule of law and our national sovereignty should mean something.

    Only if used to secure unalienable individual rights rather than to abrogate them.

    Where do I get amnesty for any misdeeds I may commit?

    If your "misdeeds" violated no one's rights, you get your amnesty immediately as far as I'm concerned!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement