Calls to Delay Immigration Reform Because of the Boston Bombing Offer a Lesson in Political Argument by Headline


It's hard to see calls to delay consideration of the immigration reform bill because of the Boston bombing as anything other than convenient political excuse making. People who opposed the immigration bill before the Boston attacks say they want it delayed because…well, they don't really say.  "We need to take a look at the big picture," said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). "Just push it back a month or two," said Sen. Dan Coats (R-Indiana). These aren't reasons at all. But these legislators opposed the bill before, and Boston offers an easy news hook on which to hang their opposition. It's political argument by headline: Whatever's making news must justify the position these legislators already held. 

Of course, it would be difficult to come up with a good reason to connect the two events. As Bloomberg View's Evan Soltas points out, the Boston bombing and the immigration bill just don't have much to do with each other. Calls to delay the bill don't really make sense. And neither, in turn, do calls to speed it up. Soltas talked to Edward Alden, an immigration policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations:  

"I don't think there's anything that could have been done through the immigration system that would have had any impact on this attack," Alden said. "And, conversely, I don't think there's anything in the immigration reform bill that would have any impact, either. It appears to be completely irrelevant, given the intelligence we have now on the Tsarnaev brothers."

"Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev emigrated from Russia to the U.S. with their parents at ages 8 and 15. Unless there's an immigration system that can detect potential for radicalization 11 years ahead," Alden said, "senators who bring up Boston are blowing smoke."

That's not to argue that the immigration framework is all great shakes. The push for workplace checks is worrisome, as is all the huffy chatter about increased border security. But anything that was worthwhile about the immigration overhaul before the Boston marathon bombing is still worthwhile. And conversely, problems that may have existed with the proposal before are still problems. But the Boston bombing provides no strong reason to slow down the process, or, for that matter, to speed it up.  

NEXT: Ventura County Becomes Porn Hub as Film Makers Escape LA County Restrictions

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. One too many offers in that headline.

  2. No one is going to like any immigration reform these dipshits ultimately crank out, so what’s the difference?

  3. Never let a crisis go to waste.

  4. “”””Of course, it would be difficult to come up with a good reason to connect the two events.”””

    How about because the bombers came to the USA under the refugee program and the Comprehensive Immigration bill includes the refugee program.

    “”””Subtitle D?Asylum and Refugee Provisions
    Sec. 3401. Time limits and efficient adjudication of genuine asylum claims.
    Sec. 3402. Refugee family protections.
    Sec. 3403. Clarification on designation of certain refugees.
    Sec. 3404. Asylum determination efficiency.
    Sec. 3405. Stateless persons in the United States.
    Sec. 3406. U visa accessibility.
    Sec. 3407. Representation at overseas refugee interviews.””””…..286495cf42

  5. Barry and Rahm have best explained the politician’s mentality on matters like these: They have a limited window in which emotions reach a fever pitch in order to pass legislation they couldn’t otherwise pass.

    Given the failure of the background check bill, it seems that fewer people are williing to go along with it.

  6. Isn’t Rand Paul saying the same thing? I’m surprised he’s taken that view.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.