What Caused the Second Boston Massacre?

[The First Boston Massacre - 1770]

Dogs are generally sweet lovable little guys and gals who love being petted, who protect our homes and children, and who can generally be persuaded to shit on our neighbors' lawns and not on ours.  Occasionally they bark too much or barf at inopportune times, occasionally one will bite someone, but we still enjoy having them around.

Most pit bulls are equally well-behaved and kindly.  It is rare for a pit bull to harm anyone.  It is rare for a pit bull to kill a child.  But when when one reads of a dog killing a small child that dog is not a poodle, nor a dachshund, nor a Labrador retriever.  It is a pit bull.

Few pit bulls ever harm anyone.  It is not fair to say that pit bulls harm children, nor is it true.  Most pit bulls are sweet good neighbors.  But it is also true that only pit bulls kill children.

So when Congress is deliberating what kinds of dogs to permit to be imported into the United States, should we import lots of pit bulls?  Or should we say, that as harmless as almost all pit bulls are, we should reduce or close the quota on pit bulls that may be imported, and increase the number of Saint Bernards and Irish setters that come in?

It would be unfair and unreasonable to discriminate among dogs already in the country, but as to importing them, shouldn't we limit the number of pit bull coming in from other countries?  We are bound to treat all dogs and their owners equally once in the country.  But we are under no such obligation as to dogs outside the country that are sought to be brought in.  As to which breeds we permit to be imported, we have nothing to consult except our national self-interest.  And it is not in our national interest to import pit bulls in preference to Afghans or foxhounds that might otherwise be imported in their stead.

This is true no matter how nice and sweet almost all pit bulls are after arriving.

Suppose we are not talking about importing dogs but people, about immigration.  There are as many nations in the world as there are breeds of dogs.  Which ones should we admit and which exclude or limit?

Once people are here it is unthinkable to us to discriminate against or among them.  But while they are living in their own countries seeking admission to ours, we are in no way bound to consider their interests but only our own.  We exclude people with communicable diseases, mental defectives, criminals, welfare dependents, addicts, alcoholics, and so on, not because it is fair but because it is in our interest.

It is true that, as with pit bulls, almost all Muslims are well-behaved honest citizens.  When bombs are placed at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, almost all Muslims are as horrified as anyone else.  But  just as when a child is killed by a dog, that dog is a pit bull, when people are massacred with bombs in Boston, the perpetrators are Muslims.

It would be unthinkable to discriminate against Muslims already in the US on the basis of the acts of a few.  But it is simply stupid to pretend there is no connection when we have seen the same pattern here and abroad over and over again.

People living abroad who seek admission to the US have no right to come here.  We choose which ones to admit and which to exclude.  Which ones we should admit is not an issue of fairness but of self-interest.  Reducing the number of people admitted from Muslim countries can and should be compensated by increases in the number of people admitted from China, India, the Philippines, Korea, Latin America, Africa, and so on.

People from those countries are just as law-abiding and kind and good citizens as immigrants from Muslim countries, but they do not come with the added cost of a handful of terrorists among them.

This is not rocket science and it is not likely that Washington does not see the obvious as well as anyone else.   One cannot help but wonder why the government would pursue such a policy.  The history of immigration policy in the US is a long sad tale of racism and bigotry from the McCarran Acts of the 1920's and on.   Minor reforms started only in the time of Lyndon Johnson and have progressed only slightly since then.  One cannot help but wonder what the reason might be for admitting so many from Muslim countries when so many from other countries are clamoring equally loudly for admission.

Given that racist history, one cannot help but wonder if part of the reason could be that Muslim countries west of Pakistan are predominantly white, while the peoples of India, China, the Philippines, Korea, Africa, and Latin America are not.

Call me a bleeding-heart liberal if you will, but I would rather see a Tiger Woods-colored America without bombs than a lily white country that pretends away its racism at the expense of seeing its citizens massacred.

8:45pm West Coast time.  
Now that they have arrested suspect #2 and have been more forthcoming about what authorities knew, my point is amplified and endorsed by events.  When the Russians told our government about the older brother Tamerlane, the FBI sent agents to talk to him.  Presumably they gave him the "We know all about you, we've got our eyes on you, so don't try anything or we will come down on you like a metric ton of bricks."  But having made the speech, there was nothing else they could do.  

We don't have preventive detention in the US.  Unless and until Tamerlane committed a crime our authorities could do nothing against him, even knowing how dangerous he was and how likely to commit a terrorist act (which is precisely what the Russians were warning us about).   Unless he violated the terms of his immigration status, they couldn't even deport him.  The only preventive measure open to the United States government would have been not to admit him to the US in the first place.   That would have worked.   But it wasn't what we did.