Mark Steyn takes a look at it in his National Review article. (H/T Doug Ross)
Eight-year-old Martin [Richards] was killed; his sister lost a leg; and his mother suffered serious brain injuries. What did the Richards and some 200 other families do to deserve having a great big hole blown in their lives? Well, according to the New York Times, they and you bear collective responsibility. Writing on the op-ed page, Marcello Suarez-Orozco, dean of the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, and Carola Suarez-Orozco, a professor at the same institution, began their ruminations thus:
“The alleged involvement of two ethnic Chechen brothers in the deadly attack at the Boston Marathon last week should prompt Americans to reflect on whether we do an adequate job assimilating immigrants who arrive in the United States as children or teenagers.”
[…]How hard would it be for Americans to be less inadequate when it comes to assimilating otherwise well-adjusted immigrant children? Let us turn once again to Mrs. Tsarnaev:
“They are going to kill him. I don’t care,” she told reporters. “My oldest son is killed, so I don’t care. I don’t care if my youngest son is going to be killed today. . . . I don’t care if I am going to get killed, too . . . and I will say Allahu Akbar!”
You can say it all you want, madam, but everyone knows that “Allahu Akbar” is Arabic for “Nothing to see here.” So, once you’ve cleared the streets of body parts, you inadequate Americans need to redouble your efforts.
It’s our fault that this happened. We didn’t supply Mrs. Tsarnaev with enough welfare money. We need to spend more on public schools and free health care and food stamps. At least, that’s how the left views it. That’s how the Obama administration views it. They would never deport people like the Boston bombers, because that would be “intolerant”.
Victor Davis Hanson explains how far the United States will go to avoid deporting welfare-collecting criminals:
Deportation is now politically incorrect, sort of like the T-word “terrorism” which the administration also seeks to avoid.
[…]Why were the Tsarnaevs granted asylum in the United States – and why were some of them not later deported? Officially, they came here as refugees. As ethnic Chechens and former residents of Kyrgyzstan, they sought “asylum” here from anti-Muslim persecution – given that Russia had waged a brutal war in Chechnya against Islamic militants.
Yes, the environment of Islamic Russia was and still can be deadly. But if the Tsarnaevs were supposedly in danger there, why did the father, Anzor, after a few years choose to return to Dagestan, Russia, where he now apparently lives in relative safety? Why did one of the alleged Boston bombers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, return to Russia for six months last year – given that escape from such an unsafe place was the very reason that the United States granted his family asylum in the first place?
[…]What, exactly, justifies deportation of immigrants of any status? Failure to find work and become self-supporting? Apparently not. The Tsarnaev family reportedly had been on public assistance. This is not an isolated or unusual instance.
[…]Should those residing here illegally at least avoid committing crimes and follow the rules of their adopted country? Apparently not – given that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a skilled boxer, was charged in 2009 with domestic violence against his girlfriend. His mother, Zubeidat, also back in Russia now, was reportedly arrested last year on charges of shoplifting some $1,600 in goods from a Boston-area store.
Meanwhile, skilled immigrants who come to this country and work for decades without getting so much as a speeding ticket can just go back where they came from. We don’t want them – we need to deport them. They are “bad” immigrants who need to go back where they came from. We want the welfare-collecting terrorist immigrants, instead. Like Mrs. Tsarnaev. She is a “good” immigrant who needs to be fast-tracked to permanent residency and citizenship.
Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security continues to ignore real terrorism and claim that white male gun owners are the real terrorists in their training material. Just like the FBI claims that pro-lifers are the real terrorists in their training material. The Obama administration isn’t serious about national security.
One thought on “New York Times editorial blames Americans for Boston Muslim terrorist attack”
Quite the contrary, Wintery: Obama is all too serious about national security. He wishes to secure the nation from “extremists,” defined as “Christians and those who disagree with him and point out his love for baby torture, dismembering, and murder.”