FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Did Obama “Radicalize” the Tsarnaevs?

by SHELDON RICHMAN

If the Brothers Tsarnaev’s bombing at the Boston Marathon is an argument against immigration, then Tim McVeigh’s bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City is an argument against reproductive freedom.

Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev came to the United States from the Caucasus as youngsters. On what grounds should they have been barred from the country? That their family was Muslim? Does that mean all Muslims should be forbidden from immigrating? And if so, wouldn’t that mean no Muslim should be allowed to visit the United States either?

That’s where this silly line of thinking leads: the exclusion of an entire group of people because of their families’ religious affiliation. Yet this is a position embraced by many conservatives, such asLaura Ingraham, a radio talk-show host, author Ann Coulter, and Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity. After the bombings, Hannity said, “If people are coming from countries where perhaps they grew up under Sharia law, I think we can make a safe assumption that they have been radicalized. I think allowing foreign students into the country without investigative background checks that are exhaustive is a mistake and it’s putting Americans at risk.”

What would an exhaustive investigative background check on 16-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev and 9-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev have revealed? Not much, I imagine. About as much as would have been revealed by a background check on 16-year-old Tim McVeigh. Perhaps Hannity and his ilk would find it simpler just to exclude anyone coming from a Muslim country. But then they would have a problem with the prospect that an immigrant might convert to Islam once he or she is in the United States. Would they prohibit that? Or perhaps they would deport anyone converting to Islam. They might have a constitutional problem expelling an American citizen who became a Muslim, but their stated devotion to limited government has not deterred them in the past.

Authentic advocates of freedom — who understand that the freedom to cross arbitrary national boundaries without first securing government permission is a natural right — are appalled by the fear mongers’ attempt to seize on the Boston Marathon bombing to score points for the anti-immigrant cause. The fear mongers are trying their hardest to break the momentum of even the bogus immigration “reform” moving through Congress. Bogus “reform”? Yes, indeed. The consensus that has emerged, and which the xenophobic right can’t abide, holds that those human beings who have come here without government permission ought to have a pathway to legal status — but only if they pay fines and taxes and learn English. This act of alleged humanitarianism would be combined with a reinforced border and revised rules to make sure that only immigrants of a quality “we” can use are allowed into the country.

Hannity & Co. call this amnesty, while fearing that the border won’t be secure enough.

Like these conservatives, I believe amnesty is inappropriate — but for a very different reason: The people who crossed the border without permission did nothing wrong, so there’s no offense to forgive. But didn’t they break the law? To be sure, they violated a statute, but as natural-law advocates have long taught, a statute that conflicts with natural law and natural rights is no law at all. Thus, so-called illegal immigrants, who are merely people without government papers — big deal! — should just be left alone: no penalty, no fees, no back taxes, and no hounding them to learn English. And the welcome mat should be put out for those who wish to come here. We’d all benefit.

The government should no more engineer the immigrant population than it should engineer the native population. Freedom really should count for something. (Note that conservatives don’t think free enterprise includes the freedom to hire whoever is willing to work.)

But let’s not deny the potential danger that someone who comes to this country might want revenge against Americans for a perceived injustice. There’s actually a good way for the government to reduce the chances of this happening: it can stop invading, occupying, bombing, droning, embargoing, and torturing people in foreign countries.

Who “radicalized” the Brothers Tsarnaev? My candidate is President Obama.

Sheldon Richman is vice president and editor at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) in Fairfax, Va. He can be reached through his blog, Free Association.

 

Sheldon Richman, author of the forthcoming America’s Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited, keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society, and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com.  He is also the Executive Editor of The Libertarian Institute.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

January 23, 2017
John Wight
Trump’s Inauguration: Hail Caesar!
Mark Schuller
So What am I Doing Here? Reflections on the Inauguration Day Protests
Patrick Cockburn
The Rise of Trump and Isis Have More in Common Than You Might Think
Binoy Kampmark
Ignored Ironies: Women, Protest and Donald Trump
Gregory Barrett
Flag, Cap and Screen: Hollywood’s Propaganda Machine
Gareth Porter
US Intervention in Syria? Not Under Trump
L. Ali Khan
Trump’s Holy War against Islam
Gary Leupp
An Al-Qaeda Attack in Mali:  Just Another Ripple of the Endless, Bogus “War on Terror”
Norman Pollack
America: Banana Republic? Far Worse
Bob Fitrakis - Harvey Wasserman
We Mourn, But We March!
Kim Nicolini
Trump Dump: One Woman March and Personal Shit as Political
William Hawes
We Are on Our Own Now
Martin Billheimer
Last Tango in Moscow
Colin Todhunter
Development and India: Why GM Mustard Really Matters
Mel Gurtov
Trump’s America—and Ours
David Mattson
Fog of Science II: Apples, Oranges and Grizzly Bear Numbers
Clancy Sigal
Who’s Up for This Long War?
Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
Steve Horn
Under Tillerson, Exxon Maintained Ties with Saudi Arabia, Despite Dismal Human Rights Record
John Berger
The Nature of Mass Demonstrations
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Mel Gurtov
Donald Trump’s Lies And Team Trump’s Headaches
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
Norman Solomon
Trump, the Democrats and the Logan Act
David Macaray
Attention, Feminists
Yves Engler
Demanding More From Our Media
James A Haught
Religious Madness in Ulster
Dean Baker
The Economics of the Affordable Care Act
Patrick Bond
Tripping Up Trumpism Through Global Boycott Divestment Sanctions
Robert Fisk
How a Trump Presidency Could Have Been Avoided
Robert Fantina
Trump: What Changes and What Remains the Same
David Rosen
Globalization vs. Empire: Can Trump Contain the Growing Split?
Elliot Sperber
Dystopia
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail