Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Thursday, September 29, 2016

As soon as it became clear that the two suspects in the Boston bombing were legal immigrants from Dagestan, a mostly Muslim republic in Russia’s North Caucasus, opponents of comprehensive immigration reform went on the attack.

Purposely outrageous Republican columnist Ann Coulter tweeted, “It’s too bad Suspect # 1 won’t be able to be legalized by Marco Rubio, now.”

Christian conservative radio host Bryan Fischer didn’t bother with nuance: “I think we can safely say that Rubio’s amnesty plan is DOA. And should be. Time to tighten, not loosen, immigration policy.”

And Republican senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), whose vote will help make or break any bill, made it clear that he feels the identity of the suspects should pause the momentum for reform.

“Given the events of this week, it’s important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system,” Grassley said. “While we don’t yet know the immigration status of the people who have terrorized the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out, it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system.”

“How can individuals evade authorities and plan such attacks on our soil?” he continued. “How can we beef up security checks on people who wish to enter the U.S.? How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?”

Critics of the bill have been trying to figure out a way to slow or stop reform for months. And the suspects in Boston may have finally given them the opportunity they’ve been hoping for.

The Republican establishment is so sure that immigration reform is necessary for the future of the GOP that they recommended it specifically as part of its “Growth and Opportunity Project” autopsy rebranding. Rubio took the lead and negotiated a compromise with a bipartisan “Gang of Eight” that fit the president’s guidelines for reform while emphasizing the border security important to the Republican base.

  • docb

    These people that gave free rein to the criminals and Al Queda need to be removed ASAP Then get in real patriots working for the American people not for the nra hucksters for profit lobbyists and the arms dealers!!

    • So you agree with the argument that criminals are law abiding citizens and follow any and all laws passed?

      Also I believe your fearless leader was the one who claimed credit for getting Bin Laden, but by killing the guy he threw fuel on the fire. He re-energized Al Qaeda by giving them a martyr to rally around instead of just letting Bin Laden die of old age, trapped in a cave.

      And real patriots? You mean the ones who love their country, their heritage, and their rights? The ones who hate any attempts by the government to infringe on them, even if it is an incremental infringement? Oh, you mean members of the NRA and others who support not only the second amendment, but all of them. The Constitution is not a document that needs re-interpreted as language changes. The document is part of the foundation of this country, written in plain English, clear as day. I think the term you’re looking for is comrade, not “real patriot”.

      • docb

        Another kindergarten graduate of the nra/repub troll course, we see! No, I do not agree with you naive posits and nra/ repub screed! Peddle it where you have credibility…and when you have experience, under your own name, glenn!

  • We are at war with a group of people who believe that WE either must become their flavor of Islam or die, no ifs ands or buts.
    Immigration as it relates to laborers is NOT a problem in this country when compared to legal visitors & those who acquire citizenship using the system with the intention of either converting US to Islam or killing US.
    Every time this topic comes about (about once a decade) the solution is to make them legal, not much of a solution, it just jerks the numbers around. We must ask ourselves WHY are they coming here? Specifically from Mexico a nation that is somewhere around the 4th largest oil producer in the world. WHY aren’t the people of Mexico getting their share of the proceeds from their oil?
    SO my ‘solution’ is send them all back & let them force their corrupt gov’t to share the wealth, it is theirs don’t you agree? Allowing them to come to the US is not solving the larger problem, their quality of life.
    But back to my original thought, revoke tax exempt status of Islamic Mosques & Islamic assocations & don’t let them into the US.
    Again we are at WAR with them, just ask them, just ask the victims of the Patriots Day Massacre, ask the Muslim terrorist that is now in custody, he’ll tell you.

    • walker442

      ‘We are at war with a group of people who believe that WE either must become their flavor of Islam or die, no ifs ands or buts.’

      No. You are ‘at war’ because of decades of disastrous US foreign policy in the middle east.

    • Allan Richardson

      Fair minded Americans are at war with a group of people who believe that all of us either must become their flavor of “Christianity” or have their personal freedoms curbed to agree with those “Christian” values.

      You do realize that the First Amendment does not allow one religion to be treated better or worse than others, right? Maybe we should revoke tax exempt status of ALL religious institutions EQUALLY. The tax burden on small churches would be minimal, since (like poor individuals) they would fall under the lowest tax bracket, but large wealthy churches and corrupt TV evangelists would have to contribute some of their wealth either to the country or to legitimate charitable causes (to get the deductions). Yes, mosques would have to pay too, in proportion to the number of believers and the amount of contributions they give.

      Ever since Jefferson had to attack the Barbary pirates, America has made clear to the world that we are a SECULAR government, and have no hatred of Islamic countries or individuals, as long as they do not attack us. The same applies, of course, to Hindu, Buddhist, or other countries, and their immigrant believers and their descendants (as well as US born converts).

  • leadvillexp

    The people spoke! The fake poles didn’t work. The people want their guns. Good legislation is not built on tragedy and emotions.

    • Dave

      Do you retype the NRA talking points or do you download them directly?

      • leadvillexp

        I am a Republican and an NRA Life member and I voted for President Obama in the last two elections. I believe in most of what he stands for but disagree with his gun legislation. I have also disagreed with the NRA at times. As I said good legislation. Would you agree with licensing all firearms owners and users like they do for Hazmat on CDLs? Good in all 50 states. It could be done on a drivers license with a back ground check every five years. The license could also be used to buy ammunition and would not infringe on the Second Amendment as it would not be registration. I look for good useful legislation and write my legislator about these things.

        • Wayne Van Scoyoc

          How about a license from the Govt to go to Church or the Synagogue or the Mosque? How about a license from the Govt to criticize Obama? How about the Govt charges you a fee for their time when they search you house or place of business? You’re nuts. You don’t license rights.

          • leadvillexp

            While I would like to see no gun control at all, that is unrealistic. I live in New York State. We have to pay for a pistol permit, register our pistols, now register our so called assault rifles and even antique clips that hold more than 10 bullets. the license idea would do away with registration and would let you carry a pistol over state lines, something we can not do now. New York is not reciprocal with any other state. Registration allows the government to know what you have and conficate at will. Licensing only states you are not a criminal or mentally deficent. It would not say if you actually owned a weapon. You will never see no gun control so lets try for the best type we can get.

          • Randy111

            I’m with you Wayne. And Leadville proves there are socialists who are republicans, too. He said he believes in most of what Obama stands for.

    • Randy111

      You are absolutely right Leadville. These polls stating the public were 90% for this gun control bill were way, way, way wrong.

  • they didn’t need an excuse. they hate obama so bad nothing is gonna be approaved or offered by the GOP people. we just have to dig in and go thru this sequester and forget any good thing happening. we are certainly gonna be the worse for it because of no new jobs and whatever else. just have the election ahead and people vote the right way.

  • bugdejour

    Allowing someone as senile as McCain to write this bill is absurd! Daffy Duck would be a better pick.

  • Ditto Mr. White: “This is why the Senate is not supposed to represent the people of their
    states, that’s the House’s job. but to represent the State itself.
    Thanks 17th Amendment!”

    • Allan Richardson

      The reason for the 17th Amendment was that the Senate was being corrupted by being appointed by corrupt corporate owned state legislatures. The right wing wants their governmental units small enough to be bought out, and it is harder (unfortunately not impossible) to buy Congress than to buy a state legislature, particularly one that meets in a small town such as Baton Rouge, Springfield, Tallahassee, or Albany, rather than in one of their state’s biggest cities such as Atlanta, Austin, Denver, or Nashville (where big media outlets cover more state capitol activity). Today, thanks to computers, even the “people’s” chamber of Congress is no longer representative of the people due to EXTREME gerrymandering. In the last election, where all 435 House seats were up for election in a Presidential year, about 60 percent of the nationwide votes for House members were for Democrats, but the Republicans still won the majority of the seats, although a smaller majority.

  • Thank you, Mr. Fletcher: “You are a total moron. The senate is set up the way it is for a reason. For once, they got it right.

    Bob Fletcher”

  • DanW

    The author whinges about this legislation being killed by “an undemocratic minority.” Last time I checked, we don’t live in a “democracy”. The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic. It is a federal system, not a pure democracy.

    The founders intended it this way.

    The House is where representation is democratically proportioned. The Senate is where states are equally represented, such that those “small population rural states” don’t get steamrolled by the likes of New York and California. There are good reasons some of us deliberately choose not to live in those states. We’d rather they not rule the entire country.

  • arlenbrack

    Mr Ben Landy:
    Ever hear of the Connecticut Compromise ? Oliver Ellsworth ? Men a lot more talented than you figured this apportionment thing out in 1787. Go sh#t in your hat.

  • Darth Kenyan

    The libtards keep lying. The majority of Americans do NOT favor more gun control. After the LAST push from the libtards, the public demanded Right to Carry. Handgun Banners, Inc, has five thousand members, mostly Canadians. We won’t be disarmed by Canadians.

  • Randy111

    This article and map shows just how wonderful our Constitution really is. Population has absolutely nothing to do with the US Senate. That body reflects the states–which created the Constitution and in which the population of the country reside. The House of Representatives is based on population, and all elections are held in the states, by the states–none by the federal government. We are a republic, not a mass democracy, which has helped to keep us free and the Constitution more or less safe, at least until the present.

    By the way, the Constitution can only legally be amended two ways. One is by amendment which requires super majorities in the House and Senate, and ratification by three fourths of the states. Or, and this probably drives the left wild, a constitutional convention called by the States in which each state has one vote. That’s the kind of “equality” those of us who love individual liberty can support. But probably doesn’t appeal to multicultural diversity collectivists at all.

    Hamstrung by the Constitution, the left looks to a Supreme Court appointed to “change” the Constitution by judicial rulings. This sodality wants a court which will ignore the language and meaning of the Constitution, and instead make rulings based on “fairness” and “equality”. That is the kind of Supreme Court Barack Obama wants. He’s said so, and the two appontees he has succeeded with, Kagan and Sotomayer, agree with him. Liberal judges on the Supreme Court are the greatest threat to the US Constitution and our nation

  • Jack Dawson

    Did you not attend school when they explained the reason for the Senate and the House numbers? The House is proportional, the Senate is not. The reason the Senate is not directly proportional to the population is to keep the larger states from forcing their will upon the smaller ones. The House is set up to give each state proportional power, and the two must agree to enact laws. It is set up to meet both needs, equal and proportional representation, and it is basic civics.

  • nobody is stopping people from going gunless. Nobody is forcing people to own guns, so I do not see how or why someone thinks they have the right to take my gun away?

    Perhaps we should enforce the right to kill anyone trying to steal our weapons…

  • Rick

    The 90% number is the total farce. As long as you poll in large metro areas and the northeast of the country, and California, you’ll have that high number. Poll the rest of the US and see the numbers drop off significantly. 90% is just a number that briefs well, but lacks substance.

  • Michael Sullivan

    The author of this article obviously doesnt understand the ideas or purpose of a bicameral government. Here is a little lesson for you all: The House of Representatives is apportioned to the population to represent the people. Each state is given two Senators to represent the States interests. This design was meant to make sure that both the people and their states were equally represented in federal government. That mechanism was muddled many years ago when States nominated senators and senate positions sat empty sometimes for years, so congress changed it so that Senators were elected by the people as well.

  • any senator who voted for the bill is a traitor to our constitution and should be removed.

  • leadvillexp

    We don’t need more laws. Enforce the ones we have now. All licensed gun dealers have to do federal back ground checks now. Licensed dealers at gun shows also have to do these checks. Guns purchased on line have to be shipped to a licensed dealer and a check done. People that want to kill people will find the gun. Look at Iraq or Afganistan. Those aren’t soldiers in uniform killing each other. They are civilians with firearms. Yes, look at Timothy McVeigh, Columbine, and the marathon bombers. They used bombs. Some use planes and box cutters but we keep yelling about guns. Guns work both ways they can kill you but also protect you.