Boston bombing and immigration

Why the Boston bombing problems could matter to the immigration issue

If you listened to the pundits and strategists on the left, and lamestream media, you heard the outcry about bringing the bombing into the debate over illegal immigration. Well, what debate, it was actually a private deal being crafted by a group in Congress. And just as they were ironing out their plan, the Boston Marathon bombing took place.

Almost immediately came the cries Republicans better not use this against the “immigration” proposal coming down the pike like a 90 mph fastball. You better not, they said. But there are legitimate ties and questions about immigration reform related the bombing. They were from a satellite Russian region, who came here around ten years ago. The parents returned to Dagestan.

Suspect #1 was the subject of a tip from Russia warning of radical ties, which we still haven’t got the details about. He had traveled back to the area for a six month tour, which is still being questioned.

But things seemed to fall apart as to connecting him to the bombing early on. It seems some intelligence or connections were missed. There are questions if information was shared. Then, in fact, they had a hard time connecting the pictures on a guy the feds had already questioned in detail. Someone who was on a watch list at one time anyway. Why? It looks now like something was not connected or followed through.

And now the left is adamant that “you cannot tie immigration to what happened in Boston.”  And why not, why is it suddenly off the table? The truth may be closer than you think.

One little irrelevant thing no one has mentioned is Boston had been listed as a sanctuary city in 2005, and Cambridge has long been a proud sanctuary city, something they boast about. Ah, and the bombing debacle has nothing to do with immigration?

Well, sanctuary cities have a long pattern of not working with ICE or federal immigration authorities. They consider it almost a matter of protest. Now it starts to make a little more sense. Likely a glaring reason why Libs did not want the immigration issue with the bombing investigation.

Could that have been a big part of the problem? Could it be these lax policies, and politics, played some role in the original investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, suspect #1? Maybe those are the dots that didn’t connect they way they should have?

This matters if information was not shared regarding Tamerlan Tsarnaev, or others that may have known or cooperated with them — like visa violations. If the mindset was to withhold sharing of certain critical info, or not to cooperate with ICE or Feds where immigration is an issue, how far does it go? Does it impact on national security?

Policy Order Resolution
May 8, 2006

Cambridge has a proud history as a Sanctuary city, as declared by City Council Order Number 4 of April 8, 1985; and
(Whereas) There are now approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States /… …
(Whereas) Current US immigration policy does not reflect our standards of what is just, humane and moral; and
Both undocumented and documented immigrants in the U.S. fuel our economy and those of their countries of origin;

NBC Firstread Aug, 2011

In at least 2005, however, Boston was identified as a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants by a former lawyer for the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.


Spring 2005: Sanctuary cities, states undermining the Republic

James H. Walsh

Recent proclamations by certain U.S. cities and
states offering sanctuary to all immigrants, despite
their legal standing, demonstrates contempt for federal
laws. Among the new sanctuaries or civil liberties safe
zones are the states of California, Maine, and Oregon.
Sanctuary cities include Anchorage, Baltimore,
Durham (NC), Madison (WI), along with Boston,
Houston, Los Angeles, and New York City. These
renegade governmental entities, which challenge the
validity of U.S. immigration laws, are spreading like a
cancer rotting the sinew, muscle, and bone of the
American Republic. The result, intentional or not,
promises to be a balkanized network of warring city-states.

Sanctuary Cities: What are they?

By Steve Salvi, Founder,

Despite a 1996 federal law [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA )] that requires local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), many large urban cities (and some small) have adopted so-called “sanctuary” policies. Generally, sanctuary policies instruct city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of illegal aliens living in their communities. The policies also end the distinction between legal resident aliens and illegal aliens–so illegal aliens often benefit from taxpayer funded government services and programs too.

A formal sanctuary policy is a written policy that may have been passed by a local government body in the form of a resolution, ordinance, or administrative action–general or special orders, or departmental policies. Formal sanctuary cities are the easiest to identify because their sanctuary policies are in writing, often get the attention of the media, and subject to public records requests by citizens and the press.

Sequester Knot Tightens on Terorrism Plot

Allow me to first restate some obvious facts. Obama and his regime of bureaucrats have been talking about the effects of sequester ever since he signed it into law. The sequester was also his idea. He rebuffed all legislative efforts to minimize the small cuts. Instead, he opted for the most bang for the buck.

The Dep of Homeland Insecurity is telling us the air traffic controller and sequester cuts are now causing flight and travel delays. This week they are screaming and delays are mounting.

Last week we had a major terrorist attack at the Boston Marathon. Within a day, Obama and his administration had labeled it terrorism — as unlikely from him as that was. Still he called it terrorism, as well as press secretary Carney. Good, we’re making progress since Benghazi. But then he also did that early before knowing who was behind it, while media and Liberal operatives pushed it as a homegrown, anti-tax, tea party member terrorism. They used dates, including tax and Patriots’ Day as well as other dates, for their rationale. (psst: could it be someone wanted to bomb the Boston Marathon?)

They pushed the idea, and even libs did not disagree using the term “terrorism”. Of, course that was before we knew who did it. That made it a lot more inconvenient when the facts came out. But Obama could not change his tune on “terrorism”, even Bostonians would attack him for that. Best to leave the term alone, and also take credit for the feds nabbing their men.

But along the way he said the bombing classified as terrorism. And terrorism, you will remember from your indoctrination lessons, means it has a political motivation to it. Anybody see where this leads directly? It really is not difficult: the conventional definition of terrorism is attack with a political motive.

Back up to the sequester, with a little review of his tactics in ObamaCare as well, which leads to Obama’s intentional infliction of pain and inconvenience on the public. Possibly even shortages of law enforcement, as he threatened earlier. Now we are seeing their plans roll out, from the White House tours, to air travel risks, to national security and defense, to problems enforcing the border. (etc, etc) He has been telling us how bad it will be, Janet Napoleanito already threatened us. Now the effects of their plans are bearing fruit.

As a memo said, they are not to spare the public from the harmful effects of Sequester.

Now you do not have to compare the bombing to what he is doing, just apply the term terrorism — inflicting intentional fear, damage or violence on people (or opponents) for political purposes. Obama is conducting a terror operation by their own terms.

He has plenty of political motivation, and he wants the effects to be as bad as possible to achieve his political ends. Just one more thing to add to the file on one Barack Hussein Obama. Hey, that would make him the Terrorist-in-Chief now, wouldn’t it?

Merriam Webster defines terrorism:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


Update: today Biden gave a speech in Boston on the bombing:

“So why, whether it’s al-Qaeda Central out in the FATA or two twisted, perverted, cowardly, knock-off jihadis here in Boston — why do they do what they do?”… “They do it to instill fear, to have us, in the name of our safety and security, jettison what we value most and the world most values about us. … Our transparency: that’s their target.”

Sound familiar?

Picture of the two “suyspects” standing before the bombing in Boston

So which are the bigger terrorists?