On Halloween, Manhattanites were
“treated” to actual horror. Only blocks beyond ground zero and
the shadow of the World Trade Center, the worst terrorist attack
since 9/11 occurred. Weaponizing a Home Depot rental truck, a Muslim
immigrant, suspect Sayfullo Saipov, 29, killed eight innocents and
badly injured a dozen more. Also at the nexus of the accompanying
political firestorm is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
He was instrumental in crafting the diversity visa program that
enabled Mr. Saipov to arrive stateside legally in 2010. Furthermore,
perhaps foreshadowing the future carnage, this native of Uzbekistan's
first name has a close association with the meaning: “sword of
Allah”.
In retrospect, is it any surprise that
a bad U.S. immigration policy was grossly exploited by an adherent to
radical Islam? Defining Sen. Schumer's involvement is Neil Munro of
Breitbart:
“The diversity visa program was
created in 1990 by then-Rep. Schumer in response to Irish lobbies in
his New York district. Twenty-seven years later, it annually awards
50,000 visas by annual lottery to entrants from around the world,
ensuring a cascade of subsequent chain-migrants.”
Like a philosophy straight out of
“Charlie and the Chocolate
Factory,” this is a randomly awarded golden ticket to a
foreigner regardless of that person's background. It gifts the
holder a green card, and permanent residency in the United States.
Plus, lucky's nuclear family—and distant relatives can emigrate
too! After all, such good fortune should not divide families.
(Incidentally, this is the same narrative echoed by illegal migrants
with U.S. anchor babies.) Ah, the destructive domino effect of lax
previous administrations on full display!
In the 21st century, think
of the Immigration Act of 1990—signed into law by George H.W.
Bush—as America's version of Russian roulette. For, in practice,
that's what this law has metastasized into. To his credit, even Mr.
Schumer recognized this truth back in 2013. Then, he among a
bipartisan Gang of Eight passed an immigration overhaul that would
have ended the Diversity Immigrant Visa. Unfortunately, the move
failed to advance in the House. Yet, even if the measure had reached
President Obama's desk it seems a reasonable certainty that it would
not have been signed. Given all of these facts, one is mystified why
President Trump has antagonized Mr. Schumer in this instance. After
all, wouldn't this latest attack on NYC further incline the minority
leader to align himself with Trump's desire for a merit-based
replacement?
At present, that's not a question that
can be sufficiently answered. However, what can be addressed is how
ill-conceived this random green card lottery system is. Per Pew
Center, 19 million applicants from around the world have taken a spin
on America's wheel of fortune for fiscal year 2017. (Moreover, in
the last decade, an astonishing 156 million have similarly rolled the
dice.) What's available yearly is 100,000 chances for the U.S. to
extend the welcome mat to perfect strangers with no loyalty to, or
cultural appreciation of, American values. Of the 50,000 selected,
the vetting process is apparently as vigorous as getting hired to
work at McDonald's. To qualify, the individual must have a high
school diploma, and two years of work experience in an occupation
that requires at least two additional years of training or
experience. Fill out form I-485, the Application to Register
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status; a brief interview; an official
rubber stamp—and you're in like Flynn! For all the sense this
makes, the government should have nicknamed this highly valuable
commodity the slacker's visa. In that regard, the loved ones of the
NYC victims undoubtedly have more colorful descriptors for this now
detestable policy.
In any case, as the October 31st
tragedy has clearly demonstrated, radicalized Islamic proponents are
hidden among those admitted into the U.S. Since they are invisible,
we must consider past experience as a guide. Therefore, a trend
articulated by Alex Nowrasteh, of the Cato Institute, comes to bear.
In “Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Analysis,” he wrote:
“Foreign-born terrorists who entered
the country, either as immigrants or tourists, were responsible for
88 percent (or 3,024) of the 3,432 murders caused by terrorists on
U.S. soil from 1975 through the end of 2015.”
Likewise, one must consider the larger,
visible group that contains them. Recall that Muslims comprise 1% of
the total U.S. population (per the Pew Center's 2015 figures). Based
upon a total population then of 322 million people, that's still 3.2
million people. Also consider that 1 million people have gained
residency in the U.S. annually since 1990 via chain migration of
extended relatives (see: NumbersUSA.com). So, what's likely to
happen to the homeland's Muslim population in the future? This is
Pew's prediction:
“Indeed, even before 2040, Muslims
are projected to become the second-largest religious group in the
U.S., after Christians. By 2050, the American Muslim population is
projected to reach 8.1 million people, or 2.1% of the total
population.”
Naturally, one does not intend to
impugn an entire community for a few bad apples. Yet, a legitimate
concern remains: a small number of the radicalized have caused
mass-casualty truck attacks in London; Berlin; Barcelona, Spain, and
Nice, France. Clearly, a first step is to finally abolish, and
replace, the deeply flawed 1990 immigration law forthwith. The
unacknowledged monkey wrench in this debacle is the wrongheaded
application of “high-admission regions” and “low-admission
regions”. If the invited do not provide, for example, a needed
skill set what's the point of further diversification of legal
migrants? Just for the heck of it? By definition, a large
immigration population inherently diversifies an established
culture. In fact, by a wide margin, America already accepts more
immigrants than any nation on earth. Thus, diversity has already
been automatically achieved without all of the unnecessary—and
risky—human geo-political gerrymandering!
A vital second step is to linguistically distinguish diversity from
multiculturalism. Liberals intentionally use the words
interchangeably to muddy their meanings. In truth, they actually
represent opposing concepts. Specifically, diversity means the
general acceptance of differences—whether they be physical,
psychological or behavioral. That's the warm embrace of America's
vulcanizing “melting
pot”. Hence, the U.S. motto of unity: e pluribus unum, Latin
for “out of many, one.” Contrarily, multiculturalism is the
rejection of Americanism. Like identity politics, it promotes the
idea that assimilation to our constitutional ideals—freedoms
enjoyed by all—is somehow repressive. Furthermore, it's the
nonsensical idea that society at large should shift itself to pacify
even one objector. Witness its (justified) effect on the shadowy and
corrupt industry that is Hollywood. A volcanic grievance culture is
currently shaking the dream factory's power structures apart. Hasn't
America's dysfunctional immigration system, and radical Islamic
terrorism done even greater damage? The confluence of both instantly
invokes Shirley Jackson's short story “The Lottery.” In it, lots
are drawn and the unfortunate winner is stoned to death. Those
encountering the “sword of Allah” in NYC on Halloween met an
equivalent malevolence.
Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976
