On Boston and American immigration policy

1. Boston

In the light of the events surrounding the bomb attack that struck Boston during the Marathon there last week, your thoughts go out to the relatives of the bereaved, and also to those who have been injured and in certain cases permanently maimed. There is no cause whatsoever that can justify inflicting death and injuries like that on the public at large and any such action has to condemned in the strongest possible terms.

My own connections to Boston are to say the least tenuous, and in one way, quite weird. I have visited the place once. For two days in 1975, as part of my "see the whole of North America in 21 days" trip. I saw all the stuff that tourists see there, not that I remember much of it.

I also saw the only game of live baseball that I have ever seen - I managed to get a ticket to Fenway Park on the second day that I was there. Again I do not remember much about it. Caught up in the atmosphere though, I became a Red Sox supporter and have remained so ever since. To the point where I still wince at the thought of the Yankees and understand the rivalry that has existed for some 90 years.

Thanks to mlb.com, I catch the highlights of games quite frequently - but only normally when they have won! When rooting for a team, losing is not that easy to take with the right degree of equanimity. I shall though remember Daniel Nava's game-winning home run for some time from yesterday, given the significance to the game following the tragic events that hit people in Boston this week. Nava is himself an interesting character. Whether you would describe him as a late developer or simply someone who was late getting recognition (and do I know that story personally!), I would not know, but I would recommend people to check out his resumé - it is some story.

2. American immigration policy

I read a few comments about the young men involved in the Boston bombing from some Americans on various websites this week. There was often a predictable theme running along the lines of "why did we allow these people in"?

The answer could well run along the lines: "Because you always have"! And "always" goes back a very long time.

Let me select part of the text written on the Statue of Liberty:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

To continue the metaphor, it is the light that has attracted thousands suffering under despotic régimes, living in poverty and lacking opportunity, or stuck in a war zone from which they need(ed) to escape. Some come as immigrants, some as refugees. Whatever you may think at times of American economic or foreign policies, this symbol of light - the new dawn, the hope of a better tomorrow - is one of the most positive aspects that the United States has offered to people in the rest of the world. That it has succeeded in turning round the lives of many who were without hope before is also a symbol of its greatness.

No matter where the people came from - Andrew Carnegie from Scotland, the families from which arose great popular composers like the Gershwins and Irving Berlin from Russia, Andy Grove (born András Gróf), who turned Intel into what it now is, from Hungary, Madeleine Albright, the former US Secretary of State, from what was then Czechoslovakia. There are dozens of successful examples.

There were criminals - the mafiosi and other dangerous people? Of course. It is not that easy to sift everyone out. The Tsarnaev family had no track record of involvement in any extremist activities, so accepting them would not have been a problem for the authorities - after the proper checks had been carried out in full. When established in the USA the younger son had an excellent academic record and indulged in very un-Islamic practices such as smoking marijuana and listening to rap. And had become an American citizen.

That he turned out to be a criminal thug who was prepared to kill and maim large numbers of people in an open place could not be predicted in advance. 

It would be extremely unfortunate to back away from the long-established principle behind American immigration over the years based upon this one case. One more beacon of light would be dimmed. Sadly.

Vigilance is required to prevent terrorists getting in? Of course. Tighter background checks are needed (and not easily obtained in certain parts of the world - Central Asia, Southern Russia notably) - of course. It is not a question of accepting everyone with open arms.

The problem at times like this though lies in knowing where to draw the line in the sand and draw the correct conclusions. It would be as well though to look at long-term principle and place that against short-term expediency (also disguised as political convenience). The procedures may need altering to make them more effective, but for a great country like the USA the principles should not be compromised. Managing the two together will not be easy, but I am sure that a resolution can be found for the good of all.