The Ohio State University jihadist, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, was not just a Muslim immigrant from Somalia. He had the coveted refugee status, which means the US government provided him with food, shelter, and education grants. What made him so mad at Americans that he went on an indiscriminate killing rampage? Was it something he heard from ISIS - or was it the school-approved "social justice" rhetoric about how much he suffered in this country as a Muslim? It could be both, not necessarily in that order.
The University police officer who shot and killed him, Alan Horujko, is another young man from an immigrant family. His ancestors hailed from Ukraine or any of the bordering areas in Poland, Belarus, Slovakia, or another Eastern European country. They'd be shocked to hear that someday the U.S. government would feed and house immigrants - especially the types of immigrants that have a proven record of going on murderous rampages and indiscriminately killing and maiming Americans simply for being Americans.
Based on these two examples, which type of immigration is beneficial to America and which one is harmful?
The answer is obvious, but here's the kicker: current immigration laws, as written by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, make it next to impossible for any European to obtain a green card (it took me 20 years to get mine). Instead, the law focuses on "multiculturalism" and "diversity," which means the preference is given to immigrants from the Third World countries who are least likely to assimilate. By now the entire world is aware of the benefits that come with the "refugee status"; for many it is the equivalent of winning a life lottery: guaranteed food stamps, subsidized housing, free healthcare, grants, and other perks on the taxpayer's dime.
If today's laws were in existence at the time when the Horujkos came to America, there would be no Alan Horujko around to stop the jihadist because his ancestors would be turned away. America itself would also be different, looking more like a Third World country in its ways, culture, and system of government. Terror attacks would be the norm and human life would have as little value as it has in Somalia.
Knowing this, any sensible American would demand an urgent overhaul of these insane immigration laws. Unfortunately, proponents of the existing system have been able to condition American conservatives to see red at the very mention of "immigration reform" because it sounds like a "liberal" idea. By and large, traditional conservatives seem to have convinced themselves that all that's needed is simply to "enforce the existing laws," oppose "illegal immigration," proudly support "legal immigration," and forget about any reforms. By doing that they effectively support a continuation of multiculturalism that precludes assimilation and renders the proverbial "melting pot" obsolete.
Indeed, any reform conducted by a leftist government is likely to make things worse. But the leftist hold on the U.S. government will be over as early as January. Once the Trump administration takes office, we should demand a completely new set of immigration laws based on a cardinally different philosophy.
This is not an argument to filter people by race or ethnicity, but rather by their individual readiness to assimilate into the American culture by accepting American values and American way of life.
It's not racist to want your children to be safe when they walk the streets, ride the trains, or, in this case, go to school after a Thanksgiving break. We need an immigration system that would let more Horujkos in and keep Abdul Razak Ali Artans out.
* * *
On another note, three weeks ago I was arrested for hanging these anti-terror posters on George Mason University campus. Given today's terrorist attack on Ohio State campus, these posters turned out to be prophetic (PBUH).
Will the George Mason authorities apologize to me now and drop the charges? I have three more hashtags for them:
In the meantime, the Muslim Students' Association at Ohio State is promoting such events as "The Trump Era: Battling Normalized Islamophobia" under this completely non-violent banner:
And on December 2 they have a scheduled Discussion with OSU Police Department:
"We will have a discussion about the police relations with the muslim (sic) community and how we can adress (sic) distrust. In a time where bigotry against minority communities is prevalant (sic) it is important for our community to have friends within the Law Enforcement Community."
Why do bad things always happen to their community?
Perhaps, if only their community could meet with the other community to talk about their communities sooner, much bigotry could have been prevented - and a community of 11 random non-Muslim students wouldn't be in the hospital today with stab wounds and fractured skulls. And Abdul Razak Ali Artan would have abandoned the jihadi community and set his mind on helping the Catholic community that took care of him when he first came to join the American community. Or maybe not.
* * *
On yet another note, if Abdul Razak Ali Artan voted for a U.S. president this month, who did he vote for? In Ohio, according to reports, Somali immigrants are being driven to the polls by the van load, while many of them don't even speak English, which makes them unlikely citizens. Abdul is said to have been a "permanent resident," which comes before citizenship. So if he did vote, can we now chuck his vote from the much discussed "popular vote" number? In fact, how many more votes like his are there in the "popular vote" of which Hillary is so proud?
Oleg Atbashian is an ex-Soviet dissident and the creative force behind The People's Cube satirical website.