As the Boston bombings and the immigration reform debate show, the difference between a thoughtful policy response and exploiting a tragedy depends on which side of an issue you're on.The immigration status of the Boston bombing suspects has become part of the immigration reform debate in Washington.
Both suspects, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, now deceased, and his brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, were naturalized U.S. citizens who emigrated as children from Russia a decade ago.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ken., on Monday sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., saying the Senate should "not proceed" on immigration reform until we "fix the flaws in our current system" exposed by the bombing. A Washington Post fact-check gave Paul's letter "four Pinnochios" for misleading statements, including the region from which the Tsarnaev family emigrated and the fact that it was the suspects' father who was granted asylum and brought the brothers to the United States, legally, as minors.
Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee continued debate Tuesday on an immigration reform effort that would boost border security and provide a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million people who are in the United States illegally. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the asylum screenings currently in place.
The Boston-immigration reform debate began last week when Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said that the immigration status of the suspects "will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system." Democrats, particularly Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, accused Grassley of exploiting the tragedy for political gain. Grassley claimed that he never tried to conflate the issues.
Political responses to tragedy are nothing new. The Sept. 11 attacks led to the biggest overhaul of the U.S. national security and justice system in history. The mass shootings in Colorado and Connecticut prompted the national gun control push.
The question of what constitutes good policy-making, and what constitutes "politicizing" a tragedy boils down to what side of the issue you're on.
Paul said President Obama was using the families of Newtown victims as "props" in the gun control fight. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., took a shot at "opponents of comprehensive immigration reform [who] began to exploit the Boston Marathon bombing," a referemce to Grassley.
Grassley's response: "When you proposed gun legislation, we did not accuse you of using the Newtown killings as an excuse."