conservatives are trying to connect the shooting with the immigrant reform

http://news.yahoo.com/why-boston-bom...151300191.html

The suspects are identified as coming from Russia, near Chechnya, and immigration skeptics immediately cite them as an example of the need to tighten the borders
As soon as the Boston Marathon bombing suspects were identified as brothers born in Russia, hardline conservatives began citing them as poster children against some of the comprehensive immigration proposals under consideration in Congress. The suspects — 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who's on the run, and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was killed in a shootout — reportedly moved to the U.S. a decade ago. Their uncle said they were refugees from near war-torn Chechnya, and officials said Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was a naturalized U.S. citizen. Still, immigration reform skeptics, such as conservative radio host Bryan Fischer, said they were examples of why immigration rules should be tightened, not loosened.
Earlier in the week, even as investigators questioned whether the two blasts on Monday were committed by foreign terrorists or domestic ones, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) tried to head off any attempt by opponents to use the attack to undermine his immigration proposals, which include a pathway to citizenship for some people who came into the U.S. illegally. "We should really be very cautious about using language that links these two things in any way," Rubio said.
SEE MORE: Reality show drive-by: America's Worst Tattoos
But that didn't stop Rep. Steve King (R-Ia.) from criticizing the proposals advanced by Rubio and the rest of the Senate's Gang of Eight. On Tuesday, King, who has called the plan a "ridiculous amnesty," demanded — before the suspects were identified — a delay in considering any immigration changes in case the bombers turned out to be foreign. On Friday, his colleague, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Ia.) said: "Given the events of this week, it's important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system."
Advocates of immigration reform don't think much of the anti-immigration crowd's argument. "The simple fact is that the situation in Boston has little to do with the 'immigration system,'" says Jamelle Bouie at The American Prospect. "Both suspects were legal immigrants who came over as children — tougher background checks or more security wouldn't have prevented the tragedy on Monday, or last evening's shootout."
SEE MORE: LISTEN: 'Get Lucky,' the first single from Daft Punk's new album Random Access Memories
Still, immigration-reform opponents appear at least determined to point to the Tsarnaev brothers' history as a reason for Congress to slow down. "How did they get in the United States?" asks Conn Carroll at The Washington Times. "Why were they given legal permanent residency? Why did they begin killing Americans? We don't know," and, until we do, we have to wonder whether it's wise to make any changes that open America's doors any wider, he argues.
Others say it's just wrong to try to politicize the deadly bombing by dragging it into a debate as far removed from the crime as immigration. "How can you tell whether the 7-year-old you're naturalizing will turn into a furious religious zealot 13 years later?" asks David A. Graham at The Atlantic. The older brother, Tamerlan, sounds like he "may have been an angry, isolated young man," but the younger one, Dzhokhar, has been described by many who knew him as "friendly and affable," with no indication that he had been radicalized in any way. "It's common sense for immigration officials to carefully screen who's let into the United States and who becomes a citizen, but it's inevitable that they won't be able to stop everyone."
SEE MORE: The week's best of the internet
This is the risk that we have to live with as citizens of a republic — the realization that the government cannot, and should not, seek total control over all aspects of citizens' lives, including their security. As legislators consider potential changes to the immigration process, it would be unfortunate for Boston to loom too large in their thinking. [The Atlantic]

This is only the beginning of the BS.

This makes me think the Government is commiting conspiracy in all these events. Sandy Hook gun laws. Boston bombs immigration reform. Whatever.....

Does anyone see the irony of them calling for tighter borders to protect our citizens when they themselves voted against common sense gun reforms?

Their reasoning goes like this: People are being killed by immigrants, therefore we need to protect our borders/people so nothing like this happens again.

On that same note: People are being killed by illegal ownership of guns, therefore we need to protect our people so nothing like this happens again.

You would think they would be a bit consistent and vote down both of them instead of having one or the other, because after all, in their minds, governments can never stop crime nor deter it (referring to gun control doesn't stop crime nor stricter border control either). They're good at being consistently inconsistent with using federal law it seems.

Oh, and I've done my homework. No, it's not an impingement on your liberties and freedom with this gun reform btw.

I too have a sense that this is too much of a coincidence.

you cant cure crazy, these boys where crazy. Nuff said. :/

dead conservatives please try and make sense

If they catch him alive it can benefit us. All the hate of the country will be focused on him(as it should be) not on other issues that relate to this murderer like him being immigrant. CIR will not be use as a scapegoat bill.

Exactly. I really hate that the media keeps painting this as a U.S. vs. them type of thing...they seemed to have forgotten that the marathon is an international event, and that there were immigrants who were severely injured in the attack.

Are we going to blame them, too? Are we going to blame the medical pros, some of whom are immigrants themselves, who rushed to save the lives of the victims?

Jesus. I hope America is beyond that kind of shit...

I'm sure the right wing nuts would've loved for the terrorists to have been illegals. In fact, one of the first thing that came to their minds was probably: are these guys illegals? rather than: are people ok? have the suspects been caught?

That's to be expected though. Take a horrible tragedy and politicize it. These guys were legal immigrants so why even bring it up? Clear example of a straw man argument.