May 4, 2010

How did Faisal Shahzad — the accused failed Times Square bomber — get to be an American citizen?

He married an American woman — born in Colorado. And she and her 2 children are reportedly still in Pakistan, where Shazad was born and trained in bomb-making.

59 comments:

edutcher said...

Not a lot of info on the wife. Was she another one of those over the hill hippies who went looking for 'spirituality' or someone taken in by a smooth-talking monster? Be interesting to know.

In any case, we're going to have to get a bit fussier about who comes into this country and who becomes a citizen - although there's no doubt he gets a civil trial on this one. As has been noted, all the 9/11 creeps got in legally. An unsung part of the border controversy is that about 10% or so of the illegals apprehended are from the Middle East. Makes you wonder how many got through.

As the saying goes, PC gets you killed.

Slow Joe said...

He spent a lot of time there before this attack.

I can't say for sure, but this looks an awful lot like an organized effort with many folks involved. The time for gloating that this isn't the Teabagger the left was obviously hoping it would be is over, if there ever was a time to dignify that hatred.

Obama and the DOJ and DHS must come under more political pressure to take the war on terrorism seriously. This is attack 4 that constitutes total failure of the Obama doctrine. A doctrine I should add that includes micromanagement, show trials, lies about Gitmo and the USA's supposed evils, and even orwellian silliness such as making it difficult for our agencies to even use words like 'terrorism' and 'jihad'. It's hard enough to do this kind of work with limited resources while you're forced to buy into a weirdo lingo of man made disasters and worrying about granny teabagger and US Vets.

The democrats kneejerked into suggesting this was opposition to OBamacare and a lone wolf and not terrorism. They are going to continue to fail until they feel enough pressure to simply return the to Bush doctrine which worked so much better because Bush, for all his many faults, was ready to lead. Obama listens to pressure and can be manipulated into doing his job.

Joe said...

The article is misleading. Just because you marry an American citizen doesn't confer citizenship; it grants you possible immigration (a visa can still be denied) and from there you can apply for a work visa and eventually citizenship.

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rialby said...

"Was she another one of those over the hill hippies who went looking for 'spirituality' or someone taken in by a smooth-talking monster?"

Maybe some day their kid can be POTUS.

See, we can all be as funny as Obama!

LonewackoDotCom said...

A couple of things to note:

1. At the current rate that they do background checks, it would take 5 to 10 years to do FBI background checks on 10 million people. Any amnesty plan will thus have lightweight checks; for instance, the latest such plan did a lightweight check, gave them permission to stay here, and then sent them on their merry way. Only years later would another check be done.

And, what all that means is that there would be plenty more like Faisal who'd get amnesty and become U.S. citizens.

2. Despite that, the teapartiers have done precisely two (2) things about the wider issue: signed a petition supporting AZ, and harped about distractions (riots and beans). They could help themselves at the same time as helping the U.S. by, for instance, helping me discredit some of those who've lied about the AZ issue (partial list in my Arizona coverage), but that's beyond their intellectual and emotional capabilities.

Seven Machos said...

Wacko -- I highly doubt the Tea Partiers are going to adopt your freakishly isolationist platform.

You start your own Piss on the Wogs Party.

Rialby said...

Her name is Huma Mian. UC Boulder grad.

The search continues

Mark said...

I think this gets uglier soon.

LonewackoDotCom said...

Seven Machos, in addition to not being macho enough to give us a link to his site, is, of course, lying. I haven't published a "platform", and the agenda I promote isn't "freakishly isolationist". It's just good old mainstream American commonsense. The real radicals are those who want to legalize millions of IAs and thus give foreign governments and far-left/racial power groups even more power inside the U.S. Those radicals could care less about what's in the best interests of the U.S.

The fact that I get smeared is related to the fact that I have literally thousands of posts about this issue containing the things that the Beltway doesn't want you to know.

If you want to find out what's really going on with this issue, come to my site for immigration coverage.

Seven Machos said...

Wacko -- You're a loon. Nobody listens to you because of this. The fact that you are always castigating the Tea Partiers for not doing your bidding is absolutely hilarious. These people care about balanced budgets and fiscal reform. They are the latest iteration of the Ross Perot phenomenon.

Do us all a favor and stop trying to use them as tools for your own loony ends and then insulting them when they ignore you.

Slow Joe said...

I do think there's a lot of overlap on this issue. Since 70% of folks appreciate what AZ did, it's not hard to imagine a lot of Tea folks are in that category.

Still, the Tea Party is about sustainable spending levels, in my opinion. One thing I love about it is that it's attracted democrats, gays, Baptists, Republicans, anti-war, etc etc etc. All united on the simple premise that our nation is in really deep trouble because of Bush/Delay/Frist spending, and now, the radically worse Obama spending. We're in deep trouble and this spending constitutes a massive eventual tax increase even if the media swears we can't blame Obama for that today for some reason.

We need to keep that tent as big and broad as possible by not entering any other issues and making some kind of longer political platform, in my opinion. One great thing about the Tea Parties is how closely they represent America in diversity, aside from a couple percentage lower black membership. I've been to a lot of liberal protests that are basically white folks without jobs.

I don't like racial division, since it's always a tool for destruction and division, but I know that the Tea Party is strong because people who do not share the same background and views are agreeing on a basic and major problem. It's incredibly important that we keep that.

Seven Machos said...

I agree with Slow Joe. The Tea Parties are really and truly an organic, grassroots thing premised on the simple concept that government credit is overreaching massively. It's time to balance the budget and cut taxes.

I think the grassroots part is what drives the left so batty. They keep looking for some prime mover -- like the communists at International Answer who put together the marches against the Iraq War or ACORN -- and it's just not there. There's this groundswell of common sense that can't be fought in the usual way of pillorying one person (Reagan, Gingrich, Bush, etc.)

FYI, Bill Clinton understood this same groundswell last time it was happening. Too bad, leftitsts, that your politicians are all cocooned, culturally deaf, and stupid.

And, Wacko, too bad for you that immigration is so tangential to the debate, as it always, always is.

LonewackoDotCom said...

Let me be kind and request a couple of things:

1. Seven Machos, who are you anyway? Do you have a site? Are you affiliated with any groups that we should know about?

2. Why are the partiers consistently unable to do anything about being called names? In fact, in most cases they make things even worse for themselves. If they were smart and didn't have emotional issues, they could do something about that. But, because they're one-dimensional (if that), brainless, and have emotional issues their opponents are highly effective against them even though those opponents aren't much smarter. Why can't the partiers oppose their opponents - some of which are my opponents too - in a more effective way? Hint: the answer's in this very paragraph.

Jeremy said...

Seven Machos said..."The Tea Parties are really and truly an organic, grassroots thing premised on the simple concept that government credit is overreaching massively."

Ohhhhhh....bullshit.

They're just another wing nut group backed by FreedomWorks, the conservative action group led by Dick Armey; dontGO, a tech savvy free-market action group that sprung out of last August's oil-drilling debate in the House of Representatives; and Americans for Prosperity, an issue advocacy/activist group based on free market principles.

Then throw in conservative bloggers, talk show hosts like Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc, and other media figures have attached themselves to the movement in peripheral capacities.

Seven Machos said...

Seven Machos, who are you anyway? Do you have a site? Are you affiliated with any groups that we should know about?

I just started a blog, Wacko! I need to update it more. But you should stop by. As far as groups, let's see. I am a member of the Illinois Bar. I subscribed my kid to Petersen's 4-Wheel and Off-Road magazine recently. He's three. He loves it. I virtually always vote Republican, though I am not a member of the party. I am a Capricorn. I enjoy long walks on the beach, New American cuisine, and saucy Latina immigrants.

I don't think there's any question that you have serious emotional issues. Of course, it's not surprising. You keep trying to get people to follow you and they keep utterly ignoring you. That's got to be hard.

Seven Machos said...

Well, motherfuck. It's fucking Jeremy. Of fucking course, though, you crazy motherfucker, I knew you'd fucking show up on a fucking thread about fucking terrorists. Duh.

Jeremy said...

7 Nachos Short - You sound upset, little man.

Is your terrorist mask too tight?

Now, instead of whining, refute anything I said about you and your testicle sucking buddies.

FreedomWorks
dontGO
Americans for Prosperity

LonewackoDotCom said...

That's interesting. I wonder if "Seven Machos" works for or represents some interesting folks. Maybe one day we'll find out.

Let me restate the previous comment:

1. Since the partiers started, their opposition has called them two names: "racist" and "bagger". That's 99.1% of what that opposition has done. (Maybe 0.5% has been correctly pointing out that they're puppets for Beltway hacks and the Kochtopus).

2. The partiers' leaders have been completely unable to respond effectively all during that 1+ year period. Not only that, but they've even done things that have made their own situation worse.

3. The Dems passed HCR using those same tactics; if the partiers' leaders knew how to oppose such tactics that wouldn't have happened.

Now, any objective person looking at what happened would realize that the partiers' leaders are incredibly incompetent and would seek new leaders. It's those like "Seven Machos" - the ones who say everything's OK - who in effect hurt the teapartiers' chances. Like I said, they are incredibly, monumentally stupid people.

Note: I don't just try to get the partiers to do things in a better way, I do the same with their opponents. If I can get those opponents to oppose the teapartiers in the right way, they'll be able to send their movement to the dustbin. And, my chances of getting those opponents to do things in the right way are much better than with teaparty, since they're smarter and more focused on being effective.

Revenant said...

Does it particularly matter that the guy was a naturalized citizen? He doesn't appear to have done anything more than a tourist could have.

Seven Machos said...

I'm sorry that I forgot to mention fucking testicle sucking above, Jeremy. Had I, would it help you fucking understand the point I am making, duh?

JAL said...

I'd been to a couple Tea Party type events before I came across people like-you-know-who carping on the "Freedom Works" thing.

I think I figured out the lefties tea slur before I even looked up the Freedom Works thing. So much for being a part of that...

On topic: Apparently the terrorist was a student at a now defunct school in DC in the 90s?

There is a picture of him and I presume his wife in front of what looks like a cathedral. (St Patrick's? National?) but most of th news seems to ignoring who his wife is.

So he becomes a US citizen in APril 2009, then moves his wife back to Pakistan where he spends 5 months. Comes back here -- leaves her in P-stan. Good luck at getting home with the kid, sweetie.

LonewackoDotCom said...

Jeremy: regarding don't go, see this tweet. He says he might start it back up again.

Slow Joe said...

Jeremy is scared of the evil conspiracy behind the tea party.

ooooo freedomworks! booga booga booga you freaking idiot.

If you really think the Tea Party doesn't represent some obvious grassroots, you're in denial. And that's OK! You can keep hating the evil conspiracy in November, too. DIEBOLD COMING AT YOU!

We all know this is the real appeal behind Palin. Fucking with Andrew Sullivan, Jeremy, etc. I know there are better GOP folks out there, but damn, I want to hear Jeremy squeal like a pig some more, and I know Palin would drive the conspiracy theorists nuts.

Sure, it would be nice if the partisan battles weren't so intense and insane as Jeremy, but there's nothing I can do about that.

Seven Machos said...

I wonder if "Seven Machos" works for or represents some interesting folks.

I'm a freelance writer and I trade from time to time, dude. I am flattered, though, that you are accusing me of representing some agenda. It can only mean that I write well.

If anybody is here from The Atlantic, I can do this every day for a small fee.

Palladian said...

DUH!

danielle said...

it will be interesting when we start to find out more about his wife. when he goes on trial, she'll want to be in the US. clearly discrimination against the families of terrorists is out of the question, but i'm sure she and her family will be under *tight* surveillance.

danielle said...

...unless of course she too is implicated in the plot. she must have known about it.

reader_iam said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are still gaps, perhaps. In breaking stories such as this, information tends to seep, not flood, and much is subject to change (at least once, twice, thrice, etc.). That said, I saw earlier today reportage indicating that initially, in the late '90s, Shahzad came to the U.S. on a F-1 student visa; that he then continued his stay on the basis of a H1B visa; and that at some point, he married, which happenstance, or at least the declaration of such in late 2008, was most proximate to his naturalization last year.

Anyone else see these details and know anything that might either refute or support them?

reader_iam said...

Marriage alone is not the fast path--or at least not the fastest path--to citizenship, at least according to my understanding (though it can accelerate a path--again, according to my understanding). My understanding can, of course, be absolutely wrong, in general and specifically speaking, of which reality I am well aware. This is true also of the information I might have at hand. For these reasons I posted the query at the end of my previous comment and add an additional one here: Can anyone here elucidate the citizenship process--as it actually plays out, in practice--with regard to various factors and pathways?

reader_iam said...

How about that second page of the linked NYT article, anyway?

Allison said...

reader_iam,



Marriage to a US citizen gives you an "immediate" green card as long as you are not in the US illegally in the first place. You have to file properly, but there is no reason that such an application would be denied. A green card means you are a resident alien with right to work.

Green Card through Marriage Applications are excluded from all numerical quota limitations.

reader_iam said...

Dang. If only companies were able to find U.S. workers with CS/engineering skills (with or with or without MBAs).

reader_iam said...

Allison, thanks (sincerely)! But of course Shahzad is a naturalized citizen, not a resident alien, and--so it seems so far, anyway, given the sketchy facts so far available--he already had the right to work here legally, and therefore the right to reside here legally, before and separately from his marriage.

Pogo said...

""How did Faisal Shahzad — the accused failed Times Square bomber — get to be an American citizen?""

Shit, how did Faisal Shahzad — the accused failed Times Square bomber — get on the plane, despite being on the no-fly list??

Damn it, my last flight was delayed because the TSA decided that an old man with obvious Alzheimers was some serious shit security risk and practically gave him a rectal exam before deciding to let him through.
What a stupid waste of time they are.

"As federal agents closed in, Faisal Shahzad was aboard Emirates Flight 202. He reserved a ticket on the way to John F. Kennedy International Airport, paid cash on arrival and walked through security without being stopped. By the time Customs and Border Protection officials spotted Shahzad's name on the passenger list and recognized him as the bombing suspect they were looking for, he was in his seat and the plane was preparing to leave the gate."

You just know we're one thin string of luck away from something very bad.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Does it particularly matter that the guy was a naturalized citizen? He doesn't appear to have done anything more than a tourist could have.

I think it matters from the standpoint that our background checking for citizenship has some drawbacks.

Then again we can assume that he was a perfectly docile citizen-in-waiting right up to the point he got mad at Bush and the war in Iraq and decided to kill a whole slew of his fellow Americans.

knox said...

“It’s not that they don’t speak English or aren’t skilled,” a Pakistani official explained. “But in their hearts and in their minds they reject the West. They can’t see a world where they live together; there’s only one way, one right way.”

I want to know who "they" is? Every young Pakistani? The previous sentence says:

Mr. Shahzad’s generation grew up in a Pakistan where alcohol had been banned and Islam had been forced into schools and communities as a doctrine and a national glue.

Wonderful.

Paco Wové said...

On the immigration side of things, it's interesting that he got an H1B visa -- for individuals with skills unavailable in the U.S. -- despite being a sub-mediocre student.

A.W. said...

Ann,

that post is a little misleading.

i can say as the husband of an immigrant, there is no automatic citizenship for spouses.

What there is, however, is a shortened waiting period to become a citizen. but you still have to take all the tests and navigate all the rules.

Btw, the terrorist might have been targeting the viacom/comedy central headquarters. so if you would like to send a message to the terrorists in defense of freedom of speech, come here:

http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/

We already have something like 60 cartoons up, including around 30 who gave out their full name and town.

Pogo said...

So why exactly are we making citizens of men who were in Mullah Omar’s tribe?

former law student said...

When I first read the post, I thought Faisal learned to make bombs in Colorado -- his failed attempt being eerily reminiscent of the Columbine terrorists' attempt to make bombs out of propane tanks. Luckily those failed to detonate as well; unfortunately the Columbine psychopaths had guns as well as homemade bombs.

I share Paco's surprise that a sub-par student -- not even an engineer -- got a coveted H1-B visa.

There's also a "1984" aspect to the NYT story. I was curious if Faisal's real estate agent -- a South Slav judging from his name -- was a Muslim. Googling showed that the story previously included Igor's statement that Faisal has wondered that too.

But that version of the Times story had gone down Orwell's memory hole (Heinlein's oubliette).

Hoosier Daddy said...

When I first read the post, I thought Faisal learned to make bombs in Colorado

Once again demonstrating your sub-par reading skills.

Balfegor said...

Re: Jeremy:

7 Nachos Short - You sound upset, little man.

I think he's making fun of Rahm Emanuel, who habitually leans on expletives when he doesn't know the words.

former law student said...

It's time to balance the budget and cut taxes.


We can balance the budget by raising taxes, or by cutting spending.

Lumping social transfer payments into the budget has obscured the fact that the biggest components of spending are military and interest on our debt.

We can neither abandon our troops nor repudiate our debt.

Your serve.

LarsPorsena said...

"Lumping social transfer payments into the budget has obscured the fact that the biggest components of spending are military and interest on our debt."

Defense is 18.74% of the current budget. Let's look in the other 81.26%.

PatCA said...

Another Muslim not impressed by the unprecedented Cairo Speech.

former law student said...

Faisal's Computer Applications and Information Systems degree came from University of Bridgeport's undergraduate business school, Though it does include some programming courses, it is "computer-lite."

A friend of mine has a similar degree in "Management Information Systems." She is miles away from being a software engineer.

former law student said...

Out of our $2.945 trillion budget for 2011, $876 billion goes to the military, and $500 goes to pay the interest on our debt.

LarsPorsena said...

"Out of our $2.945 trillion budget for 2011, $876 billion goes to the military, and $500 goes to pay the interest on our debt."

It's 3.55 trillion for 2010..where are you getting the 2011 numbers?

LarsPorsena said...

@ FLS:

According to "Wiki" for 2011, Defense is 23% and Interest is 5%.

Hoosier Daddy said...

We can neither abandon our troops nor repudiate our debt.

Well how about we abandon our overseas bases (Europe, Japan, South Korea, ME) and bring our children back home. I mean one of the main lefty reasons for anti-Americanism is our heavy military presence all over the globe. So we can make people like us again by letting them provide for their own defense and cutting a substantial chunk of the military budget.

former law student said...

The intergenerational wealth transfers of Social Security and Medicare merely cloud the issue, so I eliminated them from the analysis.

paul a'barge said...

better read this

Apparently the guy's wife is a Paki. No idea how she got citizenship.

Just Lurking said...

We can balance the budget by raising taxes, or by cutting spending.

Hey, here's a crazy thought... Since we are in debt up to our eyeballs, and can't afford to pay for all the perks of the existing public sector employees- how 'bout we not expand the govt even further?

Oh wait... the Health Care bill will pay for itself, right? Obama said so, and he don't lie. Only Bush lie.

Obama and his Harvard cronies are so brilliant. The solution to large debt and deficits- a bigger govt! And high taxes to pay for it all. (Why not- it has almost worked so well in the past. Look at the Euro-zone... until recently.)

I bet Ms. Palin would never have been clever enough to think of that. We really dodged a bullet by not getting her and the crazy old guy.

former law student said...

No idea how she got citizenship.

Assuming she started college at age 18, my guess is that she was born here while her dad was a student:

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15015539

Scott said...

From FLS:

"The intergenerational wealth transfers of Social Security and Medicare merely cloud the issue, so I eliminated them from the analysis."

How convenient...and how typically dishonest...

former law student said...

How convenient...and how typically dishonest...

Including Social Security in the federal budget is dishonest, and in fact prohibited by law.

LBJ was a bit of a rotter: he's the one who merged Social Security and Medicare into the Federal budget in 1968 -- that had the happy effect of making the amount of money spent on the Vietnam War look smaller.

But by law, Social Security transactions must be excluded from the federal budget. (Medicare Part A was also once excluded, but has now been added in again.) The whole story can be read here:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

The reason to include Social Security and Medicare in the budget is to make the deficit look smaller -- again, fundamentally dishonest.

But it's interesting to see conservatives approve a bit of LBJ's flim-flam.

Scott said...

Nobody said that I approved of it...only that it is reality, and that looking at the federal budget without looking at SS and Medicare while claiming that there is simply nowhere to cut is fundamentally dishonest.

This is the way those on the left always work. Each change made becomes part of the immutable bedrock of civilization, no rollback is permitted. Then, this is used as the jumping off point for the next step...

Like it or not, Medicare, SS, Defense, pretty much everything (and yes, that includes interest on the debt, though I concede that is a desparate last resort) is and shoudl be on the table. Without entitlement reform, there is simply no amount of taxation (even if it were acceptable) that could close the gap. Pretending otherwise is asking us to believe that you are as stupid as Garage or HDHouse or Jeremy, et. al., and we know better than that.

reader_iam said...

On the immigration side of things, it's interesting that he got an H1B visa -- for individuals with skills unavailable in the U.S. -- despite being a sub-mediocre student.

and

I share Paco's surprise that a sub-par student -- not even an engineer -- got a coveted H1-B visa.

I, for one, do NOT share any such surprise at the abuse of H1B visas. That's been a dirty little secret (though in plain sight, if only people wanted to look at it) for a very, very, very, very long time now.

I would like to think that the obvious implications of that laxness--nay, easy "nudge, nudge, wink, wink"--with regard to national security might bring that secret under more scrutiny (despite the fact that its other implications were ignored).

However, hold my breath I will not.