The gunman behind Austin’s possible terror-related mass shooting entered the US and cemented his legal immigration status under Democrat administrations — despite a growing criminal record.
Senegalese national Ndiaga Diagne, 53, arrived in America on March 13, 2000, on a B-2 tourist visa during the Clinton administration, a source familiar with his immigration history told The Post on Sunday.
Diagne — who killed two people and wounded 14 more during his rampage outside a Texas bar early Sunday — then became a lawful permanent resident on an IR-6 visa in June 2006 when he married a US citizen, the source said.
He then went on to lodge a string of other arrests in the Big Apple between 2008 and 2016 — but that didn’t stop him becoming a naturalized US citizen on April 5, 2013 — around the start of former President Barack Obama’s second term, sources said. Those three arrests are sealed, sources said.
Let’s supposed that Ndiaga Diagne had never donned his “Property of Allah” shirt and murdered/wounded people in Austin. In that ideal hypothetical world how was his permanent presence here in the U.S. going to make existing Americans better off? In other words, what is the rational basis for our legal immigration system?
(Maybe the answer can be found in Is U.S. immigration policy a form of animal hoarding?)
Related:
- How was the immigration of Mohamed Sabry Soliman supposed to benefit Americans?
- How was the immigration of Rahmanullah Lakanwal supposed to make Americans better off?
- How was the immigration of José Antonio Ibarra supposed to make the average American better off?
- How was the immigration of Akayed Ullah supposed to benefit native-born Americans?