OK, Yemen. Why am I suddenly interested in Yemen? Because of Mr. Rageh Almurisi, that’s why.

Mr. Almurisi, 28 years old, is a citizen of Yemen. He came to this country in January 2010 on an immigrant visa, presumably under the family-reunification deal. At any rate, he has a brother in New York and extended family (uncles, cousins) in California. Mr. Almurisi left his wife and children in Yemen, intending to send money for their support once he had a job.

After failing to find work in California, Mr. Almurisi went to seek help from his brother in New York. Fortunately for him the Big Apple has been suffering from a dire shortage of cabdrivers and convenience-store help”€”jobs Americans won’t do. At last Mr. Almurisi found paid employment and was able to send money back to his wife.

Then, for reasons unknown, he snapped. With no luggage and only $47 in cash on him, Mr. Almurisi boarded a flight back to San Francisco, traveling on a one-way ticket purchased with cash. Half an hour from landing he left his seat and strode down the aisle toward the cockpit, shouting “Allahu Akbar!” (God is great.) Finding the cockpit door locked, as is normal nowadays, he assaulted it with his shoulder, still yelling praises to his deity. This, be it noted, was May 8, just six days after the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Since 9/11 we have all known what to do in these circumstances: Go for the guy and hit him with anything that comes to hand. Passengers and flight attendants quickly subdued Mr. Almurisi. Federal officers took him off the plane at San Francisco and hustled him off to the bridewell, where he has been ever since. A court-ordered medical report says that Mr. Almurisi has been suffering from auditory and optical hallucinations for the past several weeks.

Here’s the punch line, from a weekend news report in the Bay area Times-Herald on Mr. Almurisi’s latest bail hearing:

Nine relatives, including cousins and an uncle, attended the hearing. Outside of court, Almurisi’s uncle, Jamal Almoraissi of Vallejo, said, “They have nothing on him. Look at the evidence,” but declined to make any further comments.

I”€™ll concede a great deal here. I concede that Yemen’s 24 million people must certainly, just on statistical grounds, include many persons of the highest intellect and integrity, and many more who maintain very acceptable standards of decency and morality. I concede that anyone might lose his marbles at any time, with higher incidences among people living in a strange country under the stress of needing to send money to dependents back home. I concede that there are all sorts of valid reasons why a young man of Middle Eastern appearance might make a cash purchase of a one-way, cross-country plane ticket and board without luggage (perhaps while the TSA staff were busy frisking some suspicious-looking six-year-old). I concede that there may be sound arguments for family-reunification immigrant visas being available to relatives other than spouses and dependent children. (I have never heard such arguments, but I concede they may be out there.) I concede that while I personally don’t have nine uncles and cousins willing to show up at my bail hearing, others might be more blessed. I concede that such relatives have a right, nay a duty, to be supportive of the accused and skeptical of the authorities.

But here’s the thing. Given that, as the news reports tell us, Yemen is a disorderly place with a strong al-Qaeda presence, and that this has been so for years, why are we taking in Yemenis for permanent settlement? Wouldn’t our lives be easier and safer if we didn’t? Sure, Yemenis who want to come live here would be inconvenienced and disgruntled, but what’s that to us? Why does their desire to live in the USA outweigh our desire for a tad less danger and trauma in our lives?

Why are we admitting for settlement anyone at all from disorderly Muslim nations? It would be perfectly easy not to do so: Just make a list of no-visa nations and post it on the State Department website. If we were criticized for such a thing, why would we care? This is our country. We can let in whom we please. What exactly is the argument against national-origin immigration rules? Our government has an obligation to be scrupulously fair toward all citizens, but where is the obligation to be fair to all foreign nations, to treat placid Iceland and tumultuous Yemen as if they were alike?

I know the answers, of course. I also know what packing materials the answers travel in: guilt, sentimentality, noblesse oblige, and wishful thinking. I only wish it wasn’t so.