Vetting refugees

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

So far I'm only aware of a single Muslim immigrant who's been involved in a mass shooting on US soil. The experts seem to agree the bigger threat is self radicalization of people already here many who are citizens and can walk into gun stores and legally buy assault weapons.

Taking irrational action at the border to discriminate against Islam is not only going to be ineffective it's going drive self radicalization.

Newsflash, the worst mass shooting in US history appears to be a lover scorned.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...-mateen-224644

But we do have other countries that are having more attacks and that should be a lesson to us . What exactly is wrong with slowing the process down? When our parents immigrated here they needed sponsors and jobs . It was very strict . What was wrong with that system ? What purpose does it serve to have unlimited immigration? Do you not see the financial and social burden it creates ?
Oh scorned lover.. Lmao . Is that the new "work place violence "?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

But we do have other countries that are having more attacks and that should be a lesson to us . What exactly is wrong with slowing the process down? When our parents immigrated here they needed sponsors and jobs . It was very strict . What was wrong with that system ? What purpose does it serve to have unlimited immigration? Do you not see the financial and social burden it creates ?
Oh scorned lover.. Lmao . Is that the new "work place violence "?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The attacks in France and Belgium were by EU citizens.

The process for refugees to come to the US is not the same as the EU either. It's much harder, takes longer and I don't believe refugees even have any say where they are sent. They are fingerprinted and have their retinas scanned.

Sure there's always a possibility and we should be vigilant, but trying to sneak a terrorist into the US as a refugee is probably the most difficult path to take.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

The attacks in France and Belgium were by EU citizens.

The process for refugees to come to the US is not the same as the EU either. It's much harder, takes longer and I don't believe refugees even have any say where they are sent. They are fingerprinted and have their retinas scanned.

Sure there's always a possibility and we should be vigilant, but trying to sneak a terrorist into the US as a refugee is probably the most difficult path to take.

And my other questions ?
Btw who is " radicalizing " these US citizens?
If we let our fear that radicalized Muslim legal immigrants could be the result of stricter immigration controls , then the terrorist win. No ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by buckman

And my other questions ?
Btw who is " radicalizing " these US citizens?
If we let our fear that radicalized Muslim legal immigrants could be the result of stricter immigration controls , then the terrorist win. No ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, Spence is so brainwashed by the administration and liberal media talking points he can't see the Catch 22 contradiction.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, Spence is so brainwashed by the administration and liberal media talking points he can't see the Catch 22 contradiction.

You should evaluate this remark in context of all domestic mass shootings and terror events.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You should evaluate this remark in context of all domestic mass shootings and terror events.

OK. I evaluated my remark in the context of your words in this thread about vetting refugees: "If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win." And: "Taking irrational action at the border to discriminate against Islam is not only going to be ineffective it's going drive self radicalization." There's a flip side to both of those propositions that you choose not to recognize, but you slavishly stick only to the administration talking points.

After evaluating my remark within its proper context, my remark stands.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

What exactly is wrong with slowing the process down?

The process is already pretty slow.

When our parents immigrated here they needed sponsors and jobs . It was very strict . What was wrong with that system ?

A lot has changed since then and the system is much more strict today. Have you seen the process?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015...-united-states

What purpose does it serve to have unlimited immigration?

We do not have nor has anyone I'm aware of called for unlimited immigration.

Do you not see the financial and social burden it creates ?

Tell that to the last 200 years of immigrants that created the most powerful country in modern history.

Oh scorned lover.. Lmao . Is that the new "work place violence "?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's a dynamic that would have significant implications on his real motive.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

The process is already pretty slow.


A lot has changed since then and the system is much more strict today. Have you seen the process?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015...-united-states


We do not have nor has anyone I'm aware of called for unlimited immigration.


Tell that to the last 200 years of immigrants that created the most powerful country in modern history.


It's a dynamic that would have significant implications on his real motive.

What Fishbones said
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device