Vetting refugees

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

This is a situation Jeff,where just one can be too many.

By that logic you'd need to close the border to everyone = terrorist win.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

By that logic you'd need to close the border to everyone = terrorist win.

Why everyone?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Yes, why everyone and why not for a period of time until a better system is
devised to use every method possible to make a safer program?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

By that logic you'd need to close the border to everyone = terrorist win.

How do the terrorist's win, and why should we let people in that come from countries that support terrorism?

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

How do the terrorist's win, and why should we let people in that come from countries that support terrorism?

If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win.

So, is that more of a "win" than committing more mass murders on our soil?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

So, is that more of a "win" than committing more mass murders on our soil?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[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.

[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.

[fishbones]

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.

You don't pay attention, do you? I didn't mention shootings, yet you based your response on that. This thread is about immigration, not buying guns. Please try to come up with a response that fits the topic of the thread. You must have conveniently forgot about the marathon bombings and 9/11.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

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

"So far I'm only aware of a single Muslim immigrant who's been involved in a mass shooting on US soil"

Spence, I'll do you one better...I'm not aware of a Muslim immigrant who has gotten a parking ticket. But I don't know why that matters. So we should wait until it happens, and THEN devise a policy to prevent it?

My point was this...it's much easier for the FBI to investigate an American citizen, than it is for anyone, in any agency, to investigate someone from a mountaintop village which has no electricity or computers. So forgive me if I'm not relieved when Obama says "don't worry, we are vetting these people".

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

My point was this...it's much easier for the FBI to investigate an American citizen, than it is for anyone, in any agency, to investigate someone from a mountaintop village which has no electricity or computers. So forgive me if I'm not relieved when Obama says "don't worry, we are vetting these people".

Totally different processes.

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

So, is that more of a "win" than committing more mass murders on our soil?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Circle back around and think about why the mass murders happened in the first place.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

Circle back around and think about why the mass murders happened in the first place.

Stop it. You're making yourself look even more foolish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Stop it. You're making yourself look even more foolish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, I didn't mean to have asked you to think.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win.

It would be an irrational decision to allow immigrants from countries that support terrorism the priviledge (sp ?) to enter our country.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

It would be an irrational decision to allow immigrants from countries that support terrorism the priviledge (sp ?) to enter our country.

Why?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Why?

Common sense. Shouldn't have to spell out the dangers of countries who
support the terrorism that wants to do us in.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Common sense. Shouldn't have to spell out the dangers of countries who
support the terrorism that wants to do us in.

The biggest supporter of terrorism is the opponent who fuels the fire of jihad. Every bomb we drop is just fertilizer for more hate of the west. So in a way, we are the biggest funders of terrorism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win.

"If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values"= utter nonsense

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by spence

By that logic you'd need to close the border to everyone = terrorist win.

Not closing the border spence....even if a wall was built they just have to go through processing at the legal entrance....U should B complaining to Canada not letting Americans into their country with a past DUI....

[DZ]

IMO any refugee entering this country should be required sign a legal document during the vetting process giving up their rights to privacy until they become a U.S. citizen.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Not closing the border spence....even if a wall was built they just have to go through processing at the legal entrance....U should B complaining to Canada not letting Americans into their country with a past DUI....

US does the same thing, we're just a little less strict.