Quote:1.)The father shouldn't have been in the country.

 

Why? From my understanding the father was admitted to the country in the Reagan years, before there even was a Taliban. While I am not aware of exactly why he was admitted, I wonder what your reasons are for banning him entry.



2.) if you publicly swear allegiance to a foreign power or terrorist cell and express the desire to harm Americans your citizenship should be revoked.

 

While I wonder what the legal possibilities are involving revoking citizenship, I think I understand the gist of what you are saying, and tend to agree with it. Could we at least agree that we believe doing so should be considered seditious or a form of assault and prosecutable?



3.) San Bernardino was a migrant here on a fiancé visa.

Not sure what your point is. (Ah, will address below, hopefully)



4.) boston: asylum seekers.

Not sure what your point is.(Ah, will address below, hopefully)



5.) 9-11 over stayed student visas in some cases.

I am going to treat this a bit differently than the above. I have no problem with enforcing limits to Visas, but how? Bench warrants, visits by individuals to last known residence followed by deportation or review? Again, not sure I oppose these, just wondering what is involved.



Is there a magic bullet? No. Are there logical steps that we should take as a country? Yes.


Stop importing people from parts of the world that don't share our basic values.

I would say that depends on what those values are. If we are talking about say, not killing innocent people, hey, all for that. If we are talking about a blanket ban on Muslims, I totally disagree. Furthermore, What if the people seem to agree with our basic values, but the part of the world might not? Wouldn't that make them especially in need of refugee status?



All those that do come into the country must be affirmatively vetted over long periods of time.

Somewhere in this thread there was a link to a situation involving a few idiots shooting folks at a cartoonist thing in Texas I believe. From what I recall, the FBI had investigated them well prior to the incident, and had sent a bulletin to the local authorities prior to the attack. I am wondering if we could use this as sort of a discussion point for what more we should do, and how we should do it. 



The importance of assimilation and maintaining our culture can never take a back seat to PCism.

I would say that depends on your definition of assimilation and PCism. For example, to use an example that is probably not 'PC', I don't really care if all of the above immigrants in your example refuse to use a fork, always use their right hand to eat, only eat goats that are halal, were conventional dress, never learn English(though I think that would make their involvement as active citizens a richer experience), etc etc. I would like them to pay their taxes, not be a burden on society, and most importantly, not harm their fellow citizens. 

jj, thanks for outlining what you see as relevant. While I disagree with some of what you have outlined, I appreciate your supplying some substantive solutions. I guess after reading what you wrote and replying to it, the main question I have is who would you not grant Visas/Citizenship to? It sounds like the answer might be 'anyone from a Middle Eastern, Asian, or African country that is predominantly Muslim', but I don't want to misrepresent your views. Again, these are not just questions for you. I think it was Marty who very early on in this thread ventured that the response from the 'right' would be to limit immigration, and the response on the 'left' would be gun control. So far, that seems to sort of be on target. I think both sides have some merit in their points.

---