Quote:So, because there are citizens who are willing to be radicalized we should just ignore the fact that trained Jihadis are more than likely being welcomed with open arms into this country?  We can't prevent one while addressing the other?

 

I think it's pretty safe to assume that the potential for terrorists coming into this country who hail from Syria or other hot spots in the Middle East are deserving of far more scrutiny than most. Countries like Germany, Sweden, or England should serve as a wake-up call.  Muslim immigrants are unwilling to assimilate to the way of life in the countries they infest in Europe, and now those countries are at a tipping point.  Within the next half century, countries like England are going to be predominately Muslim as a result of lax immigration policies, and a birth rate that is more than 3 times that of the usual British subject. 

 

I actually saw an interview with a British politician talking about this very subject.  He referenced the fact that the situation in Sweden has just about reached critical mass.  Germany and England are not too far behind.  He talked about how the incremental change has been accelerated by the open immigration policies, and that leaders in these countries are so afraid of standing up and putting a foot down that they've allowed the situation to escalate to a point where there may be no turning back from the path they're on.  He said that the US immigration policies should not be eased because all that will do is allow the US to follow Europe down the path to demise. 

 

You can certainly dismiss it.  That seems to be the mindset that has been working so well in Europe. 

 

Yes, there are domestic terrorists.  We can deal with them.  But, why would we introduce a new cancer into the equation without properly vetting these people?  And because there are no records to actually evaluate the "immigrants" coming into this country, I'd say we're better off taking a strong stance on who is allowed into this country, especially if they are coming from a region of the world that has all but declared war on the western way of life, and is fully intent on eradicating the US and our allies from existing, either by force, or by bankrupting the systems.

 

BTW, proper vetting of immigrants coming from countries like the European nations is still fully capable.  With immigrants coming from Syria or other technologically challenged nations in the Middle East, if the records haven't been destroyed, they simply don't exist because many areas are borderline stone age.  Sorry, but if you can't do a proper background check of those coming into the country, you're better off blocking them all together until you can find a way to do so.

 

 

What are these records that might be destroyed, in, for example, the San Bernardino immigrant's case? What are the great secrets of our sufficient vetting that allows it us to sufficiently vet Europeans, yet is amazingly incapable of 'vetting' our own citizens?  Too bad we aren't using that amazing European vetting here. As far as the 'potential' being greater from hot spots in the middle east, I will merely reference the same comment I had regarding an argument about comparative risk made above in post 18 regarding Executive Order 9066.

Oh, and LOL, they are breeding like rabbits? Really? Sorry, I have heard that one before regarding non-terrorist immigrants here (though they are drug dealers and rapists, apparently)

---