Quote:<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="FBT" data-cid="764007" data-time="1466204683">
Seriously?  I mean, it's one thing to bury your head in the sand, but you're managing to create a resting place in a bottomless pit.

There were reports following the San Bernardino shootings that indicated the husband, a US born citizen, was actually radicalized by his Pakistani born wife who only emigrated to this country in 2014.  They developed an online relationship where her extremist views became his, and the rest is history.  Even Homeland Security director Jeh Johnson indicated that the administration was reevaluating the K-1 visa program that she used to enter the country as the fiance of a US citizen.   She radicalized him, then came to the US to execute a plan. Had there been more sufficient vetting including reviewing social media postings and online content, odds are she wouldn't have been permitted to come into the US.  Would that have prevented the shootings in California?  We'll never know, but it's a good chance he wouldn't have been so willing to martyr himself without her influence.

 
Ahh, and the procedures weren't good enough then, but are now. But wait, they are good enough for Europe (and apparently Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are now to be considered part of Europe, given that the new improved vetting would work there (where her end of the communications were) but not Syria?


 

British citizens have a child birth rate of 1.5 children per family.  Muslims coming into Great Britain have a birth rate of more than 4 children per family.  You can laugh that off all you want, but the birth rates around Europe are fairly representative of what is being seen in the UK. 

 

You really want to hang your hat on Executive Order 9066.  Let me ask you this.  Was that blocking immigrants from entering the United States in order to prevent a potential terrorist element from entering this country?  No, it wasn't.  They were putting US citizens into internment camps, and deporting Japanese citizens in this country.  It was a VERY different situation.

 
Oh, well if is listed in caps it MUST be true. there couldn't be similarities in areas of prejudice, hysteria, or failure of leadership to paraphrase the CWRIC Report.


 

Why not mention Executive Order 12172 which is far more relevant to this discussion than 9066?  Didn't get the talking points on that one?  Look it up.
And yeah, the freezing of Iranian assets is more relevant than actions regarding peoples lives and the singling out of a specific class of people? Or does it have nothing to do with the types of people, just the location? If they move to one of those silly countries allowing immigration for a year or two, does the magical vetting then work, and they can come in?

</blockquote>


Executive Order 12172 wasn't the order freezing Iranian assets. Might want to do some research.


In most instances, the US and European nations actually share the information necessary to perform background checks on individuals seeking visas to enter the country. That's not the case with most Middle Eastern countries. In the case of Syria where your beloved president is rolling out the red carpet for their "refugees", every country they are seeking asylum in has said very clearly that it's impossible to properly vet them because what infrastructure there was has been decimated by civil war, or has never existed depending on the province.


You're fine rolling the dice. How about you take in a few of these poor, military aged Muslim men since you've got such a bleeding heart for them. Let us know how that works out for you.


The point about the wife in the San Bernardino case was that the system is broken when it comes to vetting Arab immigrants. There is no ability to monitor their social media profiles because the administration has forbidden it. Had they been able to do so, she never would have gained entry. Not that difficult to grasp. It's called profiling. I know that probably makes your skin crawl, but it actually works more often than not.

---