Quote:So let me get this right. U bring up the idea that this isn't happening here in spite of article 5 of NATO and the attacks in Orlando and San Bernardino and I'm the one missing something?

He's got to take that approach because 2 of the shooters were homegrown terrorists in those incidents. So, in his mind, immigration laws are irrelevant.  Of course, in the San Bernardino case, the guy was radicalized by his wife.  She was not a homegrown terrorist. That incident in particular might have been prevented if she was not allowed to enter the US.  They used a fiancee visa to get her into the country, and the rest is history.  After the fact, the head of Homeland Security said that they would need to review the policies for these visas. 

 

For the Orlando shooter, I see that as more of a straw man argument in this context.  There are domestic policies in place that, had they been allowed to pursue in this case, may have prevented this incident from happening.  But, it wasn't an immigration issue.  The FBI had him under surveillance to the extent that they could, but their hands were tied in being able to obtain warrants to monitor web traffic, social media, etc.. They even interviewed the guy.   A report came out earlier this week indicating the agent who actually did this investigation had a gut feeling that the guy was lying to them, but that there wasn't enough there to get a judge to sign off on a warrant.

 

T_A is hanging his had on the fact that we haven't had an immigrant to this country execute an attack on US soil to warrant the added scrutiny.  I guess we'll just have to wait until that happens before he's willing to concede that domestic security trumps immigration policy when the homeland is put at risk.  We should probably ignore the Boston Marathon bombing.

---