Quote:Apparently you failed to understand the analogy. It is analogous to the fact that we cannot vet a large portion of the refugees that many are so welcoming to accept. So, because you cannot vet them, why should you risk letting them enter the country when many could be radicalized jihadist? It only takes one.

 

FYI, Steve Jobs' birth parents were not refugees. They were immigrants. They immigrated legally and were vetted normally, not through a refugee program.

 

Andrew Carnegie and Shahid Khan weren't refugees.  Shahid Khan IS Muslim, though, and as we all know Donald has called for a ban on all Muslims entering the US until we can figure out what is going on.  Thus, under Donald's system, no Khan in the USA. 

 

Andrew Carnegie was EXCEEDINGLY poor when he came to the US from Scotland, and I include him as a immigrant-boy-does-good story, and to twist the knife on Donald's "extreme vetting" idiocy, as Donald's own mum is a fisherman's daughter from the Hebrides in Scotland.

 

Steve Jobs biological father was not fleeing a war, but this article does a good job of explaining that he was, in fact, fleeing political persecution. BTW, whether you agree with me or not, the article's a very interesting and non-partisan backstory on the particulars of how Steve Jobs wound up adopted into a California household.

 

Every time we let someone into the country, we take a risk.  There are procedures already in place to minimize that risk, and with 0 terrorist attacks per 784,000 refugees in 15 years, I think we're doing pretty good.

 

Stopping immigration won't stop the hateful ideology.  It does not infect by human contact, it is earbourne.

---