Quote: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.

 

So because Khan would hypothetically be denied immigration into the US, I should put aside the notion of blocking immigration from terror-prone nations? Sorry, I like Shad, but I favor national security over having a good football owner. Muslim immigration can be a crap shoot. Generally speaking, Muslim communities have a terrible track record of reporting radical behavior and don't assimilate. Even the "moderate" Muslims are radical compared to western standards. It doesn't matter if they are refugees or immigrants. So, if they are from terror-prone nations and can't be heavily vetted and proven to not hold anti-Western values, they should be denied. Unfortunately, this makes up a large portion of the Syrian refugees.

 

---