You have people that cannot be positively identified from a part of the world saturated with violence and extremism. So much so that the head of the FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies testifying under oath that we don't have credible databases to vet these people against and the enemy will infiltrate the flow. We've already seen it in Europe. We've already seen it in the k1 visa program. We've already seen insurgents make it through the Iraqi refugee program (that had to be paused for 6 months.) humanitarian goals can be met by helping people in their country of origin. Given the tangible security risk its pretty hard to make an affirmative argument to bring people in from that part of the country, let alone on a fast tracked 3 month time table.

I like pie.

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

As I read it,you are saying that it is a subset of the immigrants that may have already been radicalized, and are a risk.  I  imagine you would agree that there have been cases of suburban Americans from much less 'radical' backgrounds wanting to go jihadi joe. I am pretty sure it wouldn't be incredibly difficult for ISIS to put out a press release saying we are going to start sneak folks in from everywhere. Seems to me there is some risk involving anyone immigrating to this country. Are you advocating a complete ban on immigration? I don't think so, but you did say in a prior post that proper vetting was impossible. So if proper vetting is impossible, how can any immigration by anyone occur? Or in post 7 were you talking specifically about vetting for 3 months versus another unspecified form of vetting? 

 

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.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

And we are discussing a pause in the flow from other countries not putting our own citizens in internment camps.

This rush to bring in these immigrants is being done in the name of humanitarianism. 

 

If the intention is purely humanitarian, we could send an unlimited amount of aid to camps in the region they come from to help support them while not compromising our own national security and the lives of our citizens by introducing a parasitic cancer into this country.  Many of these people are not coming here to become American.  They have no intention of assimilating to our culture or way of life.  They expect to basically transplant themselves here in the United States and be left to their own devices. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

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)

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

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)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Why? This is just about the dumbest idea I have ever heard. This is not the same as Serbians or even Ukranians seeking asylum. OBVIOUSLY the crazy jihadists know we are soft and bleeding hearts over here...

---

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?

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

<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.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Also, there were various information purges at homeland security to avoid PROFILING. we now know that Sayed farook was involved with a network of mosques that was in the original database as a red flag. Had the purges not occured he would have been on the no fly list and not allowed to travel to Saudi Arabia to facilitate the visa.

---

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. 

 

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"