My fear is not personal, I'm afraid for what this county will need to do and the people who will die getting it done.

I only fear for those who expect their government to protect them, in the constitutional manner proscribed. Everyone else, well, they can get what they ask for. Good and hard.

 

Fair enough. So you would ban them because they have killed some people, but so have a lot of other people and yet your not as excited about them. Why not?
She was from Pakistan by the way so Joe's formula wouldn't work. I think he was from Illinois, so for sure it wouldn't work for him. So are we back to exporting them because a couple of the mass shooters we have had were Muslim?

I never said ban, I said that it is reasonable to be extra diligent in the vetting process and err on the side of not letting someone in rather than the other way around. We can't, and never have, been able to come even close to admitting every one that wants to come to this country. Many (most) people that want to come here legally have to wait literally decades to do so. Right now there are literally millions of people that have applied legally and have been sponsored by American citizens who have entered into binding legal contracts guaranteeing that they will, if necessary, support the person financially so that they do not become a burden on the state. With the exception of just a couple of categories (such as the spouse or minor child of a U.S. citizen) these people have gone through the entire process, including the criminal background checks and immigration interviews and have been approved for a visa and are now simply waiting for a visa number to become available for them. For many, many countries, the people that got their visa numbers this week began waiting for them more than twenty years ago -- and during that time most of them did not dare even travel to the U.S. for fear of being denied entry at customs specifically because they had already been approved for a visa but had not yet gotten a number. While we were waiting for my wife to go finish the process (she already had her visa number and was merely waiting for her immigration interview to be scheduled) we wanted to bring her and our daughter over so that we could get things set up. It would have been perfectly legal since they both had visitors visas and we would have bought round-trip tickets as evidence of her intent to return home before her allowed visitor status stay expired. But when I checked with USCIS and with customs I was told that there was a very high likelihood that she would be turned away at the point of entry specifically based on the presumption that, despite having a non-refundable return ticket, that they would stay and apply for a Change of Status (which is outrageously expensive, by the way). Furthermore, there was absolutely no way to get entry approval upfront and the decision would be 100% up to whatever customs officer happened to be working the line she came through at the airport with a one year old child in her arms. If denied, she would not be able to leave the customs area and would have to purchase tickets to go back. There was no way we were going to risk that, especially not with a baby in the mix.

But let's consider what we will and won't do. We won't try to strengthen the process for keeping people that are a threat out, yet we will try to deprive legal gun owners of their rights. But which is higher -- the fraction of muslims that enter the U.S. and commit crimes and terrorist acts, or the fraction of legal U.S. gun owners that ever use a weapon illegally?

 

I doubt that killers will be admitted. The vetting process is much more stringent than how it's being portrayed here.

A) No, it isn't (or, more to the point, not nearly stringent enough -- and there is a practical limit on how stringent it can be).

B) Killers already have been admitted.

In all fairness, though, entering this country legally is clearly not the only way to get here. ISIS and others might opt for legal routes if it suits them, but there are plenty of illegal routes available should legal ones not suit them. We can and should shut down as many of those illegal routes as we possibly can, but there will ALWAYS be illegal routes into the country.

 

................ I'm afraid for what this county will need to do and the people who will die getting it done.

 

These people (ISIS) are not insane. They are different from the crazy sick person who murdered those children. The gap in motivation between that and the ISIS terror of them being good and the rest of the world (including most Muslims) evil is about as wide as it gets.

I would export any Muslim non-citizen in the country who expressed allegiance to ISIS.

I'm afraid of what they have done and will do to innocent people in this county. My fear is not personal, I'm afraid for what this county will need to do and the people who will die getting it done.

I'm not sure I understand the last part of the first sentence. But I think we could do something to keep us safer from the crazy guys.
Well, that's easy. Let's just ask them if they support ISIS. Of course then there is the problem of the non- Muslims who support ISIS.
I was going to inset the quote from Martin Niemöller here but I won't.
I to share your fear about what it would take to defeat them - well maybe not that so much as to keep them defeated. The war itself would be like a few Falluga's, but then we couldn't leave or they would just snap back. So we can spend another 10 years of being targets. I say, let them fight it out. There isn't a good side to be on.
Colin Powell was right we broke it.

 

A) No, it isn't

Yes it is.

B) Killers already have been admitted.

Who?

 

Then of thousands of Americans are killed every year in random domestic violence vs. only a couple on average by foreign terrorists. If I'm not afraid of the violence that goes on here every day, I'm sure as hell not afraid of the few foreign terrorists that make it to our shores.

 

I'm not sure I understand the last part of the first sentence. But I think we could do something to keep us safer from the crazy guys.
Well, that's easy. Let's just ask them if they support ISIS. Of course then there is the problem of the non- Muslims who support ISIS.

Just ask them? Seriously? Just how many people that are trying to come into the U.S. for the purpose of carrying out an attack are going to admit to supporting ISIS?

It doesn't matter if they are muslim or non-muslim. It doesn't matter if their basis for wanting to attack the U.S. is political, religious, personal, or whatever. Any person that admitted to such inclinations probably is too incompetent to be much of a threat when all is said and done.

But if this is all it takes, then let's just ask people whether they are dope smugglers or sex traffickers and not let them in, either. We could solve all kinds of problems with just a handful of questions.

 

Who?

You forgot what, when, where, how, and why.

 

I never said ban, I said that it is reasonable to be extra diligent in the vetting process and err on the side of not letting someone in rather than the other way around. We can't, and never have, been able to come even close to admitting every one that wants to come to this country. Many (most) people that want to come here legally have to wait literally decades to do so. Right now there are literally millions of people that have applied legally and have been sponsored by American citizens who have entered into binding legal contracts guaranteeing that they will, if necessary, support the person financially so that they do not become a burden on the state. With the exception of just a couple of categories (such as the spouse or minor child of a U.S. citizen) these people have gone through the entire process, including the criminal background checks and immigration interviews and have been approved for a visa and are now simply waiting for a visa number to become available for them. For many, many countries, the people that got their visa numbers this week began waiting for them more than twenty years ago -- and during that time most of them did not dare even travel to the U.S. for fear of being denied entry at customs specifically because they had already been approved for a visa but had not yet gotten a number. While we were waiting for my wife to go finish the process (she already had her visa number and was merely waiting for her immigration interview to be scheduled) we wanted to bring her and our daughter over so that we could get things set up. It would have been perfectly legal since they both had visitors visas and we would have bought round-trip tickets as evidence of her intent to return home before her allowed visitor status stay expired. But when I checked with USCIS and with customs I was told that there was a very high likelihood that she would be turned away at the point of entry specifically based on the presumption that, despite having a non-refundable return ticket, that they would stay and apply for a Change of Status (which is outrageously expensive, by the way). Furthermore, there was absolutely no way to get entry approval upfront and the decision would be 100% up to whatever customs officer happened to be working the line she came through at the airport with a one year old child in her arms. If denied, she would not be able to leave the customs area and would have to purchase tickets to go back. There was no way we were going to risk that, especially not with a baby in the mix.

But let's consider what we will and won't do. We won't try to strengthen the process for keeping people that are a threat out, yet we will try to deprive legal gun owners of their rights. But which is higher -- the fraction of muslims that enter the U.S. and commit crimes and terrorist acts, or the fraction of legal U.S. gun owners that ever use a weapon illegally?

I'm glad it turned out ok for you and your family.

But which is higher -- the fraction of muslims that enter the U.S. and commit crimes and terrorist acts, or the fraction of legal U.S. gun owners that ever use a weapon illegally?

I think there has only been 1 that has entered the country. The rest were born here. Statistically you can't do anything with 1.

 

Then of thousands of Americans are killed every year in random domestic violence vs. only a couple on average by foreign terrorists. If I'm not afraid of the violence that goes on here every day, I'm sure as hell not afraid of the few foreign terrorists that make it to our shores.

It's so reassuring to find out that, over the past, say, twenty years that fewer than a hundred people have been killed by foreign terrorists (that would be an average of five per year, well above "only a couple on average").

Oh, wait a minute, seems like I vaguely recall some small event that, by itself, had a few more than that. Must be mistaken. Especially since I seem to recall that the people that carried out that attack were all foreigners that had entered legally. So I MUST be mistaken since, apparently, we have never let any killers through.

 

Just ask them? Seriously? Just how many people that are trying to come into the U.S. for the purpose of carrying out an attack are going to admit to supporting ISIS?

It doesn't matter if they are muslim or non-muslim. It doesn't matter if their basis for wanting to attack the U.S. is political, religious, personal, or whatever. Any person that admitted to such inclinations probably is too incompetent to be much of a threat when all is said and done.

But if this is all it takes, then let's just ask people whether they are dope smugglers or sex traffickers and not let them in, either. We could solve all kinds of problems with just a handful of questions.

Don't pick on me it was NSA's idea.

 

I'm glad it turned out ok for you and your family.

I think there has only been 1 that has entered the country. The rest were born here. Statistically you can't do anything with 1.

The 9-11 hijackers most certainly weren't born here.

The slew of illegals that have committed murders weren't born here (but, while relevant, that is beyond the scope of the specific immediate discussion).

 

The terrorist aren't worth worrying about, until they exceed the US murder rate?

 

The 9-11 hijackers most certainly weren't born here.

The slew of illegals that have committed murders weren't born here (but, while relevant, that is beyond the scope of the specific immediate discussion).

See post 1. We are talking about mass shootings. But if it's a hangover from 9/11 that's ok just a few years late.

 

Since the number of people who die in automobiles is huge compared to terrorist attacks, I would just require the immigrates to pass a driving test before letting them into the US.

 

See post 1. We are talking about mass shootings. But if it's a hangover from 9/11 that's ok just a few years late.

Ah, so bombings involving pressure cookers don't count.

 

Since the number of people who die in automobiles is huge compared to terrorist attacks, I would just require the immigrates to pass a driving test before letting them into the US.

Given how well some of our foreign employees drove when they first got here (or, for that matter, my wife), that would most likely, in all seriousness, save far more lives than if we could eliminate all terrorist acts.

And on that note I'm going to bow out of this discussion. It has actually stayed civil much longer than we thought it would, but that is almost certainly going to change at some point. Since I don't want to contribute to that (which I am very likely to do), I am going to just put my mod hat back on and just sit back and watch.

Keep it civil and we can let it keep going. Cheers!

 

Since the number of people who die in automobiles is huge compared to terrorist attacks, I would just require the immigrates to pass a driving test before letting them into the US.

That would pretty much eliminate all immigration.

And Americans, too.

 

Then of thousands of Americans are killed every year in random domestic violence vs. only a couple on average by foreign terrorists. If I'm not afraid of the violence that goes on here every day, I'm sure as hell not afraid of the few foreign terrorists that make it to our shores.

People know the end-game for ISIS is WMD type mass killings in the west that's not directed on a hated spouse or fellow gang-banger. They want something that will get our boots on the ground for the final conflict by any means necessary. I say we preempt that event and get the deed done before that happens.