Vetting refugees
 

So the FBI (the premier investigative agency in the world) investigated the Orlando shooter twice, and concluded that he wasn't a threat.

Yet the same federal government is telling us to relax because they are screening all the Muslim refugees who are entering the US.

Imagine my relief.

Here's my hunch ... The FBI director, who I believe is an honorable man , but holds the goods on Hillary, will be forced to resign ....and that will be a shame
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought that Homeland Security does the vetting. either way, I understand the no confidence thing, all the more reason to support the second amendment and protect yourself because if you think our government is going to protect you from evil, you are not paying attention.

I guess that's my point. If the FBI can't adequately screen an American citizen, when they have access to all kinds of data...how the hell is another (less capable) agency going to vet someone from a mountain village that has nothing resembling a public records department? How, exactly, do you vet someone from a village that has no computers, no id cards, no social security numbers, no phones, no cameras, no filing cabinets? Do we only consider refugees from the cities?

Apples and oranges. Your question is like asking why a local pizza delivery guy should be trusted to give you a cab ride in NYC.

Spence, what is your solution?

To which issue?

Vetting.

You're assuming there's a problem in need of a solution. The existing process seems to be sufficient from what I've read and the number of immigrants involved isn't that big.

Trumps running around telling people that terrorists are going to flood in which really isn't true.

This is a situation Jeff,where just one can be too many. The possibility of many would have consequences that may have you taking more karate classes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

By that logic you'd need to close the border to everyone = terrorist win.

Why everyone?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, why everyone and why not for a period of time until a better system is
devised to use every method possible to make a safer program?

Ha, I would also like to hear your drivel about just how that makes terrorists the victors.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We should not accept any citizen from a country that supports terrorism as one of the rules for refusal.
What is wrong with that?
Just plain common sense.

Here's a novel idea. Let's keep them over there and we stay over here.

Holy sheet... I just solved it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How do the terrorist's win, and why should we let people in that come from countries that support terrorism?

Not closing the border spence....even if a wall was built they just have to go through processing at the legal entrance....U should B complaining to Canada not letting Americans into their country with a past DUI....:)

IMO any refugee entering this country should be required sign a legal document during the vetting process giving up their rights to privacy until they become a U.S. citizen.

US does the same thing, we're just a little less strict.

If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win.

So, is that more of a "win" than committing more mass murders on our soil?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So far I'm only aware of a single Muslim immigrant who's been involved in a mass shooting on US soil. The experts seem to agree the bigger threat is self radicalization of people already here many who are citizens and can walk into gun stores and legally buy assault weapons.

Taking irrational action at the border to discriminate against Islam is not only going to be ineffective it's going drive self radicalization.

Newsflash, the worst mass shooting in US history appears to be a lover scorned.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...-mateen-224644

But we do have other countries that are having more attacks and that should be a lesson to us . What exactly is wrong with slowing the process down? When our parents immigrated here they needed sponsors and jobs . It was very strict . What was wrong with that system ? What purpose does it serve to have unlimited immigration? Do you not see the financial and social burden it creates ?
Oh scorned lover.. Lmao . Is that the new "work place violence "?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The attacks in France and Belgium were by EU citizens.

The process for refugees to come to the US is not the same as the EU either. It's much harder, takes longer and I don't believe refugees even have any say where they are sent. They are fingerprinted and have their retinas scanned.

Sure there's always a possibility and we should be vigilant, but trying to sneak a terrorist into the US as a refugee is probably the most difficult path to take.

And my other questions ?
Btw who is " radicalizing " these US citizens?
If we let our fear that radicalized Muslim legal immigrants could be the result of stricter immigration controls , then the terrorist win. No ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If it were not for the terrorists, we would not be influenced into taking the irrational position of accepting hundreds of thousands or more immigrants from countries that breed terrorism. So, yeah, terrorists are and have been influencing us to compromise our value of placing the security of our citizens above the "influence" of the terrorists who wish to destroy us.

And they have to be laughing at our un-American stupidity of placing ourselves in the demographic danger of expanding the population here of those who breed like rabbits (that's not racist--rabbits are not a relevant racial, or gender, or national, or ethnic, group) while, at the same time, we do not breed at replacement level (when discounting the irrational, un-American, acceptance of millions of illegal immigrants.)

Your idea of American "values" seems to contain a high degree of self flagellation . . . even of a latent suicidal tendency. That must be some new Progressive, delusional, LSD like substance politically injected into the cultural bloodstream of America.

And the terrorists must be bending over with spasms of glee that we see more danger in the Muslims who are already here than in the Muslims yet to come. Somehow, some of us seem to think that those to come (if they are not already "radicalized") won't become radicalized as easily as those who are here now. And somehow those who think that way miss the obvious fact that once immigrants get here, they will become part of the ones who become citizens and are already here. That the number who who are "already here" will have grown, creating the potential of even more "radicalized" Muslims.

The immigrants in question are largely a product of violence from Assad, not ISIS or al Qaeda.

The "immigrants in question", more importantly than merely being immigrants, are Muslim. The "product of violence from Assad" was "influenced" by Muslim terrorists. Muslim terrorists, regardless of nominal affiliation or lack thereof, are "influencing" all of the Middle East, Most of Europe, the US, and lots of other places. Places which are influenced to crack down on, deport, or not allow, immigrants have less of a problem and because of their harshness, are thusly, minimally, influenced.

Yeah, Spence is so brainwashed by the administration and liberal media talking points he can't see the Catch 22 contradiction.