Vetting refugees

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

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

It would be an irrational decision to allow immigrants from countries that support terrorism the priviledge (sp ?) to enter our country.

[detbuch]

Has the supposedly lengthy vetting process been reduced to three months for the "surge" of refugees that Obama wants to let in?

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/0...-enough/209814

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

"If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values"= utter nonsense

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

You don't pay attention, do you? I didn't mention shootings, yet you based your response on that. This thread is about immigration, not buying guns. Please try to come up with a response that fits the topic of the thread. You must have conveniently forgot about the marathon bombings and 9/11.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

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

Circle back around and think about why the mass murders happened in the first place.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

What exactly is wrong with slowing the process down?

The process is already pretty slow.

When our parents immigrated here they needed sponsors and jobs . It was very strict . What was wrong with that system ?

A lot has changed since then and the system is much more strict today. Have you seen the process?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015...-united-states

What purpose does it serve to have unlimited immigration?

We do not have nor has anyone I'm aware of called for unlimited immigration.

Do you not see the financial and social burden it creates ?

Tell that to the last 200 years of immigrants that created the most powerful country in modern history.

Oh scorned lover.. Lmao . Is that the new "work place violence "?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's a dynamic that would have significant implications on his real motive.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

Circle back around and think about why the mass murders happened in the first place.

Stop it. You're making yourself look even more foolish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

The process is already pretty slow.


A lot has changed since then and the system is much more strict today. Have you seen the process?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015...-united-states


We do not have nor has anyone I'm aware of called for unlimited immigration.


Tell that to the last 200 years of immigrants that created the most powerful country in modern history.


It's a dynamic that would have significant implications on his real motive.

What Fishbones said
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

It would be an irrational decision to allow immigrants from countries that support terrorism the priviledge (sp ?) to enter our country.

Why?

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Stop it. You're making yourself look even more foolish.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, I didn't mean to have asked you to think.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

You should evaluate this remark in context of all domestic mass shootings and terror events.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Why?

Common sense. Shouldn't have to spell out the dangers of countries who
support the terrorism that wants to do us in.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You should evaluate this remark in context of all domestic mass shootings and terror events.

OK. I evaluated my remark in the context of your words in this thread about vetting refugees: "If terrorists influence the US to take an irrational position that the majority believes compromises our values = terrorists win." And: "Taking irrational action at the border to discriminate against Islam is not only going to be ineffective it's going drive self radicalization." There's a flip side to both of those propositions that you choose not to recognize, but you slavishly stick only to the administration talking points.

After evaluating my remark within its proper context, my remark stands.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

Sorry, I didn't mean to have asked you to think.

Actually, you didn't ask. You just continue to say things to detract from the fact that you can't support your argument here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Common sense. Shouldn't have to spell out the dangers of countries who
support the terrorism that wants to do us in.

The biggest supporter of terrorism is the opponent who fuels the fire of jihad. Every bomb we drop is just fertilizer for more hate of the west. So in a way, we are the biggest funders of terrorism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ThrowingTimber]

Vetting refugees - Look at how Europe turned itself into a third world country. I say we stay the #^&#^&#^&#^& out of it and mind our own business. They need refuge, let them go to Oman or UAE, Dubai etc. Those mf'ers have bank! Let them help themselves and we'll watch from a safe distance.

The Flowers By Irene guys are robots. They get told go they go. They get told stop they stop. The probably stopped on the kid in Orlando because they were giving him boo boo feelings on the inside.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

"So far I'm only aware of a single Muslim immigrant who's been involved in a mass shooting on US soil"

Spence, I'll do you one better...I'm not aware of a Muslim immigrant who has gotten a parking ticket. But I don't know why that matters. So we should wait until it happens, and THEN devise a policy to prevent it?

My point was this...it's much easier for the FBI to investigate an American citizen, than it is for anyone, in any agency, to investigate someone from a mountaintop village which has no electricity or computers. So forgive me if I'm not relieved when Obama says "don't worry, we are vetting these people".

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

The biggest supporter of terrorism is the opponent who fuels the fire of jihad. Every bomb we drop is just fertilizer for more hate of the west. So in a way, we are the biggest funders of terrorism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So we should leave them alone. That's brilliant.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

My point was this...it's much easier for the FBI to investigate an American citizen, than it is for anyone, in any agency, to investigate someone from a mountaintop village which has no electricity or computers. So forgive me if I'm not relieved when Obama says "don't worry, we are vetting these people".

Totally different processes.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Totally different processes.

As I said, I agree. One process (FBI vetting citizens) is a lot easier. And they still failed miserably in teh case of the Orlando guy.

You said that if we implement bad policies, terrorists win. How does the removal of second amendment rights fit into that argument?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

As I said, I agree. One process (FBI vetting citizens) is a lot easier. And they still failed miserably in teh case of the Orlando guy.

I'd think vetting citizens is probably a lot harder. There are significant protections that limit how far the FBI can go without violating a presumption of innocence. Refugees applying for UN sponsored status have no such protections and face a rigorous process that goes well beyond the scope of the FBI.

You said that if we implement bad policies, terrorists win. How does the removal of second amendment rights fit into that argument?

Who is calling for the removal of second amendment rights?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd think vetting citizens is probably a lot harder.

Bonkers.

We have publicly available data on citizens - birth records, immunization records, criminal records, that the FBI can easily get. Hell, I can look up someone's arrest record online.

Please tell me, Spence, how do we vet someone from a village with no computers, no schools, no jails, etc? Other than asking each refugee, "do you promise not to kill anyone", how the hell do you confirm anything?

Have fun with that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Bonkers.

We have publicly available data on citizens - birth records, immunization records, criminal records, that the FBI can easily get. Hell, I can look up someone's arrest record online.

What good is that against someone with a clean record who can walk into a gun store and pick up some weapons?

Please tell me, Spence, how do we vet someone from a village with no computers, no schools, no jails, etc? Other than asking each refugee, "do you promise not to kill anyone", how the hell do you confirm anything?

I don't think you understand the process.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

Who is calling for the removal of second amendment rights?

I can tell you who,
pretty much any and all of the politicians who are trying to infringe our rights with further gun control legislation seeing as we already have enough laws on the books and they need to be enforced before any more infringement happens. That includes Senator Warren to begin with and all the rest who choose to take the lazy approach to issues of violence.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I can tell you who,
pretty much any and all of the politicians who are trying to infringe our rights with further gun control legislation seeing as we already have enough laws on the books and they need to be enforced before any more infringement happens. That includes Senator Warren to begin with and all the rest who choose to take the lazy approach to issues of violence.

Yea, and left-wing nuts like four star Generals McChrystal and Petraeus who don't think the public has a rational need for a 223 semi auto configured with assault features.

What freaks.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

What good is that against someone with a clean record who can walk into a gun store and pick up some weapons?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Inverse and it will make sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yea, and left-wing nuts like four star Generals McChrystal and Petraeus who don't think the public has a rational need for a 223 semi auto configured with assault features.

What freaks.

Freaks? Is this some new Progressive buzzword which is supposed to make us all meekly surrender to how right you are? Progressives are not "nuts" or "freaks." They are very rational. They are extremely persistent. And they are totally full their supposedly superior wisdom. Which makes one wonder why they need buzzwords to convince us of that wisdom. And why they need to change the meaning of words to give their arguments the appearance of truth.

And they told us from their beginning that the Constitution is an impediment to the way they must govern. They have said EXACTLY so IN THEIR OWN WORDS. But the rest of us, of course, are too ignorant of how right they are, how backward we are, and how better we and the rest of the world would be if we, and the Constitution, would just get out of their way so they could lead us into their Brave New World.

So, YES, the Progressives (mostly Democrats) want to abolish the Second Amendment. It is a prominent piece of what remains of the Constitution after they have eviscerated most of the rest. They intend, piece by piece, to finish the job and are free to rule us by fiat, fancied over with phony Orwellian newspeak. The fact that you cannot see that is evidence, as you accused Jim re the vetting process, that you don't understand the process. You don't understand the Constitutional process, nor the process by which it is being dismantled. And you simply accept strings of pretty sounding words and phrases which actually destroy that process. And, somehow, when people like Petraeus, a traitor, or HRC, a psychopathic liar, or Obama, a critic of the Constitution, say those words and phrases, you swoon over them like a subdued lover.

But your love affair is, as love affairs usually are, blind. And you think you understand everything the object of your infatuation does or says. You think you "understand" the vetting process because its string of words makes it so. If we just follow the words, we have little to fear. Oh, how Progressive words constantly change, or are disobeyed, or imperfectly followed. And no rational criticism, even as Jim has provided, are of any consequence. Because the words make the process so. You are a slave to Progressive strings of words. Even though they fly in the face of experience.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

What good is that against someone with a clean record who can walk into a gun store and pick up some weapons?


I don't think you understand the process.

That's exactly why I asked you to explain it to me. And you didn't. Because you can't. As always, you take it on faith that any plan implemented by anyone with a (D) after their name, must necessarily be brilliant. Always, always, always.

We have more ability to paint a quick and accurate picture of a citizen living here, than we do about someone who lives in a remote village in the Middle East. No rational person would deny that. I have a background check done on any new employee. I can look up your criminal record online in 5 minutes. It's not perfect obviously, but it's a hell of a lot more available than background info on someone from a place that has never had electricity to send data, or even a filing cabinet to store paper records.

But you would say, details, shme-tails.

[spence]

I posted a link that details the entire vetting process.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device