Islamic "Refugees"

[Medusa]

Perfect answer.

I am against anybody getting shot but...

I am willing to bet my last dime that the Orlando victims were - to the last man and woman - for Obama, against guns, for illegals, for open borders, for tolerance of everything, for "refugees", for Muslims - and off-the-chart Trump haters.

One personal benefit if Hillary is elected because "Trump is mean": I will not feel sorry for anyone after the next Orlando, just as I never felt sorry for those who drink themselves to death.

You wanna die? Go for it and count me out.

Your world is made of white and black.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Yes. Refugees should be women and children. Men should stay home and fight to make their homeland a better place to live while their wives and kids are safely out of the way -temporarily, and when the war is over, back home.

Oh yes. Such a simple concept. "MEN CANT COME HERE! ONLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN! IF YOU DONT WANNA FIGHT WELL TOO BAD YOU GOTTA STAY HOME AND FIGHT" :roll:
Such a black and white and ignorant argument.

Lets come back to reality: Sometimes, I know this might be a shock to you, men dont join the army or armed groups and fight.

Also, you never answered my question: "And how does this also serve the fact that 99.999358974359% of them dont support terrorism and only .000641025641% of them have supported terrorism in one form or another, but none of them were looking to partake in a violent action actually inside in the US?"

"Is it not your government as well?" Yes, legally

Well that finishes it.

 

[devildavid]

Perfect answer.

I am against anybody getting shot but...

I am willing to bet my last dime that the Orlando victims were - to the last man and woman - for Obama, against guns, for illegals, for open borders, for tolerance of everything, for "refugees", for Muslims - and off-the-chart Trump haters.

One personal benefit if Hillary is elected because "Trump is mean": I will not feel sorry for anyone after the next Orlando, just as I never felt sorry for those who drink themselves to death.

You wanna die? Go for it and count me out.

What happened in Orlando has zero do to with refugees.

Do you feel sorry for any of the 32,675 people who died in motor vehicle crashes in 2014? Do you feel sorry for any of the 11,961 murder victims in 2014?

Immigration is not an exact science. We can't predict how much the immigrants will benefit or hurt our country in the long run. The original English colonists did not even get along with each other. We had a bloody civil war between the white north and the white south before our country finally enjoyed some measure of peaceful coexistence.

Those who believe in some perfect racial and ethnic composition of America are wrong. This country is not an exclusive club, where those who were here first get to decide who else gains membership. Our country had no problem bringing in immigrants and using them as cheap labor. All those who want to limit immigration are those who falsely believe that our country was ever perfect or can ever achieve some perfect mix through immigration policy that restricts "bad eggs". It is way too late for that now. It is an idea that was stillborn.

 

[Medusa]

Yes. Refugees should be women and children. Men should stay home and fight to make their homeland a better place to live while their wives and kids are safely out of the way -temporarily, and when the war is over, back home.


"Is it not your government as well?" Yes, legally, just as the communists used to be "my" government. Your government is as corrupt, incompetent and self-serving as it ever gets. Does 20 trillion sound familiar?

I really agree with it and that is why I criticize young syrian guys who try to immigrate to EUROPE.But you dont live in Europe and you are still lucky

 

[legalimmigrant]

Immigration is not an exact science. We can't predict how much the immigrants will benefit or hurt our country in the long run. .

Bulls***. Immigration is a very exact science. Zero immigrants = zero crime by immigrants.

If your moronic immigration policy was not so moronic, there would not be Boston, San Bernardino, and Orlando.

Yes, Orlando. You had no business admitting the POS's parents who spawned this bastard.

 

[justlikethat]

Actually the ThinkProgress article is clearly cited and the quote I used is from Migration Policy, which is an "independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank in Washington, DC dedicated to analysis of the movement of people worldwide"

I think you first need to understand what a "straw man argument" actually is...


Its pretty relevant when we are discussing the refugee process and population of our country. If we want to get an accurate portrayal of the refugee population and if they actively support terrorism, why not look at the current population and a case analyis, because after-all havent Islamic terrorists been waging Jihad on us for a while now, especially since 9/11?


Oh the great unknown eh? Gotta live in constant fear because of the great "might"? Good thing we have an incredibly long vetting process, right? After all if someone really wanted to get into the US and commit terrorist acts they would not become a refugee, because 1.)the chance they would actually get selected by the UN refugee relocation process is less than 1%, and 2.)the vetting process and security check process can take up to two years (i believe) and they would most likely get caught in that vetting process. IF one wanted to commit a terrorist act in the US they would do what most of the 9/11 hijackers did, attempt to get student visas and work visas.


Nope. My article is to point out that throughout time the refugees who have been resettled in the US, 99.999358974359% of them, have never been charged with supporting terrorism.


1.)To mirror a earlier point. Islamic terrorists been waging Jihad on us for a while now, especially since 9/11, and we have resettled hundreds of thousands of them....
2.)ISIS is earlier than a year old. ISIS was first went by 'Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad', founded in 1999. ISIS then went by 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq' in 2004. ISIS then went by 'IS/ISIL/ISIS' in 2014.


We are talking about the refugee process in the USA, not Europe. To compare two different refugee resettlement processes is dishonest.

The OP is talking about muslim refugees and how many are really terrorists or sympathize with terrorists, get with the program!
muslim refugees are muslim refugees, it's irrelevant what countries they migrate to, cmon, a 5th grader could figure that out!

Now to your straw man argument: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."

The OP's question is clearly based on the question of how many refugees could actually be terrorists or sympathize with them.
You my friend advanced the argument to how many refugees have been arrested!

Again, you are incorrect, please read my above comment about the 5th grader, you may learn what a straw man fallacy is a well!

 

[devildavid]

Bulls***. Immigration is a very exact science. Zero immigrants = zero crime by immigrants.

If your moronic immigration policy was not so moronic, there would not be Boston, San Bernardino, and Orlando.

Yes, Orlando. You had no business admitting the POS's parents who spawned this bastard.

So that means no immigrants ever again? Is that what you are really proposing? Slam the door shut, lock it, and throw away the key? There are no longer immigrants who could become an asset to our country?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

The OP is talking about muslim refugees and how many are really terrorists or sympathize with terrorists, get with the program!

Why not look at the OP statement? "Makes one think how many of these "refugees" are in reality terrorists. Or how many muslims are Sharia compliant and sympathize with terrorists in the US?"

muslim refugees are muslim refugees, it's irrelevant what countries they migrate to, cmon, a 5th grader could figure that out!

Muslim refugees are muslim refugees. This is correct... But we are looking at terrorism and how refugees enter each country. America's refugee resettlement process is way different and way more stringent than many European countries. Its dishonest to try to compare the two refugee resettlement programs as equitable example.

Now to your straw man argument: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."

Good job copying and pasting a definition. Now tell me how its a straw man.

The OP's question is clearly based on the question of how many refugees could actually be terrorists or sympathize with them.
You my friend advanced the argument to how many refugees have been arrested!

Anyone can be a "sympathizer". Hell you can even be one. Even a native born American. He asked how many refugees are terrorists. To be a terrorist one commits terrorism. So then I said, well probably not that many because of the example I gave.... The refugees who have been resettled in the US, 99.999358974359% of them, have never been charged with supporting terrorism, AKA not terrorists.

Again, you are incorrect, please read my above comment about the 5th grader, you may learn what a straw man fallacy is a well!

:lamo

 

[justlikethat]

Why not look at the OP statement? "Makes one think how many of these "refugees" are in reality terrorists. Or how many muslims are Sharia compliant and sympathize with terrorists in the US?"


Muslim refugees are muslim refugees. This is correct... But we are looking at terrorism and how refugees enter each country. America's refugee resettlement process is way different and way more stringent than many European countries. Its dishonest to try to compare the two refugee resettlement programs as equitable example.


Good job copying and pasting a definition. Now tell me how its a straw man.


Anyone can be a "sympathizer". Hell you can even be one. Even a native born American. He asked how many refugees are terrorists. To be a terrorist one commits terrorism. So then I said, well probably not that many because of the example I gave.... The refugees who have been resettled in the US, 99.999358974359% of them, have never been charged with supporting terrorism, AKA not terrorists.


:lamo

Your come back was expected and so was the lack of substance it contained, very typical of a leftie.

Debating a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon, no matter how many times you put it in check, the pigeon craps all over the board and struts around like it won!

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Your come back was expected and so was the lack of substance it contained, very typical of a leftie.

Debating a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon, no matter how many times you put it in check, the pigeon craps all over the board and struts around like it won!

You criticize my post for "lacking substance" but you literally just posted something that addresses nothing I said with any sort of substance and instead you just post personal attacks...

Also, I'm not a liberal.

 

[matchlight]

This country is not an exclusive club, where those who were here first get to decide who else gains membership.

That is plainly false. The United States is a sovereign nation. The American people, acting through their representatives in Congress, can decline to admit any alien for any reason whatever, without having to justify the exclusion to anyone. The Supreme Court has made this very clear:

This Court has repeatedly emphasized that over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over the admission of aliens. Our cases have long recognized the power the expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control. Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977).

 

[justlikethat]

You criticize my post for "lacking substance" but you literally just posted something that addresses nothing I said with any sort of substance and instead you just post personal attacks...

Also, I'm not a liberal.

DemSocialist, you're the epitome of my pigeon analogy, so I believe I addressed your half ass rebut and your character very well.

And if you do not understand your own ideological leanings, I don't know what to tell you!:monkey

 

[devildavid]

That is plainly false. The United States is a sovereign nation. The American people, acting through their representatives in Congress, can decline to admit any alien for any reason whatever, without having to justify the exclusion to anyone. The Supreme Court has made this very clear:

This Court has repeatedly emphasized that over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over the admission of aliens. Our cases have long recognized the power the expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control. Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977).

I never said we can't have an immigration policy. But a policy that simply closes the door to everyone is a two edged sword. It keeps the bad ones out, but doesn't let the good ones in. Once you start picking and choosing there is no scientific way to get the policy that may work for the best. Our country has already allowed or refused immigrants in the past based on subjective criteria. There are some who claim to know which immigrants will harm us and which will benefit us. For example, how do we know political refugees from Cuba will not become criminals in the U.S.? But we let them in mainly because Cuba is our political enemy.

 

[jmotivator]

All she has to do now is get pregnant, and she is in - undeportable. And we are out of big bucks for the medical care for her and the anchor bastard.

Well, she'll need to marry someone first... you don't want her getting executed, do you?

 

[devildavid]

Here is a good summary of the history of US immigration policy.

How U.S. immigration laws and rules have changed through history | Pew Research Center

 

[Brochacholomigo]

The 19 visitors from Saudi Arabia who gave you 9/11 were vetted, too, right?

Or were they un-vetted?

How is that vetting going to work with the first gen Muslims born here - like that pos who gave you Orlando?

Did you consider that ISIS sends here the kind that will withstand vetting by a dozen of overworked, low-IQ US clerks, to be activated later?

Is there anything - immigration-wise - that your government can do which is actually to the benefit of the US?

Last question: Why are the Americans so pathetically naive and f****** stupid? Is there something in the water? Global warming?

Please, don't be shy.

The terrorists who hijacked planes were definitely unvetted. 911 is the reason we vet people now.

You mentioned that we don't have a way to vet native-born Muslims. You're right, we don't. Because they're American ****ing citizens, and they have the same privelages and rights as any other citizen in our country.

And now, I'm going to let you in on a secret that may terrify you: terrorists are one of the least dangerous threats to someone in America. You are more likely to be killed by a random street thug every time you enter or exit your vehicle than you are to be killed by a terrorist. Marital disputes cause more deaths in America than terrorists do. So do car crashes, swimming pools, construction accidents, medicine, police, stoves, and countless other common objects and events. Sure, they might be a lot less scary, but the odds of a terrorist actually killing you are astronomically low. That's why we don't worry about a couple goat ****ers in a desert with outdated Soviet weaponry who, on rare occasions, manage to get across the Atlantic Ocean - everything else around us is far more lethal than they'll ever be to us.

You think we're pathetically naive and stupid? We're just capable of evaluating likely threats and reading statistics. Why are you so petulantly, pants-****ting horrified by a minority of a minority that rarely succeeds at their plans?

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Bulls***. Immigration is a very exact science. Zero immigrants = zero crime by immigrants.

Zero immigrants = an undeveloped tract of plains and forests, although the Indians would likely prefer it that way. America is a nation of immigrants. Without immigration, there would be no Americans.

 

[Fearandloathing]

FYI

Nearly 70 are arrested in America over ISIS plots and they include refugees | Daily Mail Online

I didn't read the article, but it appears you are full of propaganda. To put it nicely :lamo

I didn't read it all because its about American citizens.


Americans have been killing Americans since before America existed. Thousands more die at the hands of gun wielding American born whackos than terrorists.

Clearly this is not being thought through, all these years any terrorist organization could simply walk into the country through the back door. They haven't, but you still fear the idea that some terrorist is willing to wait five years or more and have no control over which country accepts him.

You are being played like children.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I'd like to start by pointing out the irony in your post.
You insinuate Judicial Watch is a BS tabloid news org, then you supply an article from Think Progress, really!

But my real point is your straw man argument.
How many refugees who have been caught being radicalized and arrested for terrorism is irrelevent.
The real issue is not how many have, it's not knowing how many will and if sacrificing innocent American lives is worth being "compassionate"

Your article is meant to deceive readers into thinking there is a near non existent threat from refugees, and that is an outright lie.
Using stats like "since 911 only three refugees were arrested" is the first giveaway.
911 was 15 yrs ago, but ISIS is the real threat to the US, and it is barely a year old.
Wise up.


Nato commander: Isis ‘spreading like cancer’ among refugees
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/01/refugees-isis-nato-commander-terrorists

Terrorism Suspects Are Posing as Refugees, Germany Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/world/europe/germany-refugees-isis.html?_r=0

HOW ISIS SMUGGLES TERRORISTS AMONG SYRIAN REFUGEES
http://www.newsweek.com/how-isis-smuggles-terrorists-among-syrian-refugees-453039

Wow, its been a long time since I have seen a post that is that outright stupid.

The number of arrests is irrelevant? Irrational to start with and an outright lie. It is VERY critical to this debate, the fact you and your buddies can't substantiate your fear monger notwithstanding. It proves the system is working. Duh.

As to the implied hypocrisy of sources, you attack the poster as being deceptive, when its you who is spreading lies. You cite aging quotes of individuals CLAIMING terrorists, but no hard data, while insisting the hard date provided, arrests don't count.

It is you who is spreading deceit and lies.

 

[justlikethat]

Wow, its been a long time since I have seen a post that is that outright stupid.

The number of arrests is irrelevant? Irrational to start with and an outright lie. It is VERY critical to this debate, the fact you and your buddies can't substantiate your fear monger notwithstanding. It proves the system is working. Duh.

As to the implied hypocrisy of sources, you attack the poster as being deceptive, when its you who is spreading lies. You cite aging quotes of individuals CLAIMING terrorists, but no hard data, while insisting the hard date provided, arrests don't count.

It is you who is spreading deceit and lies.

So calling a post stupid, like a child I might add, is your rebuttal?

Lets see if you have the moxie to debate the issue or if you have nothing but childish snipes in your arsenal.

The OP was eluding to the dangers of muslim refugees entering the US, how many could be terrorists and how many may sympathize with them.
Now, my contention is, it is irrelevant as to the OP's question that how many have already been caught, arrested or prosecuted.
He is clearly asking how many could be, not how many have been confirmed to be!

So Fearandloathing, can you articulate a rebuttal with some substance all on you own, or is coming to the rescue of your little leftie buddy all you're interested in?

BTW, we can address the deception of DemSocialist next if you like.

 

[Fearandloathing]

So calling a post stupid, like a child I might add, is your rebuttal?

Lets see if you have the moxie to debate the issue or if you have nothing but childish snipes in your arsenal.

The OP was eluding to the dangers of muslim refugees entering the US, how many could be terrorists and how many may sympathize with them.
Now, my contention is, it is irrelevant as to the OP's question that how many have already been caught, arrested or prosecuted.
He is clearly asking how many could be, not how many have been confirmed to be!

So Fearandloathing, can you articulate a rebuttal with some substance all on you own, or is coming to the rescue of your little leftie buddy all you're interested in?

BTW, we can address the deception of DemSocialist next if you like.

Please have a seat. See bold.

That's irrelevant and stupid.

Happy now?

BTW, "let's see if you have the moxi...." is baiting and I don't do that.

And no, we will not discuss another member, read the ****ing RULES.

good bye

 

[legalimmigrant]

The terrorists who hijacked planes were definitely unvetted. 911 is the reason we vet people now.

You mentioned that we don't have a way to vet native-born Muslims. You're right, we don't. Because they're American ****ing citizens, and they have the same privelages and rights as any other citizen in our country.

And now, I'm going to let you in on a secret that may terrify you: terrorists are one of the least dangerous threats to someone in America. You are more likely to be killed by a random street thug every time you enter or exit your vehicle than you are to be killed by a terrorist. Marital disputes cause more deaths in America than terrorists do. Sure, they might be a lot less scary, but the odds of a terrorist actually killing you are astronomically low. That's why we don't worry about a couple goat ****ers in a desert with outdated Soviet weaponry who, on rare occasions, manage to get across the Atlantic Ocean - everything else around us is far more lethal than they'll ever be to us.

You think we're pathetically naive and stupid? We're just capable of evaluating likely threats and reading statistics. Why are you so petulantly, pants-****ting horrified by a minority of a minority that rarely succeeds at their plans?

Your post proves my point that Americans are pathetically stupid. So, read slowly to catch the point.

Car crashes, swimming pools, construction accidents, medicine, police, stoves, and countless other common objects and events involve one or very few victims per event. We learned how to handle that.

Terrorists are into large numbers per occurrence because large numbers are scary and paralyzing.

How many days did it take to resume flights after 9/11?

How many days did it take for the "Boston brave" to come out from hiding and resume normal life?

If the terrorists explode 100 bombs at 100 buses all over the country all at once, how many weeks will it take for the Americans to start using mass transportation?

 

[devildavid]

Your post proves my point that Americans are pathetically stupid. So, read slowly to catch the point.

Car crashes, swimming pools, construction accidents, medicine, police, stoves, and countless other common objects and events involve one or very few victims per event. We learned how to handle that.

Terrorists are into large numbers per occurrence because large numbers are scary and paralyzing.

How many days did it take to resume flights after 9/11?

How many days did it take for the "Boston brave" to come out from hiding and resume normal life?

If the terrorists explode 100 bombs at 100 buses all over the country all at once, how many weeks will it take for the Americans to start using mass transportation?

If this were to happen, it would be a major problem. Mass killings are terrible. But your "solution" of zero immigrants would not stop that. It might slow it down, but then the terrorists would find other ways in. This would not address the issue of tourists, visitors, people on work permits, etc. or illegal border crossings form both Mexico and Canada. How will you stop every way to enter our country? Then you also have to consider American citizens traveling to Muslim countries. What if they are radicalized while there? What should be done with them when they return? How about American converts to Islam? Your simple logical solution only stops crime from new immigrants. It does not mean the end of mass killings in our country.

 

[legalimmigrant]

If this were to happen, it would be a major problem. Mass killings are terrible. But your "solution" of zero immigrants would not stop that. It might slow it down, but then the terrorists would find other ways in. This would not address the issue of tourists, visitors, people on work permits, etc. or illegal border crossings form both Mexico and Canada. How will you stop every way to enter our country? Then you also have to consider American citizens traveling to Muslim countries. What if they are radicalized while there? What should be done with them when they return? How about American converts to Islam? Your simple logical solution only stops crime from new immigrants. It does not mean the end of mass killings in our country.

"But your "solution" of zero immigrants would not stop that. It might slow it down". Slowing the mayhem down is good enough for me. Domestic scum is plenty creative so why import more?

The fundamental US problem is that the country is run by idiots. When you have 450,000 visa over-stayers, open border, refugees no one wants pouring in, while nobody is enforcing immigration laws, the "idiots" label is too kind. It's treason.

On top of that, when a state attempts to help the feds catching illegals, the DC morons sue the state to stand down.

And, finally, to the average pro-immigrant idiot, that worn out phase "we are the country of immigrants" is like a holy bible - never to be debated. Like, for example, how many immigrants will one day be enough? 200 million? 500 million?

They never want to answer this question, knowing that all the other numbers - 95 million not working, 45 million on food stamps, 20 trillion of federal debt, 20% or un- and under- employed, and on and on...- are damning.

 

[justlikethat]

Please have a seat. See bold.

That's irrelevant and stupid.

Happy now?

BTW, "let's see if you have the moxi...." is baiting and I don't do that.

And no, we will not discuss another member, read the ****ing RULES.

good bye

Your'e pretty much what I thought you'd be, I just wanted you to confirm it for everyone else to see!