Israeli citizens are barred

[Coyote]

Prevention is only meaningful when you have real risks - risks worth significantly disrupting people's lives over, fracturing our relations with other countries and giving our worst enemy, ISIS, a propoganda coup. Still wondering what terrorist attacks have come out of the Syrian refugees we've brought in.

Trump doesn't want what's happening in Northern Europe to happen here.

What's wrong with that?

Remember the Ohio State Jihadist? A refugee.

Remember the reaction from some of the DISGUSTING FILTH? That the Cop who shot him 'over-reacted'?

No?

interesting

Ohio state guy wasn't a Syrian refugee. He also doesn't appear to have been a "Jihadist" if you read what they say about him. Did the cop over react? No, I don't think so - you had a guy with a weapon trying to attack people.

Europe is a completel different situation than ours - they are flooded with migrants, assylum seekers, refugees - they have a far less adequate vetting system and multiple countries involved.

Again, I'd have to ask - what urgent risk? I can understand it after 9/11. I can understand reviewing security and vetting procedures on a regular basis or in response to new threats. But this was very badly done.

"Again, I'd have to ask - what urgent risk?"

And I ask why is it so urgent they are let into America IMMEDIATELY, like NOW?

This is what the Leftist Maniacs are on the streets demanding, that they are let in IMMEDIATELY, no vetting NOTHING, just let them in and NOW.

Why? Why do Leftists want this crowd in so URGENTLY?

What's the problem with waiting the 90 days as President Trump's EO is saying to wait?

And that is a strawman argument. None of those people are being let in IMMEDIATELY. They've been going through various time consuming validation process' depending on their visa requirements. Some of them are legal US residents. They're not just walking in off the street. They are NOT coming in with NO VETTING. That's a lie that keeps being perpetrated by the Rightist Maniacs.

 

[Tilly]

I'd say before implementation...was not well written or thought out. That's why we have career people in State Department, and in the security and intelligence agencies - that's part of their job, to sort through the ramifications and legalities.

What Trump should do is rescind it, take his lumps, redo it and vet it before implementation, plus make sure the relevant agencies are onboard and clear about how to implement it (though personally I think it should be trashed)...

I think that admitting it might have been done more graciously is one thing, what you offer up is rather a pathetic effort for something different. There was a reason why it was done in the timeframe it was done, and he explained it. Look it up.

AS mud stated, if you want to go to rescinding mistakes, obummerscare would be one to start with. Why don't you suggest that to the dems.

I saw the explanation but it was pathetically weak. There was no crisis - no emergency - dictating the action to begin with. There was no imminent terrorist threat forcing an extreme action. There was no reason it couldn't have been quickly vetted by at least some of the relevant agencies. All I'm seeing is you guys making crappy excuses for Trump's messy and poorly executed EO and complete lack of professionalism. And, in case you haven't noticed, Obama isn't president now.

He's practicing prevention. It's a bit late after the bomb goes off. Just ask a few marathon runners in the Boston area.

Prevention is only meaningful when you have real risks - risks worth significantly disrupting people's lives over, fracturing our relations with other countries and giving our worst enemy, ISIS, a propoganda coup. Still wondering what terrorist attacks have come out of the Syrian refugees we've brought in.

Prevention, is by definition, the reduction of the probability of a given event. Fewer potential terrorists result in fewer terrorist events. Seriously, look at Europe. You don't want that over here.

Exactly. There are probably thousands of jihadis in Europe now. They came in with the refugees. They can't be vetted properly. Trump is absolutley doing the right thing.

 

[Edgetho]

The parents never arrived as refugees in our refugee program - that's a defined program, with mandatory vetting. That's not an asylum seeker that "meets the definition of refugee". Asylum seekers can enter the country in any number of ways, including as illegal immigrants and receive less vetting, if any.

Read this, then you might be less unaware of the details....


Needless to say, the Boston bombers actually were refugees, with their parents arriving in the U.S. on tourist visas in 2002 and then claiming asylum on the basis that their ties to Chechnya could expose them to persecution back in Russia.

Read more: U.S. Refugee Chief Didn’t Know Boston Bombers Were Refugees

 

[Coyote]

How many Americans have to die before you agree to do something about gun control? That's the kind of argument you are making.

The background check for getting a gun is more comprehensive than for getting into the USA.

Until now.

Thanks for making my point.

And my gun control is really, really good. If I can see it, I can hit it.

Every time.

ahhh...I don't think so...the background check for entering the US varies depending on what country you are coming from and what sort of visa you are applying for.

Glad you have good gun control ... we need more well behaved guns :

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

You'd have a valid point if we'd been inundated with terrorists coming in through the immigration and refugee systems but...we haven't. We have more trouble with the home grown variety. That's the real BS.

HOW FUCKING MANY DO YOU WANT??!!!????

We know, for a FACT, that ISIS and al Qaeda are infiltrating groups of refugees with their own murdering scum.

If you don't then you are manifestly uninformed.

How many Americans have to die for you to agree that something has to be done?

It's shit like this that makes me lose my temper with dimocraps

How many Americans have to die before you agree to do something about gun control? That's the kind of argument you are making.

There is real risk. And there is perception of risk. How you deal with it depends on how real the risk is. Nothing is 100% guarenteed unless you want to live in a police state.

More Americans die from shark attacks then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we doing something?
More Americans die from bee stings then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we irradicating bees?
More Americans die in automobile accidents (by far) then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we calling for a ban on cars?

"How many Americans have to die before you agree to do something about gun control?"

You're comparing Americans who own guns to ISIS terrorists?

"More Americans die from shark attacks then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we doing something?
More Americans die from bee stings then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we irradicating bees?
More Americans die in automobile accidents (by far) then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we calling for a ban on cars?"

These are ridiculous statements and you KNOW they are.

No Lucy. It's not. It's REAL risk vs PERCEIVED risk. Are the process we have in place effective? By and large yes. Can they be improved? Possibly. Should they be regularly reviewed? Absolutely.

Should we turn our country into a police state with constant surveillance so we can "feel" safe? No. Should trash our countries values or our rights simply because people are afraid? That's a question for each individual to answer.

"It's REAL risk vs PERCEIVED risk."

And you want to take that chance? Remember, it's better safe than sorry and once people are dead from terrorist attacks, it's not a film, they don't come back, they stay dead forever.

"Should trash our countries values"

What are America's values? That EVERYONE from EVERY craphole on this planet has an AUTOMATIC RIGHT to move to America and claim welfare and breed and then vote Democratic?

That's a prime reason why Leftists want these people in to increase their voting base, see Minnesota which effectively should just be renamed Somalia, see California which effectively half of California is now Mexico again.

I'm not American, but I read and I've read about what's happening, you are NOT America ANYMORE, you have become a dumping ground and it's not been an accident, it's been deliberate and now you want to wave in people from some of the most dangerous and unstable nations of this planet?

Again why IMMEDIATELY? What's wrong with waiting the 90 days?

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

You'd have a valid point if we'd been inundated with terrorists coming in through the immigration and refugee systems but...we haven't. We have more trouble with the home grown variety. That's the real BS.

HOW FUCKING MANY DO YOU WANT??!!!????

We know, for a FACT, that ISIS and al Qaeda are infiltrating groups of refugees with their own murdering scum.

If you don't then you are manifestly uninformed.

How many Americans have to die for you to agree that something has to be done?

It's shit like this that makes me lose my temper with dimocraps

How many Americans have to die before you agree to do something about gun control? That's the kind of argument you are making.

There is real risk. And there is perception of risk. How you deal with it depends on how real the risk is. Nothing is 100% guarenteed unless you want to live in a police state.

More Americans die from shark attacks then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we doing something?
More Americans die from bee stings then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we irradicating bees?
More Americans die in automobile accidents (by far) then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we calling for a ban on cars?

"How many Americans have to die before you agree to do something about gun control?"

You're comparing Americans who own guns to ISIS terrorists?

"More Americans die from shark attacks then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we doing something?
More Americans die from bee stings then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we irradicating bees?
More Americans die in automobile accidents (by far) then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we calling for a ban on cars?"

These are ridiculous statements and you KNOW they are.

No Lucy. It's not. It's REAL risk vs PERCEIVED risk. Are the process we have in place effective? By and large yes. Can they be improved? Possibly. Should they be regularly reviewed? Absolutely.

Should we turn our country into a police state with constant surveillance so we can "feel" safe? No. Should trash our countries values or our rights simply because people are afraid? That's a question for each individual to answer.

No one is advocating a "police state". What we are advocating is that this is our country and we decide who gets in, which is our right.

The people spoke in November. America, and the security of her citizens, comes first. We will not be dictated to by a foreign power, even if it exists within our own borders, as to who we must admit in and support. We will protect our nation and our citizens from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

 

[Coyote]

The parents never arrived as refugees in our refugee program - that's a defined program, with mandatory vetting. That's not an asylum seeker that "meets the definition of refugee". Asylum seekers can enter the country in any number of ways, including as illegal immigrants and receive less vetting, if any.

Read this, then you might be less unaware of the details....


Needless to say, the Boston bombers actually were refugees, with their parents arriving in the U.S. on tourist visas in 2002 and then claiming asylum on the basis that their ties to Chechnya could expose them to persecution back in Russia.

Read more: U.S. Refugee Chief Didn’t Know Boston Bombers Were Refugees

The DailyCaller is a bit iffy as a source, but even they state:

Needless to say, the Boston bombers actually were refugees, with their parents arriving in the U.S. on tourist visas in 2002 and then claiming asylum on the basis that their ties to Chechnya could expose them to persecution back in Russia. Once their parents were given asylum, the two boys and their sisters were able to also receive asylum by extension.

The difference between refugees and asylum seekers:
What's the Difference Between Refugee and Asylee Applicants?

 

[Coyote]

...

You'd have a valid point if we'd been inundated with terrorists coming in through the immigration and refugee systems but...we haven't. We have more trouble with the home grown variety. That's the real BS.

HOW FUCKING MANY DO YOU WANT??!!!????

We know, for a FACT, that ISIS and al Qaeda are infiltrating groups of refugees with their own murdering scum.

If you don't then you are manifestly uninformed.

How many Americans have to die for you to agree that something has to be done?

It's shit like this that makes me lose my temper with dimocraps

How many Americans have to die before you agree to do something about gun control? That's the kind of argument you are making.

There is real risk. And there is perception of risk. How you deal with it depends on how real the risk is. Nothing is 100% guarenteed unless you want to live in a police state.

More Americans die from shark attacks then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we doing something?
More Americans die from bee stings then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we irradicating bees?
More Americans die in automobile accidents (by far) then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we calling for a ban on cars?

"How many Americans have to die before you agree to do something about gun control?"

You're comparing Americans who own guns to ISIS terrorists?

"More Americans die from shark attacks then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we doing something?
More Americans die from bee stings then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we irradicating bees?
More Americans die in automobile accidents (by far) then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we calling for a ban on cars?"

These are ridiculous statements and you KNOW they are.

No Lucy. It's not. It's REAL risk vs PERCEIVED risk. Are the process we have in place effective? By and large yes. Can they be improved? Possibly. Should they be regularly reviewed? Absolutely.

Should we turn our country into a police state with constant surveillance so we can "feel" safe? No. Should trash our countries values or our rights simply because people are afraid? That's a question for each individual to answer.

No one is advocating a "police state". What we are advocating is that this is our country and we decide who gets in, which is our right.

The people spoke in November. America, and the security of her citizens, comes first. We will not be dictated to by a foreign power, even if it exists within our own borders, as to who we must admit in and support. We will protect our nation and our citizens from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Umh...yes...the people did speak, and they sent rather a mixed message didn't they?

What foreign power wihin our borders is dictating to us?

 

[Edgetho]

ahhh...I don't think so...the background check for entering the US varies depending on what country you are coming from and what sort of visa you are applying for.

Glad you have good gun control ... we need more well behaved guns :

If you're an American Citizen, born and raised here, when you apply for a CCA the check is pretty strong and the reason why is simple --

We know almost everything we need to know about you.

We know where you went to school, who your parents are, where you worked, what you did, any criminal convictions, any propensity for violence, DUIs, etc, etc, etc.

When Ahmed the Camel Fucker shows up, we don't know jack shit about him.

We don't even know if that's his real name. It could very well be the name of a Man he murdered and he took his identity.

There are no FBI records in goatfuckerland. There is no NSA in Asscracksitan. There are no police Records.

This is one of the MAIN reasons Trump did what he did...... We can't get good information on these people.

Have you have to deal with people from other Countries for any reason? It's a BITCH.

You get a request from a Foreing Country for information on one of your clients or citizens or -- Whatever -- You tell them to go fornicate with their pet gerbil -- AIn't gonna happe.

We ask for information..... I;m out of patience with you people. You refuse to see what's obvious to those of us that open our eyes.

I can't help you anymore

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Prevention is only meaningful when you have real risks - risks worth significantly disrupting people's lives over, fracturing our relations with other countries and giving our worst enemy, ISIS, a propoganda coup. Still wondering what terrorist attacks have come out of the Syrian refugees we've brought in.

Trump doesn't want what's happening in Northern Europe to happen here.

What's wrong with that?

Remember the Ohio State Jihadist? A refugee.

Remember the reaction from some of the DISGUSTING FILTH? That the Cop who shot him 'over-reacted'?

No?

interesting

Ohio state guy wasn't a Syrian refugee. He also doesn't appear to have been a "Jihadist" if you read what they say about him. Did the cop over react? No, I don't think so - you had a guy with a weapon trying to attack people.

Europe is a completel different situation than ours - they are flooded with migrants, assylum seekers, refugees - they have a far less adequate vetting system and multiple countries involved.

Again, I'd have to ask - what urgent risk? I can understand it after 9/11. I can understand reviewing security and vetting procedures on a regular basis or in response to new threats. But this was very badly done.

"Again, I'd have to ask - what urgent risk?"

And I ask why is it so urgent they are let into America IMMEDIATELY, like NOW?

This is what the Leftist Maniacs are on the streets demanding, that they are let in IMMEDIATELY, no vetting NOTHING, just let them in and NOW.

Why? Why do Leftists want this crowd in so URGENTLY?

What's the problem with waiting the 90 days as President Trump's EO is saying to wait?

And that is a strawman argument. None of those people are being let in IMMEDIATELY. They've been going through various time consuming validation process' depending on their visa requirements. Some of them are legal US residents. They're not just walking in off the street. They are NOT coming in with NO VETTING. That's a lie that keeps being perpetrated by the Rightist Maniacs.

Well if that's the case, which it ISN'T, why are the Leftist Maniacs on the streets screaming and protesting?

 

[Tilly]

No one can adequatley vet people who come from war zones and Islamic hellholes.

FBI admits there's no way to screen all the Syrian refugees the Obama administration plans to accept into the US

Read more: FBI admits there's no way to screen all Syrian refugees coming into US | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday told Congress that the federal government cannot conduct thorough checks on all of the coming influx of 10,000 refugees from Syria.

Appearing before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Comey said Syrians who aren't already in the FBI's database are unknown to the agency, meaning their backgrounds cannot be adequately scoured for a risk of terrorism.

'We can only query against that which we have collected,' Comey told the committee under questioning.

'So if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them.



Read more: FBI admits there's no way to screen all Syrian refugees coming into US | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Edgetho]

The difference between refugees and asylum seekers:
What's the Difference Between Refugee and Asylee Applicants?

You must really enjoy proving how right I am all the time -- From your link above

To seek asylum in the U.S. under current laws,

• You fit the requirements of living under threat of persecution as a refugee (listed above).
• You are already present in the United States or are seeking admission at a port of entry.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

How many Americans have to die before you agree to do something about gun control? That's the kind of argument you are making.

The background check for getting a gun is more comprehensive than for getting into the USA.

Until now.

Thanks for making my point.

And my gun control is really, really good. If I can see it, I can hit it.

Every time.

ahhh...I don't think so...the background check for entering the US varies depending on what country you are coming from and what sort of visa you are applying for.

Glad you have good gun control ... we need more well behaved guns :

I need to comment at this point.

President Trump, God Emperor of The Universe.

 

[Coyote]

You'd have a valid point if we'd been inundated with terrorists coming in through the immigration and refugee systems but...we haven't. We have more trouble with the home grown variety. That's the real BS.

HOW FUCKING MANY DO YOU WANT??!!!????

We know, for a FACT, that ISIS and al Qaeda are infiltrating groups of refugees with their own murdering scum.

If you don't then you are manifestly uninformed.

How many Americans have to die for you to agree that something has to be done?

It's shit like this that makes me lose my temper with dimocraps

How many Americans have to die before you agree to do something about gun control? That's the kind of argument you are making.

There is real risk. And there is perception of risk. How you deal with it depends on how real the risk is. Nothing is 100% guarenteed unless you want to live in a police state.

More Americans die from shark attacks then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we doing something?
More Americans die from bee stings then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we irradicating bees?
More Americans die in automobile accidents (by far) then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we calling for a ban on cars?

"How many Americans have to die before you agree to do something about gun control?"

You're comparing Americans who own guns to ISIS terrorists?

"More Americans die from shark attacks then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we doing something?
More Americans die from bee stings then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we irradicating bees?
More Americans die in automobile accidents (by far) then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we calling for a ban on cars?"

These are ridiculous statements and you KNOW they are.

No Lucy. It's not. It's REAL risk vs PERCEIVED risk. Are the process we have in place effective? By and large yes. Can they be improved? Possibly. Should they be regularly reviewed? Absolutely.

Should we turn our country into a police state with constant surveillance so we can "feel" safe? No. Should trash our countries values or our rights simply because people are afraid? That's a question for each individual to answer.

"It's REAL risk vs PERCEIVED risk."

And you want to take that chance? Remember, it's better safe than sorry and once people are dead from terrorist attacks, it's not a film, they don't come back, they stay dead forever.

"Should trash our countries values"

What are America's values? That EVERYONE from EVERY craphole on this planet has an AUTOMATIC RIGHT to move to America and claim welfare and breed and then vote Democratic?

Again, that is a strawman argument. NO ONE is saying that EVERYONE has an AUTOMATIC RIGHT to move here. No one. And unlike Europe, we don't have the extensive welfare benefits you do. People that come here come to work and by and large they do and are successful. And they don't all vote Democratic Some immigrant blocks tend to vote Republican, some Democrat, some a mixture.

That opportunity is part of our values.

That's a prime reason why Leftists want these people in to increase their voting base, see Minnesota which effectively should just be renamed Somalia, see California which effectively half of California is now Mexico again.

No. It isn't. It's because of what we feel is an important part of our country's values. Just like the Rightists are concerned about security and tradition. Not everything is about votes.

I'm not American, but I read and I've read about what's happening, you are NOT America ANYMORE, you have become a dumping ground and it's not been an accident, it's been deliberate and now you want to wave in people from some of the most dangerous and unstable nations of this planet?

Again why IMMEDIATELY? What's wrong with waiting the 90 days?

We are America, and as long as I'm alive, I will stand up for the America that I love and cherish.

 

[Coyote]

The difference between refugees and asylum seekers:
What's the Difference Between Refugee and Asylee Applicants?

You must really enjoy proving how right I am all the time -- From your link above

To seek asylum in the U.S. under current laws,

• You fit the requirements of living under threat of persecution as a refugee (listed above).
• You are already present in the United States or are seeking admission at a port of entry.

But did you miss the part that said asylum seekers are ALREADY IN THE COUNTRY? No vetting. Refugees go through a specific program and are VETTED.

 

[Tilly]

Even Shrillary acknowledged (behind closed doors) that refugees can't be vetted adequately:

WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton Says Vetting Refugees Is Impossible

...But hacked emails released by Wikileaks show Clinton thinks vetting Syrian refugees is “impossible.” Michael Patrick Leahy reports that Clinton acknowledged this reality for refugees pouring into Jordan.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper already admitted that the U.S. cannot vet these refugees, so this may be an instance of Clinton telling the public a different position than you take in private....

WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton Says Vetting Refugees Is Impossible - Breitbart

 

[Coyote]

We've been taking Syrian refugees for years now...wondering about all the Jihadist attacks we've had from them...

 

[Edgetho]

But did you miss the part that said asylum seekers are ALREADY IN THE COUNTRY? No vetting. Refugees go through a specific program and are VETTED.

The Tsarnaev boys weren't already in the Country.

And the Russians did everything but send the KGB to arrest them before they killed and maimed all those innocent men, women and children.

They warned us about them several times.

And what did the Lying Cocksucker do about it???

Russia warned U.S. about Boston Marathon bomb suspect Tsarnaev: report

Trump made a statement. And you don't like it.

Too fucking bad.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

...

HOW FUCKING MANY DO YOU WANT??!!!????

We know, for a FACT, that ISIS and al Qaeda are infiltrating groups of refugees with their own murdering scum.

If you don't then you are manifestly uninformed.

How many Americans have to die for you to agree that something has to be done?

It's shit like this that makes me lose my temper with dimocraps

How many Americans have to die before you agree to do something about gun control? That's the kind of argument you are making.

There is real risk. And there is perception of risk. How you deal with it depends on how real the risk is. Nothing is 100% guarenteed unless you want to live in a police state.

More Americans die from shark attacks then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we doing something?
More Americans die from bee stings then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we irradicating bees?
More Americans die in automobile accidents (by far) then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we calling for a ban on cars?

"How many Americans have to die before you agree to do something about gun control?"

You're comparing Americans who own guns to ISIS terrorists?

"More Americans die from shark attacks then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we doing something?
More Americans die from bee stings then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we irradicating bees?
More Americans die in automobile accidents (by far) then from terrorist attacks - why aren't we calling for a ban on cars?"

These are ridiculous statements and you KNOW they are.

No Lucy. It's not. It's REAL risk vs PERCEIVED risk. Are the process we have in place effective? By and large yes. Can they be improved? Possibly. Should they be regularly reviewed? Absolutely.

Should we turn our country into a police state with constant surveillance so we can "feel" safe? No. Should trash our countries values or our rights simply because people are afraid? That's a question for each individual to answer.

No one is advocating a "police state". What we are advocating is that this is our country and we decide who gets in, which is our right.

The people spoke in November. America, and the security of her citizens, comes first. We will not be dictated to by a foreign power, even if it exists within our own borders, as to who we must admit in and support. We will protect our nation and our citizens from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Umh...yes...the people did speak, and they sent rather a mixed message didn't they?

What foreign power wihin our borders is dictating to us?

The Democratic Party. Their actions post election are clear evidence of that. America is a capitalist nation, RaTz are socialists and pander to the welfare base. Taxpayers and soldiers made America Great - not gimme gimme free shit welfare RaTz.

 

[Coyote]

But did you miss the part that said asylum seekers are ALREADY IN THE COUNTRY? No vetting. Refugees go through a specific program and are VETTED.

The Tsarnaev boys weren't already in the Country.

And the Russians did everything but send the KGB to arrest them before they killed and maimed all those innocent men, women and children.

They warned us about them several times.

And what did the Lying Cocksucker do about it???

Russia warned U.S. about Boston Marathon bomb suspect Tsarnaev: report

Trump made a statement. And you don't like it.

Too fucking bad.

Their parents were. They were little kids. You don't vet little kids.