Six Bangladeshis Apprehended in 12 Hours at Texas Border

This, ladies and gentlemen, is how conservatives think they win arguments.

I asked a simple question. Show me evidence of foreign terrorists committing terrorist acts on American soil who were here illegally.

They can't. So, instead, they insist I prove that they have?

That's some twisted logic, but it's all they have.

Especially as they shout "THERE MAY BE TERRORISTS IN THAT INVADING HORDE!!!!".

You got to love their spirit, though.

 

You have lost any credibility, you made a specific claim (with no proof) then challenge others to prove YOUR unproven claim, incorrect. Demanding others do what you are to lazy (or unable) to do. Then post the above garbage.

At least look up "burden of proof" and learn something today, instead of pulling claims from Uranus and spinning and doubling down. A person looks foolish, doing such things. Just admit you think your claim is true but can't prove it and maybe save face.

And you did not ask any question, you made a definitive statement and asserted it as factual. Now own it and prove it.

 

L-O-L. Most of those shootings were committed by sick individuals, not terrorists. Did Trump "protected" anyone from the Las Vegas shooting? No? How about the one in CA? No? Please, you can spare me with your boogeymen doomsday scenario. That hadn't happened since Bush.

 

First, let's dissect what I actually said.

Every single incidence of terrorism on American soil that was committed by foreigners was done by foreigners with passports and US visas.

In other words, when a terrorist act has been committed on American soil by a foreign born national, that individual had explicit permission by the U.S. government to be here. Either as a student, a tourist, or a lawful permanent resident. I stand by that assertion. Even if at the time of the crime they were no longer here legally, i.e. an overstayed visa.

The question I asked, although I admit it may have been beyond many here's comprehension, was to prove my statement wrong.

In other words, provide evidence of a terrorist act being committed on American soil by an illegal immigrant.

"Foreign-born terrorists who entered the country, either as immigrants or tourists, were responsible for 88 percent (or 3,024) of the 3,432 murders caused by terrorists on U.S. soil from 1975 through the end of 2015."

The point I was trying to prove is this:

"Including those murdered in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), the chance of an American perishing in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil that was committed by a foreigner over the 41-year period studied here is 1 in 3.6 million per year. The hazard posed by foreigners who entered on different visa categories varies considerably. For instance, the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year while the chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is an astronomical 1 in 10.9 billion per year. By contrast, the chance of being murdered by a tourist on a B visa, the most common tourist visa, is 1 in 3.9 million per year."

Here's your proof you so desperately wish didn't exist:

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis

So again, I ask. Please provide one incidence of terror committed by an illegal alien. And by terror, I mean the generally accepted definition that we can all agree upon.

Some drunk illegal running over someone doesn't amount to terror.

It's your ball...

 

Disregaurding the left bias of the source, can you simply copy and paste the relevant portion? I am not spending 20 minutes to read all of that. You failed to do so in your post. And your quantifier is a bit late in the game.
=============

Even if at the time of the crime they were no longer here legally, i.e. an overstayed visa.

 

A think tank funded by Koch brothers lol.

We have a very low of standard of proof going on here, comical how the Koch's became leftists.

Supporting open borders though does that to you.

 

And somehow bi racial and married to a white man.

We have to pretend we don't see this.

 

And notice he still failed to prove his very specific claim. Just throw out 20 pages to read.

 

The Cato Institute was founded by Charles Koch. Hardly a "left bias source". Although I understand why you frame it that way so that it establishes preconceived opinions about the quote. Not a bad tactic, but one better left to junior high debates.

If you disregard everything else, take this one statistic with you:

"the chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is an astronomical 1 in 10.9 billion per year."

Then you can come back and provide me just one incidence of an illegal immigrant committing an act of terror on American soil.

I'll wait.

 

Kinda like Don Lemon calling white men the biggest American threat, but he sure likes that white peter!

 

I think we can all agree he likes dat peter.

 

That's nice, but you still have yet to prove your claim that not "a single terror attack was committed by someone here illegally" you first, your claim. That bothersome burden of proof thingy. Obviously a claim you decided to throw out there and hope it stuck and no one would question it.

I have been debating lefties on forums for some time and never take such claims at face value.

 

There were more incidents in the past administration than this one. As for the incidents you mention, you want me to bring up a dilemma: All of them were law-abiding citizens prior to their massacres/acts of hate. So tell me, how do you propose to restrict the 2A on some citizens, without necessarily restricting it to all?

(Or whatever restrictions we do impose, cannot violate the spirit of the second amendment. As ruled in Heller.) I proposed a Switzerland-style reform that IMO would meet the spirit of the second amendment while at the same time restricting access to the looney toons. But short of something like that, it'll be difficult.

Also it's not true since Bush. Boston Marathon called to be very specific. In general, all acts of terrorism have some form of foreign origin. Even if the terrorist 'lived here a number of years'. That's the excuse they give to soften the blow that it's a foreign war that the past administration hadn't taken seriously, it's a war that we citizens fail to appreciate.

They want to eliminate our western society, and we want to maintain our western society. The conflict is as simple as that.

 

You mean by banning people from countries that none of the terrorists came from?

 

Sorry, I've searched but have yet to see you debate anything. Let's start with the quote in your post. Where is that quote in this thread in the context of the terrorists having passports? You know, the actual quote "Every single incidence of terrorism on American soil that was committed by foreigners was done by foreigners with passports and US visas."

 

See the back arrow? Use it, it is not my quote, try again.

 

When you put words in quotes, then that means you are stating the exact words. You lied. There is no other post that contains this quote -"a single terror attack was committed by someone here illegally" other than yours. You have been deflecting from the actual initial statement in your desperate attempt to sidetrack

So back to the real statement that you keep running away from "Every single incidence of terrorism on American soil that was committed by foreigners was done by foreigners with passports and US visas."

 

Actually I did and went to the link which only gets to the first chart which obviously you couldn't understand. Or did you not notice that your poll showing the shocking 36% of Democrats that supposedly support open borders is followed by the equally shocking 32% of Republicans who support the dame supposed open borders?

So why don't you just find the whole poll so we can both see why supposedly a significant percentage of both parties are supporting open borders.

Actually now that I reread the only page available I think the 32 and 36 are just the percentage of the people polled who are Republicans and Democrats and have no relevence to any poll answers. So I think we can now conclude that you are the one who is dumb as a rock and incapable of reading with any intelligence or comprehension whatsoever.

 

Good point. What percentage of leftists want open borders?

I'd say most normal liberals do not. But many do. And all of the leftist politicians and political activists want open borders.

 

So Trump was correct and the msm Hysteria when he said people NOT ONLY FROM our south was AGAIN A LIE!!!!! And Trump Didn’t only specify the ME.

Color me shocked

 

There were 14 Republicans in Senators that did not support the wall or the ending of chain migration.

 

What Middle Easterners are those he mentioned? People from Bangladesh are Asians..

 

Bangladesh is not part of the Middle East, but it is an overwhelmingly Muslim country (world's third largest by population). As in many Muslim countries, law enforcement has an atrocious human rights record, so these guys probably do have a well founded fear of persecution if they were deported. Trump likely figured they were Middle Easterners since that region is also overwhelmingly Muslim, the suspicion of terrorism is natural given its prevalence among Muslims (particularly in the Middle East), but I'm unaware of Bangladeshi terrorism and haven't heard of Islamic extremists from this country.

 

He’s mentioned not just the ME. He’s said from all over. Besides they’ve caught people from the ME numerous times already and there will be plenty more. This is another case of taking a single quote to try to claim he said something untrue. It’s anal retentive stupidity.

Why don’t Liberals take scientists quotes word for word when they’re so often dreadfully inaccurate? . Same with Obama.

It’s like the **** hole comment(which is obviously true) that they blew up about or the Muslim ban. Time after time misquoting or taking snippets instead of the entire context.
It’s tiresome and pathetic.

 

If you look at the poll it shows that 13% of Republicans want open borders while 36% Democrats want open borders. It's real easy to read the poll. It's in columns and lines. An emu could read it and they don't read. I bet you aren't an emu.