Study Reveals 72 Terrorists Came From Countries Covered by Trump Vetting Order

See my above post #224.

 

Excellent idea! Scatter those libs far and wide where they can't do any damage.

 

Such hyperbole

Here's a little something for you, read and learn......

 

So we should double down on the number of nut cases? Makes no sense.

 

Pointing out how ridiculous the Nazi references are does not equate to fear. Try again.

 

I didn't say we should or we shouldn't. I have asked what the vetting standards will be and how we would achieve them. So far, I have no more clue about what they would be or how we would achieve/implement them than when I asked. I mean are we to trust that someone who has been accused of a crime or convicted of a crime in those places are automatically unworthy when that crime might be related to not being a dictator's "party" loyalist? Likewise, would someone who is favored by their version of Murder, Inc., and therefore look like they have a clean record really be the ones we want to come? These are highly relevant questions and I don't know what the answers are. Flat out ban them all lock stock and barrel for all I care, but if we are going to have a system between that and all comers welcome, then these details are very important.

 

Sums up your credibility too.

 

These guys really created that magnanimous damage and unimaginable loss of innocent lives, and even cost us trillions of money, but are their countries banned?.

 

The rule of Clinton/Obama did away with all that "rule of law" bull crap! You lot really do love to cling onto whatever convenient rationale you feel fits, don't you.
And please stow away your heart wrenching sob story....the ban is temporary and everything hinges on being vetted. Little children need not fear nor be alarmed at your disingenuous tales of forever being robbed of the right to uproot and move in with good old Uncle Scam (oh, there is no right....oh well).

 

I already said we should stop visas and travel from terrorist countries till we can figure out what you are asking.....Trump said the same thing too.

 

I've explained it to you. If your hyper-partisan ideological hysteria prevents you from grasping why your messiah's executive order is illegal, I can't help you.

I hope that I was, at least, able to dispel your fantasy concerning the Boston Marathon bombing. It was perpetrated by the sons of asylum seekers from Chechnya, and would not have been impacted in any way by the so-called president's discrimination against refugees fleeing Islamic State fanatics in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

.

 

I think some folks wouldn't know the difference if it jumped up and bit 'em on the privates.

 

But nobody seems to be having the discussion that involves asking the questions and finding answers. It is all "We're Merica damn it!" vs. "You're racist Islamaphobes".

 

I've done hundreds of H1B applications and none were processed in less than 3 months, usually it takes about 9 months to complete the documentation up to the interview. Documents need to be translated and apostilled, in most foreign countries this involves a government official, so there are bureaucratic delays. I remember doing one for a tribologist (specialist in engine lubricants) who had to submit an apostilled translation of his Masters thesis (280 pages on the interactions of pressure and temperature on viscosity). Report cards, diplomas, academic transcripts, certificates, internship reports, performance evaluations, job descriptions... Most of my clients were nurses and they were matched with employer job vacancies that had to meet specific requirements. The interviews seemed perfunctory, nobody was asked about specifics in their documentation, but it wasn't unusual for some additional records to be required. Generally it was about a year, maybe 15 months before my clients got their visas. These were mostly Mexican nurses with job offers in Texas and California. I got visas for a Mariachi band and a race car driver too.

Applicants for asylum are more carefully vetted, usually they are first sheltered by the UN in encampments, they often languish there while they submit applications for asylum to different embassies. If they have any relatives or a sponsor in a country, this is a favored condition to get admitted. Sometimes there will be community sponsors and NGOs will offer to provide them support. Their applications are carefully evaluated, usually these applicants (refugees) are poor, have little education, require medical and financial support, hence the enquiry into relatives or community support.

Refugees from war are particularly problematic since they rarely can substantiate their claims, the UN superficially determines their ethnic or religious identity as a persecuted group and can provide evidence people in the area where the refugee says he came from are subject to persecution, but there's little more that can be verified.

All a refugee needs to show is a well-founded fear of persecution to qualify for asylum, but those who qualify are entitled to nothing more. Granting asylum does not carry with it the obligation to provide housing, transportation, medical services, education or any other form of public assistance. This is why presence of relatives, community support or a sponsor in the host country is important.

Granting asylum to refugees is an obligation, but governments can limit this according to their capacities. The US has a good history of providing asylum to very diverse refugees fleeing a great variety of oppression, Europe too.

The core issue now is what to do about Islamic fundamentalists among the refugees. We know there are some, that they don't shed their fundamentalism and even propagate it when they relocate. We also know that Islamic fundamentalists have migrated and posed as refugees to gain shelter across Europe and in the US. Better procedures to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from migrating into western countries are needed. I wouldn't trust any procedure that relied on anything from a "failed state" (like six out of seven on Trump's list). I think the test should involve an enquiry into the applicant's support for fundamentalist values. This isn't something easy to figure out, three or four months to come up with reliable test seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

That was NOT my opinion on the complete and utter lack of any shred of credibility for your dubious extremist alt right source.

It was exposed as being not credible by the INS itself.

 

So, you'll be ok with it if those countries are included? By all means, do, especially SA.

 

You mean an ambassador who was killed in a foreign country called Libya ... Interesting that this ban could have saved this ambassador. Man, you put things together here and make connections to defend this illegal and idiotic because senseless Ban ... just ridiculous!

 

It would be nice but the left isn't interested in finding answers, Only opposing Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

He was the first one since 1979.

 

LMAO...Pot, meet ketle.
Where were you people during the last 8 years when Obama asked you to help?
Oh yeah, you were all pushing the birther meme and grousing about how attacking Obama was your only civic duty.
Cry me a river.

 

So what? Does not matter at all and it is totally uninteresting in case of the ban, because 2 totally different things!

Yes, he was killed in Libya = country being on ban list. But again: Would have the ban saved his life in Libya? No, not at all! So what is your point again? That he is the first after 1979 is uninteresting circumstance which has nothing to do with the ban list.
If the US ambassador in Spain is killed, you put Spain on ban list too, because 3rd after 1979?

 

That's the case I have made all along, but my real question is why aren't the countries who have had actual terrorists attack us not on the list.

- - - Updated - - -

Again your analogy makes no sense, see the above post.

 

By the countries who have been banned, does that clear it up for you.

 

And so the threat of yesterday does not matter anymore and no steps necessary of course? What nonsense is this please?
And no problem, lets play the game in Europe and you have same result! Most of them were citizens of European countries living here in 2ns and more generation and changed minded due to rat pipers in Internet etc.! Look closer... and you see that 5 persons of all attacks were not having European citizenship. of these are 2 Syrian refugees and 3 Iraqi which live since end of 1990's in France!

 

I never wrote that there was no terror attack on US soil since 9/11 ... but only the last case was done by people coming from countries on the ban list!

And does the ban bring anything to make USA safer as before? Not at all!
Sure, simple mind logic tells that if you ban all people form these countries, no terrorist of these countries can come in. Aside fact that you have to tell a ban against over 40 countries in the world, including closet friends and allies of the USA since decades what will improve the friendship for sure, no terrorist is travelling with his original passport into the USA. So what is over: Making a ban against 2 billion people of the world due to their faith and religion to enter the USA ... well working solution I must say!

 

He came over on a Pakistani passport when he was 16 years old = a Pakistani refugee. Trump's eo would not apply to him

- - - Updated - - -

I take that as a complement - I research unlike the sheep that believe any article that backs up their belief