Terrorists - what do we do about em

[Sara]

Hiroshima.

[bmw1racer]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

That sounds like exactly the words I heard from Trump last night...until we can understand this whole ordeal.

Which leads me to wonder if you even bother thinking?

What is this "whole ordeal" and how do you "understand" it? He talks like an idiot. But he has mass appeal because he speaks their language.

Trump doesn't talk like an idiot... He IS an idiot.

[bimmette]

I wonder if terrorists will deny their religion when being questioned upon entry. I quickly looked this up and according to a Taqiya, if they are fearful for their lives, they can lie and deny they are Muslim.
This reminds me of when I moved to Germany. I had to fill out paperwork to declare I am not religious so I didn't have to pay their church tax. I found this all very ridiculous.

[Needbmwpartzz]

Originally Posted by Sara504

Exactly, if you cant help yourself how can you help others.

Government loves immigration....grows tax base and stimulates economy......they are not interested in people's problems they're interested in money

[Kong Sheng Han]

I see Trump as a descendant from God, but that's just me.

[bimmerfrk]

Originally Posted by bmw1racer

Trump doesn't talk like an idiot... He IS an idiot.

he's an idiot but according to this forum 59% of people said yes. I'm sure nationally its even larger.......

Hating him is fine but the numbers are on his side fortunate or not.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by improvius

1. We already have an extremely rigorous process for screening refugees into our country. And in any case, Malik was brought in on a fiance visa by an already-radicalized US citizen. It's doubtful she would have been able to get in and/or accomplish much on her own.
2. That's debatable at best. The establishment clause prevents the government from making laws that give preference to one religion over another. That applies to the government itself, not just to anything that relates only to citizens.
3. What ISIS really wants to do, more so than anything else, is turn this into a war between Muslims and the West. The US banning Muslims would be a big step towards that goal, and would be a tremendous accomplishment for ISIS.
4. Carter ordered a REVIEW of those student visas. We didn't revoke them, we just checked them to make sure they were legit. Some were expelled as a result of that.
Also, that goes back to a dark time in US history in which a lot of citizens and guests of Iranian descent were unfairly persecuted. It's really not a time anyone should be looking at as a model for what should be done now. Quite the opposite, really.

1 The process is a joke. So if temporarily means 20 years so be it.
2 the country has every right to discriminate against any one for any thing who is not a us citizen and is trying to enter the country, as does every other country on the planet. Religion has nothing to do with it. It can be race, religion, profession, dental hygiene. It'seems totally open.
3 I don't really care. In fact I'd prefer they gathered as many followers as possible together so we can kill them faster. The president should be going out of his way to insult them. That's what bush 1 did. He called Sadam Sadum. Why? Because it was insulting, not because it was an accent.
And in case you didn't realize IT IS A CULTURE WAR! That's what a Jihad is which they declared on us a couple decades ago
4. It's the same thing. He expelled them but also put a halt to Iranians coming here. The ones that were here had to prove they were hear for a legitimate reason.

[Fundguy1]

Government doesn't love immigration for money, they love it for power. Democrats make big government. Immigrants overwhelmingly vote Democrat. They mostly do not increase the tax base. Most drain tax dollars more than contribute, but it keeps democrats elected and job security for the ones working worthless government jobs.

[davis449]

I posted this in the other forum in another thread, but I'm gonna go ahead and say it here, too. I was yards from exercising my 2nd amendment rights for most of the last 12 years of my life. Three years ago, I was feet from doing so. This year, I'm inches from doing so. I am having a "Glock vs. Cobb Tuner" debate with myself right now. I never thought I would even have to debate with myself about making my car faster.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by bimmerfrk

he's an idiot but according to this forum 59% of people said yes. I'm sure nationally its even larger.......

Hating him is fine but the numbers are on his side fortunate or not.

He's not an idiot. He's shrewd. The idiots are the ones who take him for face value. He says stuff that the majorityof the population agrees with. Things that are not pc. The liberal media goes into a frenzy. They give him free coverage. He becomes more popular. The other candidates are befuddled as they don't know what to do. The only people disagreeing with him won't vote for Republicans anyway. And it's all part of his art of the deal. Ask for way more than you want. Then when you "settle" for less, you get what you want and you look like the compromiser. Brilliant.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by davis449

I posted this in the other forum in another thread, but I'm gonna go ahead and say it here, too. I was yards from exercising my 2nd amendment rights for most of the last 12 years of my life. Three years ago, I was feet from doing so. This year, I'm inches from doing so. I am having a "Glock vs. Cobb Tuner" debate with myself right now. I never thought I would even have to debate with myself about making my car faster.

Glock it. Go with a small .40. Easy to carry and hits hard. You can get a Glock and an mhd for the price of a Cobb too.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by bimmette

I wonder if terrorists will deny their religion when being questioned upon entry. I quickly looked this up and according to a Taqiya, if they are fearful for their lives, they can lie and deny they are Muslim.
This reminds me of when I moved to Germany. I had to fill out paperwork to declare I am not religious so I didn't have to pay their church tax. I found this all very ridiculous.

I don't think that'll matter.
1 I doubt it would happen
2 if it did they would block people originating from Muslim countries.

[Needbmwpartzz]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Government doesn't love immigration for money, they love it for power. Democrats make big government. Immigrants overwhelmingly vote Democrat. They mostly do not increase the tax base. Most drain tax dollars more than contribute, but it keeps democrats elected and job security for the ones working worthless government jobs.

In my country they do....and I disagree(immigrants definitely do grow gov't and tax base as both of our countries are founded upon such migrations)......yes the power is part of it but immigration is the foundation as many are successful people with kids that buy everything you or I do and work.....most are an investment in our economy here,sure it may take them a couple years to assimilate and get good paying jobs but once they do they flourish as do their kids....so I would think again!

[other_evolved]

How do we accurately check to see if one is a Muslim?

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Needbmwpartzz

In my country they do....and I disagree(immigrants definitely do grow gov't and tax base as both of our countries are founded upon such migrations)......yes the power is part of it but immigration is the foundation as many are successful people with kids that buy everything you or I do and work.....most are an investment in our economy here,sure it may take them a couple years to assimilate and get good paying jobs but once they do they flourish as do their kids....so I would think again!

What is your country
It doesn't work here as we take everyone, and sadly unlike other countries we don't only allow the successful and educated. The result is the overall immigrant group is an economic and tax dollar drain. Kick out the illegals and this improves, but the dems don't want that.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Sara504

My state is going to be blocking refugees from entering, and I support it.

States have absolutely zero legal authority to do that. Besides, it's all political gesturing anyway. What good would it do if they're all in the state next to you?

It's a moot point anyway, to do what Trump is suggesting would violate the First Amendment most likely anyway.

I also answered "No" to the poll, as an American I'm better than that, but I guess to the uneducated or ignorant it's easier to hate an entire group of people versus understanding the intricacies of the problem.

[BayMoWe335]

Originally Posted by Sara504

I'd rather be safe and alive then worry about my privacy invasion. Come search me. 24/7 monitor me. Just KEEP ME SAFE from a terrorist attack.

This is such a flawed ideology.

You'll give up everything for no guarantee of safety? Government can't keep you safe and can't guarantee anything.

This type of violence is nearly impossible to squash 100%.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Axius

We need to help our own citizens before we should be reaching out to help refugees. I'm not saying they don't deserve help, because they are dealing with very unfortunate circumstances, but we have way to many vets and people that have fought for our country that are living on the streets and not receiving substantial help, that all of this money to fund refugees, could have a drastic impact on own helpless citizens.

I didn't realize the two were mutually exclusive.

[Ginger_Extract]

It's unconstitutional to ban people from entering the country on the basis of religion. This country was FOUNDED on the principle of shelter from religious persecution.

That said, I do believe that immigration reform needs to take place. Before I expand on that, I need to cover the following:

A temporary ban on immigrants comes with many positives and negatives.

Positives:
- Economic relief/recuperation from immigration.
- Allows the Fed time to make decision and new rules on how it should be handled.
Negatives:
- Illegal immigration rates will increase exponentially, along with mortality rates as illegal immigration is a nasty business.
- Backlash from international community as people see it solely as a reaction/religious persecution.
- People willing to take legal channels to immigrate are hosed, and left in mortal peril as their homelands fall further into guerilla warfare.

So, why would the U.S. want to put a temporary ban on immigration? Precedent. It has been done before, in recent history, too! A Facebook discussion brought up how Pres. Jimmy Carter blocked Iranian refugees from entering the country in 1980. It puts forth a solid "stand your ground" precedent in response to acts of Terrorism. Effectively, it tells Syria and anyone else that this time, we won't handle your problems for you, so sort your shit out (Though realistically, this is impossible at the present time).
Additionally, it will reduce domestic ill-will towards people of the Muslim faith. Individual state governments are trying to flex their state rights in saying who they will or will not accept into their territories. Of course, the way in which it is being handled is of dubious legality. Governors can write as many Op-Ed opinion letters as they want, if it's against the law, it's against the law. Many groups are openly threatening/persecuting Muslims in response to this, refugees and U.S. citizens alike. By instigating an immigration ban, domestic sentiments against Muslims will decline as the issue is socially marked as being of "decreased concern."

However, a question arises: If we allow the Fed ample time to sort this out, will they actually get anything accomplished?
The Fed is slow moving and inefficient. This is a here and now issue that threatens domestic and international security, and opinions are incredibly divisive, which means that the Government will butt heads over it. Also, it stands to disenfranchise many Americans who stand at either end of the issue.

I feel that is a sufficient premise. With all that said, I think that a temporary ban on all immigration from the Middle East needs to take place. Let's assume that the U.S. is tasked with just 50% of Syrian refugees, and that the rate of immigration from other places was 0. That is still well above 6 million people. For reference, a quick Google search shows that in 2013/2014, about 1 million people immigrated into the U.S. annually. Obviously, this population would not be evenly spread across all of the United States, and certain areas would be hit with much more concentrated populations of immigrants. With a current immigration system that many people are already upset with in terms of how it handles the process and "who gets in," a 600% increase would be brutal. The systems we have in place are not equipped to handle a massive influx of people at present, and our nation needs time to appropriate the necessary checks and procedures be able to even somewhat effectively handle that many people.

As a nation we need to look introspectively and assess what we have the means to handle vs. what we feel that we should be doing. Taking on too much at one time is bound to reach a breaking point, with the structure in place collapsing from the bottom.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by BayMoWe335

This is such a flawed ideology.

You'll give up everything for no guarantee of safety? Government can't keep you safe and can't guarantee anything.

This type of violence is nearly impossible to squash 100%.

True but what benefit is there to allow them? None. It's a risk reward. There is no benefit and an almost guaranteed loss of life. For your argument to work there would have to be something good that we are giving up. I can't think of a thing. Nothing. Zero. Except that liberals can be smug with themselves patting themselves on the back that they are better people. I suggest you save a few pats for the family members of the dead this policy will create.

[Needbmwpartzz]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

What is your country
It doesn't work here as we take everyone, and sadly unlike other countries we don't only allow the successful and educated. The result is the overall immigrant group is an economic and tax dollar drain. Kick out the illegals and this improves, but the dems don't want that.

I'm in Canada.....and many immigrants here were wealthy in their home countries and usually strive for the same success here.
I know the U.S Is a little different especially with all the illegals from the south.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

True but what benefit is there to allow them? None. It's a risk reward. There is no benefit and an almost guaranteed loss of life. For your argument to work there would have to be something good that we are giving up. I can't think of a thing. Nothing. Zero. Except that liberals can be smug with themselves patting themselves on the back that they are better people. I suggest you save a few pats for the family members of the dead this policy will create.

It's true there's no real benefit. I'm just not an asshole. Well I guess I am, but not when it comes to excluding an entire religion...second largest in the world at that.