Counter Intelligence,Your list of terrorist attacks don't
support your argument for an "immigration pause." Fort Hood
has had 2 unfortunate terrorist attacks, both committed by US servicemen.The Orlando nightclub attack was performed by a US-born perpetrator.San Bernandino attack - he was US-born, she was from Pakistan.Boston - brothers from a country NOT covered by the President's proposed
ban. They immigrated in 2002, and carried out their attack in 2013.The intelligence community states that these perpetrators were
"self-radicalized." They did not bring their terrorist agendas with
them to the US - the majority of them were already here!None of them
came from one of the 7 countrys on the President's list.You
accused me of "ignoring reality." Are you sure that recognizing that 6
of the 7 perpetrators were either US born, or had been in the US for over a
decade isn't a "reality" worth considering?
@Utah'95 "Where is the proof that the vetting processes that were
in place before President Trump took office were failing to protect the
homeland?"Ft HoodFloridaSan BernardinoBoston
etc.The medias constant referral to Trumps action as a
"Muslim ban" is disingenuous.It is an immigration pause from
countries that do not assist the USA in vetting against terrorism - and they all
happen to be Muslim majority, although only 7 out of 50 - not so ironically
because Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, Christian terrorism hasn't been imported
much lately.Ignoring reality is not progressive - it is merely
ignorant of reality
@ Tyler DMy mistake on "extremist views." I used that term
when citing the stats on "beliefs about suicide bombing."The
stat you cite reflects how many perceive that extremism is supported within
their community. Halving that number doesn't cure that it's
perception, not fact. But even assuming fact, IMO it's flawed/unfair to
reduce human development to a simple linear calculation. It fails to account
for the multitude of variables, many as yet unknown, that will shape the next
generation, and it doesn't reflect the demonstrated impact of assimilation
(which is threatened if we marginalize this group).I wasn't
suggesting you'd be for internment camps. I was hoping my observation
would make you aware of what you were saying (as I heard it, that is).I twice asked for evidence of your view and you didn't provide any.
While I see the peril in the ideology, I'm loath to conclude sans evidence
that it's manifesting here at a rate that justifies the current level of
fear. IMO the evidence suggests that I/my nation are more likely to be harmed
by this fear than by its object.
Karen R. – “The Pew report shows extremist views remaining steady
(at "negligible") as the Muslim population has increased.”If the rate is 10% (report says it’s more like 20%) among a base
population of one million people, that is 100,000 that support extremism. If the
population rises to two million we now have 200,000 who support it. That’s
an absolute increase of 100,000 people despite the percentage remaining
constant.And I think you know me better than to believe I would ever
be for something like internment camps.In fact we should open our
doors wide to secular Muslims (like Faisal Saeed Al Mutar) despite the fact that
due to heritage alone, his children may pose a greater risk of becoming
radicalized than, say, a Mormon kid from Provo.On the other hand,
some degree of profiling seems rational (despite a knee-jerk disgust from many
on the Left). If we only have enough resources to question one, and the two at
the airport are a Salafi Muslim from Saudi Arabia and a Unitarian from
Switzerland, I have zero problem only questioning the first. Final
@ Tyler DI'm all in if we're talking the temporary visa
program. Based on my information, that's where the actual problem lies,
not the process for refugees/permanent residents."As the Muslim
population increases in other countries...the absolute number of Jihadis/Salafis
"In the U.S.? When our vetting process has
shown itself to be so successful? Again, do you have some evidence that this is
happening? (The Pew report shows extremist views remaining steady (at
"negligible") as the Muslim population has increased.)From
your initial comment (didn't have enough characters before):
"...assuming only the children of German immigrants are going to be
susceptible to the ideology how do we vet these 'yet to be born'
Germans?"This sounds very close to the reasoning that justified
Japanese-American internment camps. I'm beginning to wonder if
what reality is telling me is that such a reaction isn't always wrong.
It's only wrong when we're feeling safe and secure.
Where is the proof that the vetting processes that were in place before
President Trump took office were failing to protect the homeland?
RE: Tyler D - Prescott, AZ. Data that tells me you have no problem in vetting
refugees.Because Prescott Az, 92.89% of the population is
Caucasian. Prescott 0.79% of the population is African American. Prescott 1.59%
of the population is AsianI go to Prescott 5 or 6 times a year ,.
I’ve never even seen a Thai in the Thai restaurant downtown (Cortez st)
Prescott..I use to live in Thailand
@Karen R. – “Do you have data that tells me I should be?”First, I’m not talking about only refugees but Muslim immigration
as a whole (including those here on Visa’s or with green cards –
which of course means we need to count the 9-11 hijackers and the deaths they
caused in the data you listed).That said, I see no logic in denying
what to me appears self-evident, namely – some percentage of Muslims today
or either Jihadists or Salafis tacitly supporting jihad. As the
Muslim population increases in other countries (especially if they’re
coming from Salafi hotbeds) and assuming the Jihadi/Salafi percentage remains
constant (we can discuss this further but I don’t think this assumption is
prima facie wrong), the absolute number of Jihadis/Salafis will increase (The
Pew report you cited seems to bear this out – see questions on Muslim
support of extremism). Would you agree?If we can agree
on that (if not, I see nowhere to go in this discussion) than we can have a
conversation about immigration policy and how to insure we let in the right
@ Tyler DHappy to continue our dialogue, Tyler D. I
don't agree that the rate of those susceptible to radicalization
necessarily increases as the population increases. The data suggest that our
vetting process does in fact address this concern.Pew tells me that
about 45% of our Muslim population has arrived since 1990, so nearly half are
1st generation. Among those: 280,000 Muslim refugees who arrived between 2002
and 2016. How many refugee-led attacks since then? One. How many Muslim-led
attacks overall since 1990 involving U.S. citizens/permanent residents? Ten,
comprising 14 people. No. of deaths: Less than 100.This
doesn't qualify as an existential threat to me, nor one that's likely
to become one under the current vetting/assimilation process. Also helping to
put things into perspective for me: Pew's report, "Muslim Americans: No
Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism," Aug. 2011.So I'm not worried about as yet unborn children who might be radicalized
by an atrocious version of Islam. Do you have data that tells me I should be?
I think the article exemplifies exactly why there are concerns with refugees
coming from those countries listed on the ban.The politically
correct pitty party that the liberals want us to believe is to have us disregard
our security for our families and national communities. Its a false narrative,
conservatives in no way want or advocate for religious persecution but we should
always take into consideration who is coming into the country. It is never a
good idea to disregard our laws because we feel sorry for a group of people, we
should always help where we can, but not to the point that it compromises the
safety of our communities.If someone moves into my neighborhood and
states a particular street is now a no go zone because everyone on that street
are muslim that is wrong, its happened in Dearborn Michigan. There is a reason
terms like white flight exist, look at Detroit. When you try to intergrate
different cultures it destroys communities.New immigrants should be
required to assimilate into our culture if their religion prohibits that then
maybe they should look to a different country to immigrate to.
The people of Europe were never asked about their wishes but Merkel opened the
floodgates of the 'Middle East' just the same; the wealthy live in
their own affluent enclaves, forcing the concomitant problems upon the poor
people. The reason that the UK is not so worried as otherEU
nations is probably because the UK is outside of the so-called "Schengen
Zone", and so do not have open borders but use regular immigration
processes, allowing in EU nationals to work. Don't forget they are leaving
the EU soon and an increasing number of Brits favor that move. They are also
leaving the main political parties in droves over immigration issues, the main
issue that drove Brexit, together with national sovereignty.Hungary
and other Eastern nations took matters into their own hands fencing and manning
their own borders despite EU diktats. As the UK has voted to leave the EU;
France seems very likely to do so soon, and others seem set to follow.
Poland's people massively reject the EU and protest massively too, noting
associated terrorism in other European nations, from what they observe as an
hostile alien invasion.
@rdean, saying that replacing the name mormans with muslims when infact they are
polar opposite will cure the problem?The fact remains that muslims
practice sharia, and call for capital crime to be punished by stoning or lashing
to death? The unbelievers to be killed, that man made government is illicit and
cannot coexist, that women are relagated inferior to men, that women cannot walk
out of their home without permission, that women have to be circumcised, that
Islam is superior to every culture, faith, government or society and they are
ordained to conquer them? That they should lye to safeguard themselves to
protect islam, that they can marry prepubescent girls? That jihad is a war to
spread Islam and kill the infidels? The comparison is ludicrous as
muslims are not Christian and mormans do not go about raping and killing
people.There is no problem with muslims that do not believe or
practice shariah, problem is that sharia tells them to lie to protect islam.
Their sharia is an theocratic form of government. Their government and our
government are not compatible by their standards. What part of that is so hard
As hard as it is for some to imagine Democrats LOVE this refugee situation for
the same reason they LOVE the open border and sanctuary city scam --- they get
more votes which translates to more money and power. That's it folks --
shallow as it sounds that is the depth of far left ideology. Money and power.
I'm afraid the "bleeding heart" sobs you hear from the left are
actually fine-tuned talking points which are used to promote dubious
self-serving causes. A little digging always reveals the same truths.
Hmmm...these men don't look like 10 year old orphan girls to me.
That's the BIG secret the national media tries to hide and it is the PAIN
(or shock and awe) that Germany and France and others are suffering through.
Recall all the rape cases in Germany involving Muslim immigrant men attacking
German women a year ago? I think Europe -- as beautiful a place as it is -- is
in danger of losing that beauty and care-free life style unless they slow the
immigrant flow significantly. Build bridges not walls all "sounds" so
noble but the reality is much different and that is why you see conservative
leaders on the rise in France and other countries. Another truth is regarding
the Syrian people. These people don't want to leave. Syria is their
ancestral home! A much better solution would be for the US and France and
Germany and others to join together to destroy ISIS quickly and thus
re-establish safe homes for these refugees in their own country again. This is a
win - win for all (except ISIS).
@Joan Watson"We should examine the trouble that the European
governments have had with masses of arab refugees coming into their country. It
will take the most optimistic among us to convince that we will not have similar
problems. "The difference between Europe and us is that Europe
had massive numbers of people just get into boats, head for Greece, and end up
there for Europe to figure out what to do with. The U.S. has none of that for
Syrian refugees and instead has an up to 2-year process with many steps for
people to go through before they can come in as refugees.
All organized religions should be contained, controlled and restricted from the
public square and partisan politics.
Refugees are created by evil leadership, and is common in most of the world.Our country has half of its population on government assistance, and is
in a debt equal to seven hundred thousand dollars for every second of a year.How can we take in all these refugees when we're struggling to take
care of ourselves? Perhaps we could eliminate the causes, which
RE: Tyler D - Prescott,”, assuming only the children of German immigrants
are going to be susceptible to the ideology how do we vet these “yet to be
born” Germans?”OK, Serving your country(USA) in the
Military is the highest order of Patriotism(Skin in the game).My
father was a German soldier in WW2, He got out of Germany and Joined the U.S
Army and served in the Philippines, not in Europe . I did my patriotic duty in
The issue that needs to be understood, and so far a few have already stated it,
is Sharia Law. There shouldnt be a ban on muslims, but there should
be a ban on sharia law. Sharia law is strictly an islamic ideology, it comes
with no other groups or class of people. Sharia is oppressive to women and the
restrictions favor men. The punishmemts for not obeying Sharia law range from
public beatings or floggings, to cutting off one's right hand for theft, to
public stoning to death for marrying outside the religion, the list goes on and
gets worse.This ideology does not fit within the constitutional law
of our country and is a direct threat to our peace and solidarity. If there should be a ban it should be a ban against Sharia law practicing
people. Not all muslims practice sharia law, look at the nation of islam of the
U.S. headed by Louis Farrakhan which has lived peacefully in our country for
decades. If we establish laws that prevent the practice of Sharia law, then I
say let all immigrants come as they may as long as it is legal.I
agree religions should not in anyway be discriminated against, but when a
religious ideology discriminates it shouldnt be allowed.
How Ironic!All of these articles the D news has been puting out
mainly advicating to denounce the middle eastern country temporary ban of travel
put on by Trump, and all of the lib supporters refusing to see the other side of
the coin.Now we have an article that reflects the facts of the
issues created by EU countries bringing an influx of immigrants from these
countries and the many problems those immigrants have created. When
these immigrants come to a small town in mass, or in the case of Dearborn
Michigan, these muslim immigrants create no go zones in those areas. In other
words if you are not muslim you are not welcome to walk down the streets of that
area, right here in the free U.S. of A.Just google no go zones in
america, you'll see.These no go zones are all over Europe now.
Now they're here too.All libs hate intolerant religions, so how
are you libs going to handle a religion that hates the westernized world, that
means America. Their Sharia Law prohibits them from even making contact with an
infidel in any way. Those infidels are you and me. So how are you
libs going to deal with this religious intolerance when it includes everyone not
I tend to not side with Trump on just about everything he says and does.However, if this executive order had been properly vetted and made
exceptions for those who already had visas and green cards, then yes I would be
ok with some additional vetting for folks trying to get here from the 7 nations
listed.We have a right to decide who gets in who does not. The
problem with Trump is that he has no tact. He spouts "Muslim ban" on
the campaign trail, and rushes out this E/O with a ton of fanfare. All the
while leaving the people who are in charge of enforcing it with little
pre-emptive directions.Amateur hour folks.
@Karen R. [Hope you don’t mind but this previous though
related thread seemed to require a follow up]I agree our vetting
process for refugees works well and in general we assimilate immigrants better
than Europe, but that’s not the point I was raising.First, we
need to recognize that our assimilation is not perfect as the number of
religiously motivated (according to their own words) Islamic terrorist attacks
on our soil will attest. Second, the fact that Muslims already live
here is irrelevant (i.e., if you concede that some percentage of the Muslim
population holds problematic views, and some percentage of that group is
susceptible to radicalization, those numbers only grow as their population
increases).Back to my analogy – Would we let in
“conservative neo-Nazis” from Germany who believe all the
“Nazi” tenets but are not inclined to violence?And
again, assuming only the children of German immigrants are going to be
susceptible to the ideology how do we vet these “yet to be born”
Germans? Would you deny that these are legitimate concerns?
water rocket," . . . . For generations, these people have been taught
that westerners were infidels and of the devil. . . . "______________________________And for generations, these other people
(Christians) were taught that the poor ignorant savages of the world were
heathens and lost souls without the saving gospel. But that kind of Christianity
was not Christianity everywhere. Nor are Muslims all of one cut.Let’s stop the profiling and stereotyping. It leads nowhere except
around and around in a vicious circle of retribution and keeping alive ages-old
antagonisms. For those to persist, we have only to keep feeding them.
One of our biggest fears should be a leader who takes the next step and
justifies the physical assault of individuals or entire cultures in the name of
Is it wise, for the sake of diversity and tolerance, to encourage immigration of
groups of people whose religious tradition is directly (and sometimes violently)
opposed to the principles found in the US Constitution?Most
religions and sects are, at a minimum, neutral regarding interaction with
governments and people of other religions. Much has been written in
the Deseret News recently about the similarities of Islam and Mormonism.
However, in their view of the purpose and role of government, Islam and
Mormonism are polar opposites. Some major branches of Islam seek to
impose Sharia Law on all people, believer and non-believer, by force if
necessary. At the opposite end of the spectrum is Mormonism, that fully
embraces the US Constitution as a God-inspired document that recognizes basic
individual human freedoms, and allows people subject to it, the right to be free
of most government restraints.This is where Western Europeans and
many Americans are recoiling. They see a steady stream of immigrants who not
only have no desire to embrace any Western values beyond raw capitalism, but
sporadically violently reject Western values.
"...wish to ban Muslim immigration is widely shared in Europe..."The evidence suggests that this sentiment is far more justified there
than it is here. They have neither the vetting process nor the assimilation
forces that we have here.But fear doesn't give a whit about
facts or reason and fear-mongers know this. They know stoking fear is a
moneymaker and an avenue to power. The evidence suggests that I, residing in
the U.S., have far more reason to be concerned about fearful people and those
taking advantage of them than I do of Muslims.
Trump’s wish to ban Muslim immigration is widely shared in Europe======== I do not care if it's 100% shared, banning
people based on religion still is not right....
Europe has been overrun by adherents of an intolerant religion. Does it
surprise anyone that a majority find that to be a problem? At least in the US
we are taking our time (comparatively speaking) to create the same problem.
Only the occasional call for Sharia law thus far.We, as a country,
should have enough experience with intolerant religions to recognize what will
happen should this continue. Oddly, the dominant and fairly tolerant Christians
here, don't recognize what they are enabling.
Some might cite the numbers of popular surveys to demonstrate the moral
superiority of their point of view, but it only seems to take a single
terrorist act to skew the perspective 100%.
I understand that there is a lot of liberal feel goodness out there backed by a
much more sinister culture of coercion and bullying by left wing political
machines. (Ironically they call Trump a bully when in fact he is a blow hard)..
See North Carolina for true economic coercion... But the fact remains, we
don't have to let anyone migrate here if we don't want to... Is it the
right thing to do for the country? Probably not... But it would not be
I would imagine that financially it would be difficult, especially in small
countries. The problem for me is with people who lump everyone together. Such as
when Jews were seen as a problem to be eradicated. Or when the Japanese were
interned. Or Native Americans were decimated. Or aboriginal people in Australia
were killed and discriminated against. Or Africans were sold into horrific
slavery. We need to see each other as individuals, try to fight against group
think, and see beyond the things that separate us.
Not sure about Germany. But France and the Netherlands may very well be run by
Trump-like leaders with new Trump-like immigration policies toward Middle
Eastern immigrants by this summer. And Frexit and Nexit may quickly follow on
the heels of Brexit. Good or bad? I think it's a mixed bag.
But Middle Eastern immigrants seeking the right to impose Sharia Law in their
local enclaves will have more opposition. This will actually make life for
Middle Eastern immigrant women and girls confusing, but a lot better.
The problem is that there is very little assimilation of Western culture and
values, beyond basic capitalism among immigrants from the Middle East. And a few
of these immigrants' religious values are directly and violently opposed to
fundamental Western concepts of freedom, liberty, equality, and yes, even basic
tolerance. Screening immigrants for their ability to assimilate
Western values was discarded in the 1960s as unjust discrimination. We are now
reaping 50 years of these relatively new, politically correct, but extremely
unwise immigration policies. The danger now is that we may not be
able to bring the situation under control. The newly immigrated may end up
destroying the very tolerant and liberal society that brought them to the West
in the first place.
Quit misrepresenting it as a "Muslim" ban. Those who oppose the ban
should have no problem allowing the "refugees" to live with them and
will promise feed, clothe, and give them the keys to their cars.
The sad fact is that there are many good and bad arguments for both camps.
Immigrating people from EVERY part of the globe have ADDED value in many ways to
our own way of life. On the other hand, a minority of those immigrants can, and
have caused great concern for a peaceful co-existence. Even more sadly is the
fact that many of these immigrants are young. These are the very people who
could (and should) be counted on to help rebuild their own countries.Just one more thought: For generations, these people have been taught that
westerners were infidels and of the devil. Some may see through this, but most
believe it. Changing hate filled attitudes is not a simple matter of tolerance,
nor is it helped by intolerant attitudes and rejection.The bottom
line is that we simply cannot always identify who will add value to our
communities, and who would seek to destroy us. Love means taking risks, even in
marriages, but it does not mean we have to be blind.
This article's title makes an erroneous assumption (i.e. fake news).
"Trump's wish to ban Muslim immigration..." is false, inaccurate,
and misleading. Fortunately, the body of the article correctly states,
"...President Trump’s recent entry ban against citizens of seven
mostly Muslim countries..." 85% of Muslims are not even subject to the
temporary ban. Let's exercise some editorial discipline please.
No doubt about it. Europe has it bad. I did not agree with the
POTUS travel ban, primarily because it was not vetted, and poorly executed.I did not vote for Trump, but there is a good argument to be made for
some extra vetting from nations that are in turmoil and do not have a
functioning government.If I were king of Europe (I know that does
not exist). I would collect every male refugee over the age of 16, and
conscript them into military service. They would be forced to fight ISIS,
Assad, the Taliban, etc... Then after defeating those terrorist groups they
could form their own governments with trade agreements with the EU.
Little picturesque villages all over Europe are no longer safe for the women and
children who live there. Women must go out only during the day, and only in
groups. The "culture" of the middle east is antithetic to western
culture; many people refuse to admit this.
The truth is, people are bullied and shamed into tolerating what they really
don't want. This is known as political correctness, and is a major tool of
the media and elites. The reality is cultures, traditions, faiths
are best upheld and carried on by the people and communities in which they
exist. Mixing millions of illegals, refugees, foreigners, etc... into this pot
often times results in an exodus of the existing community to a different part
of town. This is the truth, not opinion.
Just substitute the word "Mormon" for every time you read
"Muslim". What if the tides were turned (we all know that they used to
be)? We should all be better than this.
We should examine the trouble that the European governments have had with masses
of arab refugees coming into their country. It will take the most optimistic
among us to convince that we will not have similar problems. Question: -
how will we deal with problems and troubles caused by masses of refugees pouring
into our country?Answer: One can only hope we will do better than those
in Europe have done.
“Europeans are not at all that negative towards the American
president’s ideas,” the release said. “In fact, a majority of
Europeans are for an immediate stop to immigration.”I’ve
been saying for years that if the Left cannot bring itself to stop obscuring the
magnitude of the threat of Islamism (and the prevalence of support it has in the
Muslim community – i.e., not insignificantly small) as the ideology that
fuels radical Islamic terrorism, then they are all but guaranteeing the
ascension of the far-right and all the dangers they will bring to
geopolitics.At the end of the day - more than a clean environment,
more than equal rights, more than stopping political corruption, even more than
a prosperous economy – people want to feel safe. Had Hillary
Clinton spoken honestly about this problem, instead of lecturing us about gun
control or “Islamophobia”, I believe she would be occupying the
White House today rather than the national embarrassment currently in residence.
And now Europe is poised to follow suit.
Of course their are nationalist politicians that seek to make ground by
politicizing scary minorities. They are in every corner of the world, and of
course they exist here as well. Fear of others has been a great political
motivator for centuries.
" . . . . The survey of more than 10,000 people in 10 European countries
showed that 55 percent of all respondents agreed that all further migration from
mainly Muslim countries should stop. . . . "______________________________I don't know if these poll numbers
reflect European disdain for Islam or deep fear of spreading terrorism. But one
conclusion seems inescapable to me. In historically Christian lands, terrorism
has become the face of Islam. How tragic.
Europe found itself within physical reach of the outflow of humanity from Syria,
and is having to deal with a massive unplanned influx. We're dealing
with xenophobia arising from television images and fear mongering by trump.
In some ways Europe is a "canary in the coal mine" and can show us how
bad certain things can get if we allow them here in the US.