How should the US respond to the terrorist attacks in Europe?

RabidAlpaca said:

Because you can't identify people's religion in the first place. It exists 100% in people's heads, and if you put a ban on muslims entering the country, a terrorist will just say he's not muslim. This isn't about national security, it's purely about your hate and the illusion of safety. Grow a pair for ****s sake.

Click to expand...

You obviously can't stop all Muslim immigration but you can stop it from majority Muslim nations.

What have I said that says I hate people? Hate is a strong word only use it when you can prove it.

mmi said:

I'd call for deportation of all bigots, but who'd take 'em? Maybe we could put 'em out on the garbage patches in the North Pacific.

Click to expand...

That apparently is our new immigration plan if Hillary gets elected and has her way. She has come out and stated it. It also happens to be our current plan. Millions of law abiding people all over the world are not being let into this country yet we are rewarding people who come into this country illegally with citizenship if they can have an anchor baby. Stating the truth is not bigotry but the truth. I know this for a fact because I have tried to help people from Mexico enter this country legally.

My stepbrother married a wonderful woman from Mexico when his job transferred him down there. He wanted to live in Mexico but unfortunately he was promoted and had to be moved back to the states after several years. He and his son were allowed back in the country but not his wife. Our government would not acknowledge his marriage in another country nor let her immigrate to the US. So she entered with a visa to visit and never went back. Then they granted her immigration status. She had to become a criminal to come to this country. FACT.

I have been involved first hand with this problem on other occasions with people here legally working for me.

Millions of law abiding people from countries all over the world have been waiting decades to enter this country legally or be granted immigrant status and have been denied because we have too many people here illegally. FACT.

We put criminals ahead of law abiding people under our current immigration system and people think that this is right. Sorry but it is not right and never will be right.

How should the US respond to the terrorist attacks in Europe?

Click to expand...

Letting Europeans handle their business, answering the call when asked and when cooperation is necessary, making sure the US is protected.

PakPuk said:

IIf the majority of people want to ban Islamic immigration then that's how democracy works.

Click to expand...

As you know, the US is not simply a democracy. It's a constitutional democratic republic. An important element of that Constitution is the guaranteed protection of minority rights in a number of areas, one of them being religious liberty. The price to secure and preserve that and other liberty rights has been paid in blood, many times over. You can expect a very stubborn reaction by many Americans to efforts to strip away those freedoms.

RetiredUSN said:

Muslims … the ones coming from the war zones, or other hot beds [should] be screened/vetted/scrutinized.

Click to expand...

I respectfully suggest that they are being carefully vetted.

Every year, around 10K Americans are killed and another 300K injured in accidents involving drunk drivers. I'd like to see more stringent measures applied to reduce those numbers, and I figure you may agree. But how extreme should our public policy be in that area?

PakPuk said:

You obviously can't stop all Muslim immigration but you can stop it from majority Muslim nations.

Click to expand...

That plays into the hands of the terrorists, who believe the West is at war, not with terrorism, but with Islam itself. My feeling is that we must defeat this terrorist ideology to make Americans and others safe from its deadly consequences. We didn't win the Cold War by banning political refugees from countries with communist governments.

PIPEWRENCH said:

My stepbrother married a wonderful woman from Mexico … . She had to become a criminal to come to this country. FACT.

Click to expand...

I support comprehensive immigration reform that put an end to situations like that.

>>Millions of law abiding people from countries all over the world have been waiting decades to enter this country legally or be granted immigrant status and have been denied because we have too many people here illegally. FACT.

Is that the reason they're denied?

>>We put criminals ahead of law abiding people under our current immigration system and people think that this is right.

I'd say people don't think that's right. The issue is how we control immigration and how we deal with people who enter the country illegally. We agree that there's a lot of room for improvement.

mmi said:

As you know, the US is not simply a democracy. It's a constitutional democratic republic. An important element of that Constitution is the guaranteed protection of minority rights in a number of areas, one of them being religious liberty. The price to secure and preserve that and other liberty rights has been paid in blood, many times over. You can expect a very stubborn reaction by many Americans to efforts to strip away those freedoms.



I respectfully suggest that they are being carefully vetted.

Every year, around 10K Americans are killed and another 300K injured in accidents involving drunk drivers. I'd like to see more stringent measures applied to reduce those numbers, and I figure you may agree. But how extreme should our public policy be in that area?



That plays into the hands of the terrorists, who believe the West is at war, not with terrorism, but with Islam itself. My feeling is that we must defeat this terrorist ideology to make Americans and others safe from its deadly consequences. We didn't win the Cold War by banning political refugees from countries with communist governments.



I support comprehensive immigration reform that put an end to situations like that.

>>Millions of law abiding people from countries all over the world have been waiting decades to enter this country legally or be granted immigrant status and have been denied because we have too many people here illegally. FACT.

Is that the reason they're denied?

>>We put criminals ahead of law abiding people under our current immigration system and people think that this is right.

I'd say people don't think that's right. The issue is how we control immigration and how we deal with people who enter the country illegally. We agree that there's a lot of room for improvement.

Click to expand...

Respectfully disagree. The FBI & Homeland Security both agree that vetting is not being done correctly.

Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Michael McCaul..................own words:

that the U.S. doesn't have the systems in place through Homeland Security or the FBI to properly vet refugees coming from the terrorism hotspots of Syria and Iraq.

RetiredUSN said:

Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Michael McCaul … "the U.S. doesn't have the systems in place … to properly vet refugees coming from the terrorism hotspots of Syria and Iraq."

Click to expand...

I don't trust McCaul's judgement. Can you cite other sources to support yer claim?

Here's one view (Sorry, the communists at mediamatters have the only full clip I could find):

John Oliver on Syrian Refugees

mmi said:

I don't trust McCaul's judgement. Can you cite other sources to support yer claim?

Here's one view (Sorry, the communists at mediamatters have the only full clip I could find):

John Oliver on Syrian Refugees

Click to expand...

You don't trust the head of the FBI either? He is very well respected on both sides of the aisle.

mmi said:

That's not happening.

>>How about cap and trade?

Sounds good to me. A market-based solution.



Any specific quotes?



So yer saying we shouldn't allow immigration from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, two of our important allies in the region? Malik received one of around 35K K-1 visas. That's a low error rate, imo. She had no history of ties to terrorist organizations and had not made public her radical political views.



Looks like good reporting to me. It notes that thousands of people crossing the border illegally from Central and South America are being released because local communities are unable/unwilling to pay to incarcerate them pending a hearing. It points out that this has been a common practice for many years. It states that the DHS budget to support the detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants has been flat for two years. So how is this evidence that, as you said, "the Obama administration has put a strangle hold on … the border patrol"? I'd say the Republican-controlled Congress has put a stranglehold on spending to deal with this problem.



The standard response from a Frumpy the Clown supporter when the history of racism in the US is mentioned: "Yeah? And that's supposed to be a problem"?



It's yer argument. You look it up. I read the article linked to and responded in this post. And I repeat, unsupported nonsense. Being told I'm ignorant by a Frumpy supporter hands me a big laugh.



Yeah, yer more than welcome to join the losing side of the argument.

Click to expand...

And you are more than welcome to continue living in your little fantasy world. :doh

mmi said:

As you know, the US is not simply a democracy. It's a constitutional democratic republic. An important element of that Constitution is the guaranteed protection of minority rights in a number of areas, one of them being religious liberty. The price to secure and preserve that and other liberty rights has been paid in blood, many times over. You can expect a very stubborn reaction by many Americans to efforts to strip away those freedoms.



I respectfully suggest that they are being carefully vetted.

Every year, around 10K Americans are killed and another 300K injured in accidents involving drunk drivers. I'd like to see more stringent measures applied to reduce those numbers, and I figure you may agree. But how extreme should our public policy be in that area?



That plays into the hands of the terrorists, who believe the West is at war, not with terrorism, but with Islam itself. My feeling is that we must defeat this terrorist ideology to make Americans and others safe from its deadly consequences. We didn't win the Cold War by banning political refugees from countries with communist governments.



I support comprehensive immigration reform that put an end to situations like that.

>>Millions of law abiding people from countries all over the world have been waiting decades to enter this country legally or be granted immigrant status and have been denied because we have too many people here illegally. FACT.

Is that the reason they're denied?

>>We put criminals ahead of law abiding people under our current immigration system and people think that this is right.

I'd say people don't think that's right. The issue is how we control immigration and how we deal with people who enter the country illegally. We agree that there's a lot of room for improvement.

Click to expand...

Why doesn't our Fed Govt. protect the rights of the MAJORITY?



You can't vet people who have NO paperwork to check up on, or properly vet those people who lie about their identity, and forge their paperwork, etc.



What good will 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform' do?

The US ALREADY has ALL the Immigration Laws on the books now, (and has had for decades) that we could possibly need, BUT, our Fed Govt. REFUSES to enforce many of these Laws, and has refused to enforce them for decades.

Do you really believe that once 'Reform' is passed, our Fed Govt. will immediately start enforcing ALL of these 'new' Imm. Laws at ALL times???





I agree w/ you on this part: "The issue is how we control immigration and how we deal with people who enter the country illegally. We agree that there's a lot of room for improvement."

And this BEGINS with ENFORCING our existing Laws.

mmi said:

We didn't win the Cold War by banning political refugees from countries with communist governments.

Click to expand...

"""""
Several ideological requirements for naturalization remain under U.S. law. First is the requirement that the applicant be "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same."[34] This is essentially a political test,[35] though it "should be construed ... in accord with the theory and practice of our government in relation to freedom of conscience."[36] The statutory requirement is elaborated in the Code of Federal Regulations, which provides: "Attachment implies a depth of conviction which would lead to active support of the Constitution. Attachment and favorable disposition relate to mental attitude, and contemplate the exclusion from citizenship of applicants who are hostile to the basic form of government of the United States, or who disbelieve in the principles of the Constitution."

Beyond the general attachment provision, there are several supplementary specific ideological bars.[43] These exclusions affect anarchists,[44] communists,[45] totalitarians,[45] and advocates of assassination,[46] government overthrow by force,[46] destruction of property,[46] and sabotage.

For communists and totalitarians, the prohibited activities are membership and affiliation with relevant organizations,[49] the advocacy of relevant doctrines,[50] the publishing of relevant doctrines,[51] and the association with organizations that advocate or publish relevant doctrines.[52] The bar on communism forbids the advocacy of the establishment of communism in the United States, whereas the bar on totalitarianism forbids the advocacy of the establishment of totalitarianism anywhere in the world.

The court concluded that Congress "possesses the plenary power to exclude aliens on whatever ground [it] deems fit."[67] Similarly, in Kleindienst v. Mandel, the Supreme Court cited Congress's plenary power over immigration laws as the basis for applying an extremely deferential standard of review to the statutory exclusion of communist aliens from the United States.[68] No ideological naturalization restriction has been overturned on First Amendment grounds.
""""""""""""'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_restrictions_on_naturalization_in_U.S._law

I see no reason why we could not easily add Islamist avocation of sharia to that list..

Orly? said:

I see no reason why we could not easily add Islamist avocation of sharia to that list..

Click to expand...

I assume you meant "advocation." So yer OK with Muslims who don't call for America to be ruled by sharia law?

mmi said:

1. I assume you meant "advocation."
2. So yer OK with Muslims who don't call for America to be ruled by sharia law?

Click to expand...

1. My spell checker turns advocation into avocation, yes that is what I meant..
2. Yeah, why not? But the ones that do would likely lie anyway..

RetiredUSN said:

You don't trust the head of the FBI either?

Click to expand...

Sorry, but what did he say?

ObamacareFail said:

Your phony support for Kasich is simply based on desperation

Click to expand...

Rats! Yer just too clever for me.

truthatallcost said:

Fox News has supported every GOP candidate at one time or another, during the course of this primary race.

Click to expand...

They're good at making money.

>>Kasich [would] win his home state, and Hillary [would] win the other 49.

So you'd go with the Democrat winning in Utah and Wyoming?

Orly? said:

the ones that do would likely lie anyway..

Click to expand...

So I guess there's no point in asking. But tell me, do you think they maybe in fact do get asked about things like that?

Dragonfly said:

How about this:

#1) Let the countries who've been attacked deal with it
#2) Only offer assistance if/when asked directly by those who've been attacked
#3) Don't fight other countries battles
#4) Don't be complacent and think we're "safe" from similar attacks
#5) Don't volunteer to be other countries police force or security force

Click to expand...

Hell, yes! Bingo! Absolutely!