That's the thing, though. If there is a case to be made for the vetting system being subpar, that case has not been made. Not by Trump, not by the FBI, and certainly not by you. Banning Muslims is a populistic gut reaction without any kind of backing up, and that is because there is no case.
I repeat: there is no case.
Or perhaps the vetting is considered by some to be subpar because they failed to realise that the unborn son of a Muslim immigrant would grow up to become a terrorist?
Considering a ban is bigoted as fuck. It's an incredibly stupid and bigoted idea, designed to win votes rather than fight terrorism.
You repeat there is no case as much as you like but there is and I have already told you why there IS a case for ALL I have said.
Here is it broken down for you.
- The vetting system is shit. It is sub par. It has a hard time in vetting illegal immigrants. Many do not have the databases to check or the identification to present.
- ISIS are absolutely infiltrating refugee communities.
- The vetting system is even dropping the ball and letting in refugees with deadly and dangerous transmissible diseases
- So how many cases of Islamic Extremism cases does the FBI have in America? 900 active cases and climbing
- When they HAVE identified the threat how do they do?
Okay so these were my claims and the ones that you say there is no case for right? It really does not take much looking around to back each of those things and I only picked these articles because they were the ones that came to me the quickest. There are many others and of course many links and and sources quoted in them that I could have looked at.
The vetting system is shit. It is sub par. It has a hard time in vetting illegal immigrants. Many do not have the databases to check or the identification to present.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/11/19/the-limitations-of-refugee-screening/?utm_term=.e6027eca711b
“Senior Obama officials have warned of challenges in screening refugees from Syria,” reports The Post (Jerry Markon). An excerpt:
Several high-level administration officials have warned in recent months just how challenging [screening Syrian refugees] can be. While they say U.S. security measures are much better than in the past, vetting Syrian refugees poses a quandary: How do you screen people from a war-torn country that has few criminal and terrorist databases to check? …
FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/
FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.
Although Comey said the process has since “improved dramatically,” Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. “If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our data,” he said. “I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.”
http://immigrationreform.com/2015/10/14/fbi-director-admits-there-are-certain-gaps-in-screening-process-for-syrian-refugees/
The Obama administration has announced its intent to admit at least 10,000 Syrians as refugees in the coming year. It is likely that the number could be much higher. Leaving aside the growing evidence that many of those fleeing Syria are economic migrants, not legitimate refugees, the plan to resettle Syrians in the U.S. poses significant security risks.
Testifying before the Senate Homeland Security Committee last week, FBI Director James Comey conceded identifying and screening out potential terrorists is problematic. “My concern there is that there are certain gaps I don’t want to talk about publicly in the data available to us,” he said. Comey’s concerns were echoed by Nicholas Rasmussen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center. “The intelligence picture we’ve had of this conflict zone isn’t what we’d like it to be… you can only review against what you have,” Rasmussen told the committee.
‘What we have’ and what we are likely to find out isn’t much, considering the complete collapse of civil society in Syria. Similar security concerns are being raised by German intelligence officials, where Syrians are being admitted in much larger numbers.
And even when we’ve had more to go on, our record of screening out security threats from that part of the world has been less than stellar. Comey admitted that we admitted Iraqis who had known ties to terrorist organizations, despite the fact that we had a strong military presence in Iraq at the time. He also conceded that “dozens” of refugees already in the U.S. are targets for ISIS recruitment.
“Certain gaps” might be more accurately characterized as ‘gaping holes’ that will pose dangerous security risks if the administration’s plans are carried out.
ISIS are absolutely infiltrating refugee communities.
http://www.independentsentinel.com/isis-threatens-to-flood-europe-and-elsewhere-as-libyan-refugees/
Quilliam Foundation reports that ISIS/ISIL/IS plans to use Libya as a gateway to Europe, sending fighters masked as refugees.
They are urging fighters to flood into Libya from Syria and Iraq to then head for Italy and elsewhere.
Quilliam, the British anti-extremist think tank translated and analyzed a document written by an Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) propagandist who uses the alias Abu Arhim al-Libim.
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/publications/free/libya-the-strategic-gateway-for-the-is.pdf
The vetting system is even dropping the ball and letting in refugees with deadly and dangerous transmissible diseases
https://www.google.com.au/?ion=1&espv=2#q=breitbart+tuberculosis+refugee
Aticle after article of the screening process even failing here. Refugees with transmissible disease are being let in to the country. Tuberculosis is globally one of the most infectious and deadly diseases surpassing HIV.
Then there is Measles...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/31/az-health-officials-confirm-11-cases-of-measles-stemming-from-immigrant-detention-facility/
So how many cases of Islamic Extremism cases does the FBI have in America? 900 active cases and climbing
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/23/fbi-comey-isil-domestic-probes/74455460/
WASHINGTON — FBI Director James Comey said Friday that federal authorities have an estimated 900 active investigations pending against suspected Islamic State-inspired operatives and other home-grown violent extremists across the country.
When they HAVE identified the threat how do they do?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/fbi-twice-cleared-omar-mateen-of-radical-leanings/news-story/ee3e3dbd998013ce2e7e88c2d3676e9e
Once they have the threat identified how effective are they at containing, monitoring and dealing with the threat even when it is on home soil? No? How good are they then do you think of identification and dealing with the threats when they are coming in from overseas.
So Odeon, being as only a lying, head-in-the-sand fool would say something as dishonest as:
That's the thing, though. If there is a case to be made for the vetting system being subpar, that case has not been made. Not by Trump, not by the FBI, and certainly not by you. Banning Muslims is a populistic gut reaction without any kind of backing up, and that is because there is no case.
I repeat: there is no case.
Why did you just say it?
Yes that is right, because there IS a case.
Now with that out the way let's look at precisely what acknowledging this will need to look at:
1) ALL Muslims are NOT bad radicalised Islamic Extremists. In fact any of the decent Muslims wishing to flee the violence and extremism of said Muslim countrymen and find that those same countrymen's actions are temporarily closing the door to THEIR immigration, have my sympathies. Hopefully these people will appreciate one the freeze was over that they will be coming through without those same ratbags and there efforts to flee them and the extremism and violence associated with them will be successful, as it may not have been had the freeze and vetting improvements had not been made.
2) The concept of placing a freeze on Muslim immigration whilst reasonable in principle can be effectively implemented in practice (I have certainly reservations as to how one even confirms a persons religious beliefs - if someone said to me I could not immigrate to somewhere I wanted to desperately because they only let in people who believed in a religion, I would suddenly become very pious and Christian, until I had got through the process.)
3) It does prevent immigration elsewhere in the meantime.
4) It also does not say anything about the specifics. What steps would be implemented to improve the vetting system. If we agree they must be improved, what signifies the improvements, to what amount and in which ways will you be able to address the obvious problems that exist now? If there are gaps as admitted to, how are they going to be filled? It doesn't say the idea of fixing the problem is bad but you need something better to be able to put it in place. I would like those specifics.
These practicalities and considerations are all worth considering.
Now what you will see in that first point is that Muslim immigrants would suffer because of the actions of a few (if we are saying that not immigrating to US SPECIFICALLY and in exclusion to any other country is suffering) but that this is accepting the position that they are not all bad and that the efforts would be made to improve things so they CAN be immigrated and without their extremist countrymen following them over.
On a slight tangent. It reminds me of the early 1900's in America with Italian and Sicilian immigrants and refugees immigrating. Their poverty and shared customs meant they generally moved into poor communities next to one another. Unfortunately many of the worst Mafiosi and Black Hand elements moved in with them and started to exploit them in those communities and then gain strength to branch out from there.
I think IF bad elements can be kept out then it gives Muslim immigrants a better chance to embrace their host country and not be preyed upon by the worst elements of that which they fled.
So yes Odeon. I certainly HAVE backed myself and NO it is not, nor was it EVER bigoted. That was just a petty unwarranted insult you cast my way. Therefore calling you a r
You may as well put me back on the mod as my position has NOT changed on iota. You keep calling me a bigot I WILL keep calling you a r
The culture of I2 is based around being able to back yourself and have free and open expression.
I made a series of very reasonable claims and said why I thought they were reasonable and you in turn call them bigoted and me a bigot. When I respond to your insult in kind you used your Admin panel to censor.
NONE of that is free or open or backing yourself. Claiming I am bigoted does not make it so and you DID repeat that claim a lot. I asked you to back it and you didn't. I am still waiting for ANY evidence of any group that I am intolerant (bigoted) towards. Bring that up and we can discuss that BUT saying "You are agreeing with the idea of not letting Muslim immigrants into US temporarily therefore you are a bigot" is not backing your claim. It is simply making one. It is saying that one naturally follows the other. It doesn't. It certainly begs a few questions as to whether it IS bigoted. Such as....I don't know....."Is it because you dislike or are intolerant to Muslims or Muslim Immigrants". That kind of free and open discussion would certainly lead to a "No, not at all. I think US would benefit from Moderate Muslims and most Muslims are good people from my experiences".
So your claim unbacked is an insult and I can make unbacked claims that are insults at you too. When I do you revert to using Censoring Mods on Admin panel.
But you go a step further. Up above we see you say
"If there is a case to be made for the vetting system being subpar, that case has not been made. Not by Trump, not by the FBI, and certainly not by you." . You are now LYING to me and everyone here. The post above has the FBI Director all bad saying so. What he says about the vetting systems
FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.
So are they subpar or not and has he not admitted it? Not convinced?
“Senior Obama officials have warned of challenges in screening refugees from Syria,” reports The Post (Jerry Markon). An excerpt:
Several high-level administration officials have warned in recent months just how challenging [screening Syrian refugees] can be. While they say U.S. security measures are much better than in the past, vetting Syrian refugees poses a quandary: How do you screen people from a war-torn country that has few criminal and terrorist databases to check? …
Come on. There is DEFINITELY a case to be made and so you then saying
"I repeat: there is no case.", Not only does not suddenly make it the case nor does it wave away evidence to the contrary nor does it back your claim.
It is another Odeon lie.
You revert to the popular and emotional reasoning of casting people who do entertain this as acting irrationally and not able to think well and being bigoted.
Banning Muslims is a populistic gut reaction without any kind of backing up, and that is because there is no case.
It is pure irony. YOU are acting emotionally in a gut reaction without observing the evidence that is so easily collected and without backing yourself.
"Who am I bigoted and intolerant towards?" You can't back yourself can you. Can use an Admin Panel though can't you?
I can back myself Odeon, can you or do you demand I do what you cannot do yourself. Is your fallback action going to be the Admin panel from hereon in? Is THIS what you consider free expression and backing yourself?
