Bowsite.com

Yes, Trump constantly makes things up. There was no incident in Sweden last night, for example . But he felt the need to detail one at his rally today. His followers swallowed it. All. Will Sweden get sanctioned for refusing to agree that they were attacked by terrorists, like the president said?? ??That remains to be seen.

Incidentally: Men who held rallies after they were democratically elected: Mussolini Hitler Stalin Castro Berdymukhamedov Kim Jong-un Trump

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-attacks-idUSKBN15H2D4

Neo-nazi's are terrorists, same as ISIS. Different reason, but terrorism is terrorism.

Next time ignore the MSM and do your own damn homework.

I'm starting to see a startling parallel in PaulZy to one of the tenets of Sun Tzu; "When you are too weak to defend, attack."

Or, in more colloquial terms, PaulZy is the fireman who insists on arriving at a 10-alarm fire equipped only with the hose in his britches......

You realize the link you posted to Reuters IS the "Mainstream Media", Right?

This I agree with 100%.

And I agree with the statements that they can be a burden on the State and welfare programs. The conditions they live in can be deplorable, and can lead to criminal activities (typically isolated to the communities they live in).

Despite this, statements like "the invaders bring a serious spike in violent crimes" are just flat out wrong.

I don't know what source you need to hear it from. Here is the State Department's characterization of crime in Sweden in 2015..."According to official statistics, 2015 saw an four percent increase in reported crimes compared to 2014. The categories of crimes that reported the highest increases were vandalism and computer-based fraud. 2015 saw a slight decrease in thefts, sex offenses, and traffic crimes. In 2015, car thefts and thefts from vehicles increased one percent from the previous year for a total number of 67,400 reported crimes.The homicide rate in 2015 remained relatively unchanged from 2014 with approximately 90 reported cases."

I guess you're right, there's a rash of vandalism and computer crime brought on by the wave of immigrants. Lord help us all. Please note that in 2015 the country had a total of NINETY murders, with the vast majority being committed by Swedish born individuals. So, besides a few isolated stories and attention grabbing headlines, please help me understand how this rash of terror and violent crime that is sweeping the nation of Sweden is not showing up in the statistics? Where is the "serious increase in violent crime" you are referring to?

It's no different than it is here. These people are not a significant threat to the average Swede, just like they aren't any kind of significant threat to the average American. Why is the right a bunch of snowflakes when it comes to this stuff? It's like I'm listening to the left talk about mass shootings and AR-15s. Statistically, they just aren't an issue.

I've looked and looked but there just isn't anything there.

Sex crimes[edit] See also: Rape in Sweden and Prostitution in Sweden

Rate of exposure to sexual offences have remained relatively unchanged, while the number of sex crime reports have increased. Total number of sex crimes reported Number of reported rape cases* Respondents exposed to sexual offences (rape incl.) in annual victim survey A long-standing tradition of gender equality policy and legislation, as well as an established women's movement, have led to several legislative changes and amendments, greatly expanding the sex crime legislation.[31][32] For example, in 1965 Sweden was one of the first countries in the world to criminalise marital rape,[32] and Sweden is one of a few countries in the world to criminalizing only the purchase of sexual services, but not the selling.[33]

The rate of exposure to sexual offences has remained relatively unchanged, according to the SCS, since the first survey was conducted in 2006, despite an increase in the number of reported sex crimes.[34] This discrepancy can largely be explained by reforms in sex crime legislation, widening of the definition of rape,[35][36][37] and an effort by the Government to decrease the number of unreported cases.[36][38][39][40] In SCS 2013, 0.8 per cent of respondents state that they were the victims of sexual offences, including rape; or an estimated 62,000 people of the general population (aged 16–79). Of these, 16 per cent described the sexual offence as "rape" — which would mean approximately 36,000 incidents of rape in 2012.[34]

A frequently cited source when comparing Swedish rape statistics internationally is the regularly published report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) — although they discourage this practice.[41] In 2012, according to the report by UNODC, Sweden was quoted as having 66.5 cases of reported rapes per 100,000 population,[41] based on official statistics by Brå.[42][Note 1] The high number of reported rapes in Sweden can partly be explained by differing legal systems, offence definitions, terminological variations, recording practices and statistical conventions, making any cross-national comparison on rape statistics difficult.[43][Note 1]

According to a 2014 study published by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), approximately one third of all women in the EU were said to have suffered physical and/or sexual abuse. At the top end was Denmark (52%), Finland (47%) and Sweden (46%).[44][45] Every second woman in the EU has experienced sexual harassment at least once since the age of 15. In Sweden that figure was 81 percent, closely followed by Denmark (80%) and France (75%). Included in the definition of "sexual harassment" was — among other things — inappropriate staring or leering and cyber harassment.[46][47] The report concluded that there's a strong correlation between higher levels of gender equality and disclosure of sexual violence.[48]"

Assault[edit] While the number of reported assaults has been on the increase, crime victim surveys show that a large part of the increase may be due to the fact that more crimes are actually reported.[22] According to the 2013 SCS, the proportion who stated that they have been the victims of assault has declined gradually, from 2.7 per cent in 2005 to 1.9 per cent in 2012. The proportion who are anxious about falling victim to assault has also decreased, from 15 per cent in 2006 to 10 per cent in 2013.[14] This is supported by medical services reporting unchanged levels of incoming patients with wounds derived from assault or serious violent crime.[22][23][24] Studies have also shown that police are increasingly likely to personally initiate reports of assault between strangers, which contributes to more cases involving assault being reported.[25]

Sweden has a high rate of reported assault crime when compared internationally,[26] but this can be explained by legal, procedural and statistical differences.[Note 1] For example, the Swedish police applies a system of expansive offence counts for violent crimes, meaning the same crime may be recorded several times.[8] The 2005 European Crime and Safety Survey (2005 EU ICS) found that prevalence victimisation rates for assaults with force was below average in Sweden.[27]"

"There has been debate in the media about the crime rate in Sweden, and further debate about how crime has been affected by recently immigrated refugees.[66][67] Some international media have falsely claimed that the refuge immigrants in Sweden created dangerous neighborhoods that are now "no-go zones" for Swedish police.[68] Such "no-go zones" do not exist in Sweden.[68][69] In a February 2017 interview by US Fox News personality Tucker Carlson, filmmaker Ami Horowitz stated migrants in Sweden have been associated with a crime wave, and “they often times try to cover up some of these crimes.” Henrik Selin, a political scientist and deputy director of the Swedish Institute, described these news reports of an immigrant-related crime surge as "highly exaggerated and not based in facts."[69] According to Martin Gelin of the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, “countless right-wing media in the United States that have long been reporting that Sweden is heading for total collapse.”[69]"

That said, these statistics that your Daily Caller article are quoting are coming from the same set of statistics that suggest the overall crime rate is decreasing or flat. So which is it??

While the left wants so desperately to be able to say: "Trump lied", those paying attention are thinking that 90% of what he is saying is right on. He may get some of the details wrong, but is that really such a sin? I have been saying for quite a while that Europe is our canary in the coal mine. Well, the bird is dead. The question is what now? What are we going to do about it to have a different outcome?

I linked to the entire Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention statistics and you said they were false. But now you're quoting them as accurate for purposes of highlighting the crime rate amongst individuals of North African descent. So again, which is it? Because there is no spike in violent crime based on these statistics.

That is NOT to say that some of the communities are more violent. Just like the poorest of the communities here in the US are often the most violent, so are they in other areas of the world (shocking, I know). This is more an issue of socio-economic class than it is of religion -- to claim these are in anyway terror-related is tremendously misleading. These incidents are generally isolated to these communities, just as they are generally isolated to the poorest communities in this country. And it bears repeating, the fact of the matter is Sweden has become less violent over the last decade.

Beyond that, the refugee vetting and settlement model is entirely different here. To insinuate that we would be subject to the same risks (as small as they are) is laughable.

Here in the US we have the Atlantic Ocean to protect us. For an individual to travel to this country they need to either have a visa (hence, are fully vetted) or granted refugee status (and are also fully vetted). In other words, these people are applying to enter the United States from their home countries and we are able to put them through the process. It's a lot harder to just show up here and seek asylum. There are tons of resources out there that go into detail as to what the refugee vetting and resettlement process looks like here in the US. Google is your friend.

http://reshaping-europe.boellblog.org/2015/12/15/craving-for-control-refugee-screening-in-the-eu-and-the-us/

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy

https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/60-minutes-syrian-refugee-crisis/?client=safari

https://www.google.com/amp/foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/30/the-process-for-interviewing-vetting-and-resettling-syrian-refugees-in-america-is-incredibly-long-and-thorough/amp/?client=safari

In every western country that has imported migrant koranderthals, crime and violence has followed.

Since this is all about violence from immigrants and refugees, I'm curios to know...can you tell me what is currently wrong with our refugee vetting or visa process with any kind of specifics? The answers "it's insufficient" or "we need to be sure of who these people are" will not be accepted. Please tell me specifically where the holes are.

"Here in the US we have the Atlantic Ocean to protect us. For an individual to travel to this country they need to either have a visa (hence, are fully vetted) or granted refugee status (and are also fully vetted). In other words, these people are applying to enter the United States from their home countries and we are able to put them through the process. It's a lot harder to just show up here and seek asylum. There are tons of resources out there that go into detail as to what the refugee vetting and resettlement process looks like here in the US. Google is your friend. " that I disagree with the premise that travelling to our country insures that these people are fully vetted? Do we even know what the US vetting process entails? What about the people who get to South America first and then travel through Mexico to get to the US?

If I want 15 locks on my door, you having zero on yours is your own businesss, and won't matter a lick to me. Potus and his people have said that the current system is insufficient, and since he won, he gets to make the call. You should keep sleeping with the doors and windows open if you choose to. Adults are now in charge, you don't have to like it, your bitching and moaning are noted (and will continue to be ignored). Maybe you'll have better luck in 2018.

And then there is this...Fact Checking Checking:

Phony baloney: The 9 fakest fake-news checkers

Anyone with the barest of reading skills and a dollop of curiosity can find the unfiltered news from western European countries and the problems that come with unfettered,unfiltered importation of those of the koranderthal persuasion. They simply cannot assimilate with western secular culture and can only live by the rules of the pedophile prophet of Islam: non-believers are karfir and must submit to the rites and rituals of FGM, goat, camel and child fornication, and all the other detritus that they bring from their home countries.

"terrorist attackers in Sweden. ".....fify!

If that hurts somebodies feelings,or they don't think it's "fair"..... sorry. Because this has NOTHING to do with "fair". There is absolutely NO good reason to let ANYONE in this country that you don't KNOW and have some kind of handle on. None. Not in this day and age. The argument that "nothing has happened yet" is the very same excuse a drunk driver uses to continue drinking and driving.

That someone somewhere thinks differently..... well I think there is a process as where you can sponsor somebody and they can come in and live with the sponsor. I think that's the least anyone who thinks it's OK to let anyone come in without any information about them at all could do. They are obviously OK with any risks. Let THEM take them.

Bottom line.... those wanting to let anyone in...... already KNOW those people will not be housed anywhere NEAR them....... they have no skin in the game. But it makes them all warm and fuzzy inside to think they've done their part to help them..... which is pretty much nothing.....

Great article at Flopping Aces with lots of graphs and data. Only those who have ignored the European news about problems with koranderthalic immigrants and their inability to either assimilate or behave in a civilized manner for the past several years parrot the fables of the media.

This concept of an open border is a falsehood. We have a rigorous process to vet refugees and immigrants already in place...it's one that I feel is extremely strong. We haven't had an American death on American soil at the hand of a refugee terror attack in over forty years (the last refugees to kill an American were Cuban). We have literally let in over a million refugees since that time without the death of an American (and literally only a handful of attacks). We should strengthen these processes and there should be limitations on who gets into this country. Again, I feel what is already in place is adequate.

I work in a global industry and work with a handful of the people from these countries (it just so happens that many of these places have a lot of oil!). My life is enriched by working with them. They bring value to me and value to my company. Many of the visa and geeencard holders that have been blocked are engineers, doctors, professors, and scientists. These are the people that we want here. These are the people that help make America great.

"an"? right, you got that right

Violence and crime often targets kafirs.

That's simply not true. They faced tremendous discrimination and were accused of not assimilating into American life. They were treated and viewed nearly identically to many immigrants today. Like all immigrants, they do assimilate, but it takes time (generations usually). And despot "assimilating" many of the cultures and traditions of the Old World persist today on American soil.

You want stats on terror, here you go. When you take out 9/11, there just isn't much there in terms of a threat, be it from an immigrant or a refugee. It also shows how much of an outlier 9/11 truly was. You're more likely to hit the powerball than you are to die at the hands of a foreign born jihadist. A TV falling off a wall is more likely to kill you.

How anyone can look at this data and view terrorism as any kind of credible threat to their daily existence is beyond me.

I only edited my thread for clarity. I reread it and wanted to make sure it was accurate. I left the word terror out accidentally, not intentionally. And for context, I was called "disingenuous" for suggesting that the market forces that have been killing coal and leading to an explosion in natural gas would continue on the same trajectory (I'd still love to know what was "disingenuous" about that). Has a refugee killed someone in this country...I'd almost guarantee it. Again, seeing how we've let millions in I'm sure at least one of them has killed somebody based on the statistical murder rate in this country. That said, I don't hear anyone arguing about a rash of refugee crime in this country so it certainly doesn't seem relevant to argue statistics of all refugee related crime in America vs. statistics of crime from the rest of America. The situation is entirely different in Europe and they face much different challenges with resettling immigrants than we do in the States mostly because they can't keep them out because of the geographic proximity. They face an entirely different challenge than we do...one that I'm safe in saying we will never face as it pertains to immigrants from the areas in question (North Africa and the Middle East). So to bring it back full circle, Trump is either talking about a terrorist attack that never happened or a rash of crime unsupported by any data that is a result of a refugee and migrant crisis that is irrelevant to us given the barriers (procedural, geographical) in place.

The wife of the San Bernardino shooter was here on a visa. She is included in the statistics On the link I posted to the Cato Institute on Terror and Immigration. What is your point? I have not said no immigrants have committed terror acts -- they have. I said no refugees have. The stats for all types of visa holders are there as well (as it pertains to terrorism). I know a lot of you guys don't like actual numbers and statistics and data and facts and would prefer to rely on the quotes from two policemen or in the case of the terror threat here...well I really don't know what the basis for that argument is...but the stats are there none the less.

The Tsarnaev brothers came to the united states on tourist visa's but were allowed to stay since their father claimed he was a political refugee. Now the media will split hairs on that all day long since it goes against their agenda. The refugee program we have is total bs, I see the visa's marked A6 as a refugee but know people that constantly go back to their home country so how dangerous can it be for them their.

NO MUSLIM'S ALLOWED/KEEP OFF THE GRASS. ............ Simple to the point and neither sides require interpretation. Clear, right? Continue to ravage the people of Europe, the Middle East and yes Sweden, those liberal whackadoos in denial, as their crimes rate and rape numbers goes through the roof. The Ministry of Sweden has reported crime numbers as claimed on Fox News and no one will believe it except the people of Sweden.

The CF says "come on in". Come on brother, come come.......we will share our tree bark with you. Fuqn morons.

The Rock

The Rock

Last rumor circulating is China is open. Give them a try. I am sure you will be held in high regard there. Real high.

The Rock

1. Forgive me, but after 911, I really don't care if any harm was done. . .

2. The Ban, as it is put, was a 90 day TEMPORARY ban, for the purpose of reviewing and improving the vetting of immigrants. .

3. The Ban was not overturned. The Judge wrongly issued a stay over something Trump said a year ago, not what was on the paper. He did not rule on the Executive Order, just issued a stay.

Are you referring to the EAD status? A3 and A4 are reserved for refugees, not A6 which is for K-1 (fiancé) and K-2 (children of K-1 visa holders) visa holders. I wouldn't be surprised that they feel free to travel back and forth between the USA and their country of origin.

1. You may not care. I do.

2. That's not entirely true. It was indefinite for certain people.

3. You can't say a ruling was wrong...it was their ruling (though you can disagree with it). The central argument against the ban was the harm it has caused certain states and institutions. The judges have weighed this harm with the evidence on how much of a threat these individuals posed. They ruled there was no compelling evidence to justify the ban and the resulting harm it is doing. I'm speaking specifically to the 9th circuit judges, who are the only ones to see this case on appeal. There are multiple trial judges that have also stayed the ban, and some referenced comments he made on banning Muslims.

the 9th have only ruled on the stay.

Trumps executive order has yet to be ruled on.

If necessary, I will PM bad karma, and maybe he can explain it to you better than I.

The Judge who wrote the stay did not even rule on the executive order.

Riots broke out on Monday night in the suburb of Rinkeby, where a majority of residents were born overseas, just hours after the country’s Prime Minister attacked U.S President Donald J. Trump for linking mass migration with rising violence in Sweden.

Riots broke out on Monday night in the suburb of Rinkeby, where a majority of residents were born overseas, just hours after the country’s Prime Minister attacked U.S President Donald J. Trump for linking mass migration with rising violence in Sweden. The riots, in which cars were set ablaze and shops were looted, resulted in the Stockholm suburb looking “like a warzone” according to a journalist who was at the scene.

The White House requested a stay on the TRO to the 9th Circuit's appeals court and was denied. Meaning the TRO remained in place.

The Constitutionality, or lack thereof, of the initial Executive Order has NOT been ruled on, and it likely won't be, since the president is drafting a do-over EO that hopefully addresses the botched portions of the first EO.

Hope this helps,

Matt

Bigeasy, what words would are you talking about?

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Obfuscate all you want, but the 2nd Amendment mentions arms and only arms. It says nothing about weapons.

"Borne" meant 'carried by.'

Regardless, you're making my point. Legislation is often broad and vague. Situations arise under which people feel the need that we clarify that legislation. That is why we have things like the National Firearm Act as it relates to guns which says (among other things) I am not free to own a machine gun at my leisure (even if I can carry it).

In the same way these laws clarify rules around gun ownership and the extent of the power of the 2nd Amendment, there are other clauses that the court may may choose to cite that they feel limit the extent of the power granted in the Immigration and Nationality Act and that are spelled out in the relevant US Codes that cover immigration.

I have the right to own and carry a full auto at my leisure. Same with tanks, F-18s and aircraft carriers. It is currently being infringed upon.

Second, people trying to get in have far fewer rights than people who have gotten in, if those folks have any rights at all. The US owes non-citizens trying to enter nothing under the law. Citing poetry is silly. I'm pretty sure that "give your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" does not include those who wish us to live under Sharia law and kill anyone unwilling to do so. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If we have rules, we are required to follow our own rules, that's about as far as it goes.

Third, the mere granting of a TRO does not guarantee victory. I could easily see the standing requirement knocking this out. However, if the old EO is replaced, the current litigation is moot, and the new EO would have to be challenged. Those who have visas have an interest and expectation that the visa will be honored. That was one of the biggest flaws in the first EO.

Fourth, the process of vetting immigrants is damn near impossible. People will lie when asked questions. Nobody is better than Israel at this, and they still have issues. Historical behavior based algorithms don't work well when records are non-existent or falsified. The only practical alternative is to vet as well as you can, and limit numbers from high risk areas.

Fifth, there is a huge difference between some stiff from Ireland who comes to the US to work in a coal mine versus someone who comes over here to kill infidels. The law must evolve to deal with this, rather than treating everyone as if they are coming here to work on the railroad.

Sixth, FDR dealt with German spies found in the US in WWII by unceremoniously having them executed. Enemy combatants, like spies, don't get nor do they deserve the same protection as legitimate citizens and immigrants, nor should they be treated the same way.

I own about a dozen semi-automatic rifles. I've got two SBRs and three suppressors registered with the ATF in accordance with the NFA. I would love to see gun ownership rights expanded. I think a lot of what is banned is banned for no good reason other than people are scared of what they don't know and understand. I would love to see the NFA gutted and to see easier ownership of SBRs, suppressors, and automatic weapons, and other small arms currently banned. I agree that the second amendment was written more for the protection of life and liberty and much less so for the rights of sportsmen.

That said, I do think there should be some limits and regulations on weapon and firearm ownership. I don't think anyone should have access to nuclear weapons for example. I think the mental health system needs a serious overhaul and more should be done to keep guns out of the hands of those who are mentally ill (I understand this is very sensitive and any system would need due process and to err on the side of the gun owner). I am even in favor of competency requirements related to gun possession to a degree similar to what we have around hunter's education (the devil is obviously in the details with regard to education and competency requirements).

America can not sustain her own people for her own good and place her citizens in harms way with the immigration policies of the day. Ground stop. No exceptions.

The Rock

Your chance to be murdered by a refugee in a terrorist attack is 1 in 3.64 billion per year. Your chance of being murdered in an attack by an illegal immigrant is 1 in 10.9 billion per year. Your chance of winning the Powerball is 1 in 292 million. Your chance of being killed by any foreign born terrorist is about 1 in 3.6 million a year (this includes 9/11...if you take this out the odds are much higher as 9/11 accounts for 98.6% of terror related deaths during that time)

The odds of getting killed by somebody other than a foreign-born terrorist was 252.9 times greater than the chance of dying in a terrorist attack committed by a foreigner.

From the period of 1975-2015... We have let in roughly 660 million people on Tourist visas, of which roughly 34 have been deemed terrorists. We have let in roughly 3.3 million refugees, of which 20 were terrorists. We have let in 24 million people on Student visas, of which 19 were terrorists. An estimated 26 million illegal immigrants have entered our country, of which 10 committed terrorist acts. Around 600,000 fiance visas have been given out, of which one went to an eventual terrorist.

So please, again, tell me how the system is "craptastic"?

And this isn't just your country. It's our country.

The issue of State's standing has been evident enough for a total of 5 Federal judges to either issue or uphold the TRO, or add further injunctions against the EO. Sadly, we'll probably never find out if the SCOTUS sees it the same way.

Suffice to say, there was enough doubt about the Constitutionality of the first EO for the White House to opt for a do-over, instead of a crack at the SCOTUS.

If you care to discuss the hypothetical "how the SCOTUS would have ruled" on standing in this case, then I encourage you to read the Standing portion of the 9th Circuit Appeals Court ruling (link provided). I'd like to hear Kevin's opinion, especially, on how he would argue against standing.

Matt

AMERICAN TAXPAYERS WILL SPEND MORE THAN $4.1 BILLION IN THE 2017 BUDGET TO SUPPORT 519,018 REFUGEES

Breitbart: American taxpayers will spend more than $4.1 billion in the 2017 budget to support the 519,018 refugees who have been resettled by the federal government in the United States since October 2009, according to a cost estimate by Breitbart News.

To put that very large number in context, $4.1 billion can buy 10,677 new homes for $384,000 each, which is the average price of a new home sold in the United States in December 2016. Or it could buy 170,124 new autos for $24,100 each, which is the manufacturer’s suggested retail price for a 2017 Chevrolet Malibu.

Even if the Trump administration were to entirely shut down the flow of refugees into the United States in FY 2018 and beyond, the refugees who have already arrived in the country will cost at least another $3.5 billion in 2018, and about $2 billion to $3 billion annually thereafter until FY 2022 and beyond.

The annual $4.1 billion cost of these refugees is about eight percent of “the total annual fiscal impact of first generation [immigrants to the United States] and their dependents, averaged across 2011-2013,” which the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, in September 2016, estimated “is a cost of $57.4 billion.” MORE

We don't need more welfare refugees. The cost/benefit ratio shows their true value. However, if someone like BEcroc wants to import and support them on his own dime and own community...let them.

More regulations? Are you bat shit crazy? We don't need any more stinking regulations.

If 1 American gets killed on American soil from a terrorist it's 1 to many in my eyes.

If your worried about your TV falling on your head then don't stand under it. Lol

Short answer is we can control who comes into our country.

With respect I think you've missed the point; Serta doesn't "intend" to do harm, hence the proper term "accident". A terrorist specifically intends to do harm and has the ability to harm significantly higher numbers per incident.

In trying to defend your position I think you're trying to oversimplify by equating the two scenarios when they simply aren't.

Under President Obama, Obama’s Department of Justice acted as the de facto legal of Islamic supremacists who flouted city rules and ordinances in order to overthrow the best interests of targeted communities by building mega-mosques, beachheads for Islamic imperialism.

The good people of Sterling Heights, are under enormous Islamic pressure following its denial of a mega-mosque in a residential neighborhood populated largely by Christian refugees who fled Islamic persecution in Iraq. Some Chaldean residents in Sterling Heights have been at the forefront of the opposition. These people fled the oppression and subjugation of Islamic domination. They know what this mega-mosque means. Other residents in the neighborhood have claimed the proposed center would be a nuisance to the area, citing traffic issues as well as concerns regarding EMS response time; the mosque would be built across the street from a fire station.

The town rejected the mosque proposal (above):

Sterling Heights already has two mosques, but a third, the American Islamic Community Center, applied for a permit and was rejected after it was determined its proposed use was incompatible with the residential area. Too much traffic, too little parking, the city planning commission decided by a 9-0 vote against the mosque in September 2015.

But in December, the mosque sued the city and the Obama Justice Department joined in, claiming the real reason the mosque was denied was because the city was caving to anti-Muslim bigotry in the community. Now, a settlement deal is headed to the Sterling Heights City Council on Tuesday evening. If the council votes to sign the deal, it could be very costly for the city.

“Why else would Jeff Sessions not dismiss the Obama DOJ lawsuit against Sterling Heights?” Manaserri asks. “We have been told by legal experts that he has the power to simply dismiss the lawsuit. A consent order typically implies wrongdoing with the application of penalties.”

Contact Jeff Sessions here.

Islamic supremacists and Muslim Brotherhood organizations like CAIR call upon their running dogs at the Department of Justice, to impose the sharia and usurp American law for Islamic law. What small town can go up against the U.S. government’s vast resources and endless taxpayer-funded muscle? President Obama’s lawless administration allowed the rampant construction of rabats and jihad recruitment centers at a time when we should be monitoring the mosques and restricting construction of Muslim Brotherhood beachheads and Islamic State madrassas.

Continued at link

Those words are no engraved on the statue of liberty and have absolutely nothing to do with the statues original intent and what it stands for.

And if those were not made-up numbers, you might have an argument. But they are, and you know it. You're off by several orders of magnitude.

Mike, I don't care how you slice it. The argument for keeping these people out is the threat they pose. It's a measure of risk related to getting hurt or killed. All of those things are riskier. Intent is irrelevant...by every statistic they are more dangerous to the average American than terrorism. Period. It's the same argument I use against gun control advocates every time there's a mass shooting. Even though the headlines are scary and we don't like things that scare us (Muslims, AR-15s), statistically they are not a threat and there's no justification for regulations and bans (of either).

Fulldraw, and the government could attempt to regulate TVs if they saw fit.

Slade, ok, it is not carved on the statue...it is carved on the pedestal the statue sits on. More accurately it is carved on a plaque that is attached to the pedestal the statue sits on. It was created as a work of art to raise money for the pedestal the statue stands on. It is now carved on a plaque that resides on a wall of the pedestal. Where did I ever say it was the original intent of the statue? The poem was written because of the statue's significance to immigrants and commemorates the importance of immigrants to this country. It is viewed as synonymous with the statue in many ways and clearly important enough that they chose to immortalize it with a plaque on the pedestal.

Karma, Please provide more accurate numbers then. I've linked to the Cato report that provides all of the statistics I've quoted including those percentages. They absolutely are accurate. We've had around 1,000,000,000 entries of foreign nationals on all visa types in the 30 year period from 1975 and 2015. We've had around 150 foreign born terrorists commit attacks in that time. So, 150/1,000,000,000=?? Go ahead...finish the calculation...

Too bad this is no longer understood and believed by most Americans.

When we have Islamic countries where a significant percentage supports heinous crimes against Christians and Jews, it is only smart to vet the living hell out of people that want to come here from these countries.

And, just to let you know, my hunting partner has a family staying with him from the Ukraine, refugees from the Russian invasion. These folks are good folks. And I get that many who want to come here are good people. And many will be people dedicated to lopping off your head. If we have to keep some good people out to keep many bad people out, that's a suitable trade-off.

You will stop at nothing to deceive. You're just not capable of pulling it off.

And my point is the numbers are largely what they are because 1) there just aren't that many people relatively speaking that are trying to do bad things in this country and 2) more importantly, the processes and procedures we do have in place to vet and protect us from the bad people are largely effective.

Post your home address so I can send it to ICE.

Matt

I'm trying to be provocative. I don't believe falling out of bed is a real danger. But I also don't believe that getting killed by a terrorist is a real danger. I don't believe dying in a mass shooting is a real danger. My point is if we're not scared about dying from falling out of bed, why are we so scared of terrorists (which are statistically a lot less dangerous)? I'm big on numbers and statistics. I guess that's just the engineer in me, I don't know.

To reiterate, the President is arguing that we need to ban certain individuals because they are a credible threat (I read "credible threat" as "statistically significant danger"), and I just don't understand by what measure that is because all of the data suggests they aren't. It also suggests the process to screen people and protect our borders is not fundamentally broken (it can CERTAINLY be improved, and we should always strive to close the holes and gaps -- but I don't believe a ban is necessary). It's not an argument to let everyone in and I'm not saying we shouldn't vet people.

I HATE terrorists. We need to keep them out of this country. Part of me wishes we'd just send the Rangers and SEALs and Delta in to wipe these scumbags off the planet. However, the more rational side of me realizes that despite the headlines, they are just statistically not a threat to the average American. On the list of things that can hurt us (this is about safety, right?), they are about as close to the bottom that anything can get.

Oil and/or other business is about all I can think of.

Then there's those pesky statistics from the CATO report that don't jive, either.

To me, this whole Muslim ban is more about making good on campaign promises than addressing a real need.

Matt

I agree with all four of your points for the most part. A few thoughts and distinctions:

1. Yes. We are talking legal immigration. 2. Curious what you mean by being a ghost? If I have no criminal record, no history of dealing with terrorist organizations, and show up in none of the intelligence databases because of that, would that not make me a ghost? 3. We don't ask all citizens that are born here to pay their way. You can argue whether we should, but there are lots of forms of government aid, assistance, tax breaks, and welfare that exist for folks in this country (of all income classes). And we all benefit to some degree from this. It shouldn't be an expectation that the government is going to take care of them (or anyone) though. 4. There aren't a different set of laws for different people in this country and there shouldn't be.

Because they use bombs, and fly airplanes into buildings, would be my first statistical guess.

If you fall out of bed and kill yourself, then just one person dies. If you let a terrorist into the Country, multiple people die. This is my second statistical guess.

I can think of a ton of things the government could do to prevent deaths from falling out of bed. (regulating bed heights, banning bunk beds, requiring the use of restraining devices while sleeping, mandating beds have guard rails). We view these as ridiculous because the risk associated with the threat does not justify the cost (economic, personal, social) of implementation. That's exactly how I view the terror ban.

Tony, Not true (please spend some time reading the Cato report). Of the 150 or so terrorists the Cato report identifies, only 40 of them were successful in killing anyone at all. Ignoring 9/11 (which is an incredible statistical anomaly), each terrorist attack resulted in approximately .28 deaths. The VAST majority of terrorist attacks result in ZERO deaths. 9/11 resulted in roughly 3,000 deaths and accounts for 99% of all terror related deaths in this country. I'm not saying it should be ignored, only that it's a statistical anomaly. We also now live in a vastly different world post-9/11.

Yet that "extreme vetting" didn't prevent 15 Saudi citizens from pulling off the worst terrorist act in US history, now did it?

Yeah, I'm sure the 1 million barrels of oil a day that we import from Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with it. LOL.

Matt

Historically, immigrants to this country came with the intention of becoming Americans. They adopted our language and customs and encouraged their children to speak the American vernacular without a foreign trace (a much different concept than local accents). Our country became known as a "melting pot" because our people adopted and incorporated the better aspects of our immigrants--most easily demonstrated by our pallet of foods and words incorporated into the common language.

Refugees, on the other hand, have shown that they prefer to keep their culture and mores, expect the government to provide for them, and show no respect for or desire to become Americans. They want the benefits of being in this country without the responsibilities of being here.

Like Kevin intimated, those that are so much in favor of importing large numbers of refugees rarely have to deal with the fallout as their homes and communities are rarely are infected. When we have so many veterans who are maltreated by the government's VA system, we have many mentally ill walking the streets and numbers of homeless; there is an obvious way to better spend our tax dollars than bringing in refugees who offer little to this country.

As Kevin said, "Let in the first 100k from Syria, and put them in your neighborhood.

Post your home address so I can send it to ICE. "

Statistically, you will probably never get bit by those snakes, therefore, by your argument BigEasy, you should join them in their worship rituals.

Who is they?

Malmo, Sweden’s third largest city, is 43% foreign born today.

Grenade attacks have increased significantly in Sweden over the past decade as tens of thousands of migrants and refugees have been welcomed into the country.

Please not the use of the singular employed; you, me and any other arm-chair, Monday-morning quarterback can cite statistical probability until the cows come home; it's easy as pie for us as we have no legal or moral obligation and we have no skin in the game. For those who do have the aforementioned obligations they don't have the luxury of hiding behind statistics; any number not zero is unacceptable-period.

It's also easy as pie to be clinically dispassionate when the impact of terrorism hasn't been one felt on a personal level. I personally wouldn't want to have the responsibility of knocking on anyone's door and explaining that they lost their loved one(s) because the powers-that-be felt the risk was "statistically insignificant."

I'll try and illustrate a little bit of how statistics can impart a false sense of security when misapplied; the left loves to deflect the radical Islamic terrorist meme by trotting out the fact that only 1% of muslims fit this image. 1% sounds awfully insignificant from a statistical perspective until you do the math; it means (using 2010 numbers) 16 million muslims fit the profile. Let's provide still more context; if I were to travel to the northeastern tip of ME and walk through all of the New England States to CT''s SE border every single solitary person I encountered on every square inch of that trek would be someone who wanted me dead.

So much for "it's only 1% of the muslim population (when context is provided).

Right wing terrorists have killed far more Americans in the last 15 years than Muslim terrorists...is the next executive order going to address that (no need to rely to that, I already know the answer).

Does the government have a moral and legal obligation to protect every citizen from gun violence? I use the argument that there are millions of responsible gun owners and only a statistically insignificant amount that make the headlines. Does that argument not hold water now? I'd hate to think that it doesn't and what that might mean for me and my dozen AR-15s and AKs.

Statistics, data, and numbers are always relevant. As an engineer and someone with an MBA from a quant-heavy school, I personally think the world would be a lot better place if we actually looked at the numbers and based policy on them instead of emotion. You're right...1% sounds small but it's not when it's of a really big number. That said, no matter how you slice the data related to the history of terrorist attacks (be it by rate, by likelihood, by gross numbers) it's insignificant every time. Correlation doesn't equate to causation, but that doesn't change how relatively insignificant the impact of radical Islam has been, even as we've seen the expansion of ISIS and al-Qaeda.

But it is also a statistical outlier. Our country is also a drastically different place post 9/11. So, from a statistical standpoint you need to place the appropriate weight on 9/11.

Tell ya what gator, those refugees, let 'em live in YOUR neighborhood. Maybe you could house a few. No? Funny that.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution seems to lay out that responsibility quite clearly.

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;"

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution as well.

Now if you're still confused I'm sorry, it's beyond my abilities to help you. If you're not confused then I'll take it as willful obfuscation when the facts don't seem to favor your argument.

wonder what 500,000+ organized types could do?!

oh, nevermind, gotta wait until we have that data....

If one takes many of the so called studies that promote numbers (and that is basically what they are--just numbers manipulated to support a view or agenda) and applies some generally accepted statistical tests, they usually fall far short of any real validity.

I think that most people who would like to see greater control of importation of refugees would put into action where their mouths are and locate their beloved refugees into their own neighborhoods, they would soon change their minds.

Bigeasycrock--how about opening up your home to a family or two of Syrian refugees and report back how well that worked for you? You have strongly supported such -- so why not live up to it?

Where does gun violence factor into the conversation around common defense and general welfare...sounds like an argument for gun control as much as it does immigration, as gun violence is clearly a bigger threat to the general welfare of the citizens of this country. That to me is dangerous. We obviously have drawn the line places and it's clear that we as a country that we tolerate a certain amount of hazards to our general welfare.

""It is viewed as synonymous with the statue in many ways and clearly important enough that they chose to immortalize it with a plaque on the pedestal.""

Who is they?

Bullsh*t. Only if you live in the 'hood.

Guns have been a regular part of my life now for 52 of my 64 years, and at NO TIME was I, or anyone I know a victim of "gun" violence, which is a crock of sh*t term in the first place. GUNS are not violent. Its the PEOPLE who control them that are the violence factor.

It's a people problem, not a gun problem. The whole term "gun violence" is just another liberal crock of sh*t lie constructed to disarm those of us who are NOT violent . I've been involved in and have followed "gun control" since I first became aware of it as a young teenager and without exception ALL the laws that were passed or proposed did nothing to hinder or deter the criminally violent people. All it did was further limit or prohibit what I could do as far as guns were concerned.

So go peddle your liberal bullsh*t somewhere else. It's OLD news.

It doesn't; it does however play nicely with your tendency to obfuscate when the facts smack your argument in it's metaphorical kisser.

I posted about a legal obligation to do everything humanly possible to prevent acts of terrorism; you at best feigned ignorance to the legal basis, at worst tried to avoid the validity of my point, and by extension the invalidity of yours.

Tossing up gun violence in that context would only be valid if your argument was that Congress and the POTUS were derelict in their constitutional duties to do all in their power to prevent that gun violence. I have ZERO DOUBT that 22,000+ gun laws on the books has escaped your attention; clearly there is ZERO dereliction of duty and therefore the argument as you frame it (deflection attempt if we're being truthful) has ZERO validity.

Now if you're done posturing and obfuscating pony up a smidgen of integrity and admit you are wrong on the facts on this issue and move on.

If you can't do that then don't respond to this post; your silence would serve you better than to continue your disingenuous deflections that only insult the intelligence of the posters here who I have ZERO doubt see who's dealing in truth and who's not.

Maybe your a hypocrite. Your willing to subject others to an influx of refugees, the strain on social systems, etc... you should be willing to step up to the plate and actually act on your principles that you seem to hold so dear.

You'd have better served by taking my advice and not demonstrated this less than exemplary character trait-again.

Sure there were bigoted people then and they still exist to this day. I have no doubt that Italians, Irish, Jews..you name it were attacked and killed. In 1692 (so called) witches were hung..we had the slavery issue where blacks were treated abominably . There has been much in the history of this Country that is without rhyme or reason.

However this is 2017 and I'll be damned if I want a bunch of Muslims over here promoting Sharia law promoting the Islamic tradition and promoting the Quran and the Hadith. Nah, they can stay in their own Countries. What Jack said is true...those Sand Monkeys play hell up there in Michigan. Don't need them, don't want them and if they all fell off the face of the earth I'd be thrilled.

Another thing..I've been on the Bowsite for almost 21 years now and having read your post I think you just like to start crap for the very reason of starting crap.

What you fail to understand is, statistically speaking, is the chance of occurrence is minimal. So what if "a" woman gets raped and brutalized... And since it didn't occur to MY family or in MY neighborhood, who gives a sh!t. Ain't affecting me. Right Bigeasy?

I live in a town that had 167 murders, 410 rapes, 1500 robberies, and 1600 assaults last year. None of these crimes we're committed by jihadist terrorists. I care big time about making our country safer. Y'all are barking up the wrong damn tree if safety is what you really care about. Y'all are afraid of a bogeyman when there are real issues that need addressed.

Huffington Post Deletes Story Saying Trump Is Right About Sweden…

Maybe there WAS an increase, but the data points were treated as a statistical outlier.

Nobody's arguing that the crime rate isn't higher amongst refugees. It is. However, characterizing it as a crime wave sweeping over the nation of Sweden is not backed up either anecdotally or statistically.

Huh.... How do you get a large influx of variables and yet show a significant decrease in occurrences? As I said above, there is no way I can introduce a large number of uncontrolled variables introduced into an automation cell and expect my number of occurrences to decrease. If it does the data is suspect. Reason? Data is manipulated.

"Is crime higher among foreigners in general? Yes. The Swedish police do not provide statistics based on ethnicity but people who were born abroad or whose parents were born abroad are twice as likely to appear in crime statistics than those whose parents were born in Sweden, according to a study by BRA.

Nevertheless the vast majority of crimes in the country are committed by the native Swedish population.

That study also shows that in similar socio-economic conditions, the risk of getting in trouble with the law is virtually the same.

And asylum seekers are also victims of crimes. Last year, 92 refugee housing centres across Sweden were hit by arson attacks.

In October 2015, a young neo-Nazi stabbed and killed two teachers and a high-school student with immigrant backgrounds in a southwestern Swedish town."

Agreed, to a point. But then one would expect the data to remain flat, not show a significant DECREASE. Which points to bad data or massaged data. Just from my own experience introducing a number of variables into a validated system.

The fact that the largest number of refugees were introduced at the same time Sweden saw a significant decrease in sexual assaults just doesn't pass muster. Like I said, one would expect the data set to remain flat OR see a slight bump, not a decrease. Again you cannot introduce variables into a controlled system and expect no change.

But feel free to introduce those variables into your neighborhood.

A rather long read, and maybe above the comprehension of some koranderthalic apologists, but well worth the few minutes to read.

Because as you stated it is a statistically insignificant influx. Therefor one would expect the trend to continue, whether its on the rise, dropping, or remaining steady. There was a significant drop. You fail to understand the effect of variables on a system. Like I stated above, I am a designer of automation. If I have a system that produces "X" defects, introduce variables regardless of the statistic significance, and my failure rate would rise or fall significantly, and I categorically stated that that change in data points was not related to the variables introduced I would be asked to verify my data OR a 3rd and 4th party with NO vested interest would get involved.

Again, let that statistically insignificant amount move into YOUR neighborhood. My guess is, there might be some opposition.

And we've settled dozens of refugees in our town. So far they have committed zero terrorist acts.

I don't want this coming to a neighborhood near me any time soon!

I'm interested to know where the LEGAL obligation is to take in every (or ANY) refugee..... not from countries.... but from CULTURES who literally call to kill as many Americans or "infidels" as possible, and to die doing so gives you a ticket to some heaven full of virgins to deflower...... where is THAT obligation? If you are the least bit honest, legally..... THERE IS NONE. Inarguable.

In what world is there ANY critical, essential.... "necessary to the security of the country" imperative (which actually IS an imperative) to do so? Some liberal touchy-feely knee jerk desire to do so is NOT a reason, much less an imperative. Not to mention doing so at the risk of INNOCENT Americans? THERE IS NO REASON, YOU HAVE NO REASON. All you have is personal feelings in some attempt to..... to do what? Why? Ease some guilt for.... what? Fix what? How? You have nothing.

In fact looking at those countries/cultures who have done so (encouraged unfettered refugee immigration) there is very real evidence to say that is a dangerous and deadly decision to the actual citizens (who governments, in theory, are sworn to protect the safety of) to do so.

Comparing the LEGAL influx of immigrants at points along the history in the building of America to the CURRENT situation is disingenuous.

At best. In all honesty this has the feel of a Twilight Zone episode..... "To Serve Mankind....."

America needs Muslims like a fish needs a bicycle.

There were 60 people from my home town and surrounding area who went to work the morning of 9-11 and were never seen or heard from again. 60 hard working, decent Americans who hopefully hugged their kids and kissed their wives goodbye that day and were then needlessly slaughtered by MUSLIMS, in the name of ISLAM.

So please....SPARE me your do-gooder bullshit. They are the enemy...period.

What you are talking about is a fuzzy wuzzy muzzy feel good "moral imperative". There are no other reasons to do so, legal or otherwise. That's only gonna get traction in a few liberal circles. Anyone who is charged with the security of the nation, and takes it seriously, is going to call it a great big problem.... and they have.

WRT immigration "rights" our government sets the rules, who gets in and who doesn't. Not the immigrants. The Administration sets the policy. This Administration sees the potential threat. Anyone who didn't is intentionally ignoring it. The last Administration ignored threats as a hobby...... and in fact are a great deal responsible for the current mess.

State of Tennessee Files Constitutional Challenge to Refugee Resettlement Program

Cost/benefit: not worth it.

From the article:

"...Here are some of the names of the defendants:

Walayat Khan, 36, of Reisterstown

Shaheen Tasewar Hussain, 60, of Ellicott City

Mulazam Hussain, 54, of Windsor Mill

Mahmood Hussain Shah, 57, of Catonsville

Muhammad Rafiq, 58, of Reisterstown

Mohammad Shafiq, 50, of Gwynn Oak, Maryland; and his daughter,

Alia Shaheen, 24, of Baltimore

Mohammad Irfan, 59, of Nottingham

Muhammad Sarmad, 40, of Nottingham

Kassem Mohammad Hafeed, a/k/a Kassam Mohammad Hafeed, 51, of Baltimore

See the trend? Ten of the 14 are Muslim. Makes one wonder where those millions went. Did they send a portion to terror organizations? Things that make you go “hmmmm.”

Cost/Benefit: not worth it