Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A major threat to the world is not from any country but from Al Qaeda, a non-state, composed of people from many countries. That is why member of Al Qaeda are considered "enemy combatants," because Al Qaeda is an organization and has not protection under the Geneva Convention. Same for ISIL and ISIS -- they are not countries but a conglomeration of people from many countries including France, Belgium and the UK and Germany as well as the middle eastern countries mentioned.

I do not think Trump or his fans understand this... they also do not understand that majority of the mass death in US (barring 9/11) has been plotted inside US soil by American citizens and no amount of immigration ban will prevent those. One thing that can help is taking away people's access to mass murder weapon.

And private aircraft. And hardware store shopping for bomb ingredients. And motor vehicles. What else, Einstein?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A major threat to the world is not from any country but from Al Qaeda, a non-state, composed of people from many countries. That is why member of Al Qaeda are considered "enemy combatants," because Al Qaeda is an organization and has not protection under the Geneva Convention. Same for ISIL and ISIS -- they are not countries but a conglomeration of people from many countries including France, Belgium and the UK and Germany as well as the middle eastern countries mentioned.

I do not think Trump or his fans understand this... they also do not understand that majority of the mass death in US (barring 9/11) has been plotted inside US soil by American citizens and no amount of immigration ban will prevent those. One thing that can help is taking away people's access to mass murder weapon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we are discussing Trump's plan to ban "immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies" I went looking what the data looks like.

http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2013/07/terror-plots-against-the-us-by-country-of-origin

If this chart is correct, we are going ban citizens of UK to enter US for the time being...

What are we going to do about American citizens which tops the chart?

While this is very interesting, it might be more illuminating if more data about the American citizens were broken down.
Are the American terrorists recent immigrants? Of what extraction? Religious background?

Sorry but if they are all second generation Pakistanis then, we need to think about that. And I'm NOT a Trump supporter, at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we are discussing Trump's plan to ban "immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies" I went looking what the data looks like.

http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2013/07/terror-plots-against-the-us-by-country-of-origin

If this chart is correct, we are going ban citizens of UK to enter US for the time being...

What are we going to do about American citizens which tops the chart?

Are you implying we can't possibly identify regions/areas that have terrorist activities we should be concerned about? Are we this politically correct and stupid? How about we start with countries/regions where people came from already attacked us - Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, areas of Belgium and France, Somalia ... ?

Do you see how silly is what you are saying? I understand it may make you feel better and safer saying let's ban all the terrorists but practically how would you do it? banning people from areas of Belgium and France? like how? if you are resident in Saint Denis in Paris you cannot have a VISA? so if a would be terrorist simply moves to another neighborhood then he would be allowed in the US? how do you check where people are from? where they were born? where they are legally residents? my brother and I worked for years in towns hundreds of miles from our parents' home and still had residency at my parents' home (in my country in Europe you need to officially tell the government where you live, often an officer of the local government visits you without notice and check that you are really leaving there, if you move somewhere else but do not communicate that t the government you keep the residency in the same place). so people can be resident in one place and actually live elsewhere. are you going to ban anybody residing in Brussels? or people who have resided there in the past 5 years? you can leave out entire countries (and what about people with dual US citizenship?) but how can you ban people from "areas of Belgium?"

BTW, a white anglosaxon guy from Indiana from arrested in LA with an arsenal of weapon while waiting for the start of the gay parade there (after heightened security after the Orlando tragedy. sounds like you may want to add some areas of the US to the list.

Anonymous wrote:Since we are discussing Trump's plan to ban "immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies" I went looking what the data looks like.

http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2013/07/terror-plots-against-the-us-by-country-of-origin

If this chart is correct, we are going ban citizens of UK to enter US for the time being...

What are we going to do about American citizens which tops the chart?

Anonymous wrote:A major threat to the world is not from any country but from Al Qaeda, a non-state, composed of people from many countries. That is why member of Al Qaeda are considered "enemy combatants," because Al Qaeda is an organization and has not protection under the Geneva Convention. Same for ISIL and ISIS -- they are not countries but a conglomeration of people from many countries including France, Belgium and the UK and Germany as well as the middle eastern countries mentioned.

When earlier immigrants came:

1. They did not fly home frequently.
2. They did not communicate on a daily basis with the "old country"....
3. They did not have dual passports--because they seldom traveled.
4. Their allegiance changed to US--they may have been proud of their heritage, but their loyalties were not divided.
5. They did not criticize the US as much--because they were grateful to be here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we are discussing Trump's plan to ban "immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies" I went looking what the data looks like.

http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2013/07/terror-plots-against-the-us-by-country-of-origin

If this chart is correct, we are going ban citizens of UK to enter US for the time being...

What are we going to do about American citizens which tops the chart?

Are you implying we can't possibly identify regions/areas that have terrorist activities we should be concerned about? Are we this politically correct and stupid? How about we start with countries/regions where people came from already attacked us - Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, areas of Belgium and France, Somalia ... ?

Do you see how silly is what you are saying? I understand it may make you feel better and safer saying let's ban all the terrorists but practically how would you do it? banning people from areas of Belgium and France? like how? if you are resident in Saint Denis in Paris you cannot have a VISA? so if a would be terrorist simply moves to another neighborhood then he would be allowed in the US? how do you check where people are from? where they were born? where they are legally residents? my brother and I worked for years in towns hundreds of miles from our parents' home and still had residency at my parents' home (in my country in Europe you need to officially tell the government where you live, often an officer of the local government visits you without notice and check that you are really leaving there, if you move somewhere else but do not communicate that t the government you keep the residency in the same place). so people can be resident in one place and actually live elsewhere. are you going to ban anybody residing in Brussels? or people who have resided there in the past 5 years? you can leave out entire countries (and what about people with dual US citizenship?) but how can you ban people from "areas of Belgium?"

BTW, a white anglosaxon guy from Indiana from arrested in LA with an arsenal of weapon while waiting for the start of the gay parade there (after heightened security after the Orlando tragedy. sounds like you may want to add some areas of the US to the list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we are discussing Trump's plan to ban "immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies" I went looking what the data looks like.

http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2013/07/terror-plots-against-the-us-by-country-of-origin

If this chart is correct, we are going ban citizens of UK to enter US for the time being...

What are we going to do about American citizens which tops the chart?

Are you implying we can't possibly identify regions/areas that have terrorist activities we should be concerned about? Are we this politically correct and stupid? How about we start with countries/regions where people came from already attacked us - Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, areas of Belgium and France, Somalia ... ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When earlier immigrants came:

1. They did not fly home frequently.
2. They did not communicate on a daily basis with the "old country"....
3. They did not have dual passports--because they seldom traveled.
4. Their allegiance changed to US--they may have been proud of their heritage, but their loyalties were not divided.
5. They did not criticize the US as much--because they were grateful to be here.

+1,000,000

Listen up, people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we are discussing Trump's plan to ban "immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies" I went looking what the data looks like.

http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2013/07/terror-plots-against-the-us-by-country-of-origin

If this chart is correct, we are going ban citizens of UK to enter US for the time being...

What are we going to do about American citizens which tops the chart?

Are you implying we can't possibly identify regions/areas that have terrorist activities we should be concerned about? Are we this politically correct and stupid? How about we start with countries/regions where people came from already attacked us - Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, areas of Belgium and France, Somalia ... ?

For Europe we deal with it the same way the UK and Canada denied entry to members of Westboro Baptist Church.

Anonymous wrote:This conversation is based on an infographic produced by the Heritage Foundation. Nothing produced by the Heritage Foundation is actually worthy of serious discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This pretty much sums up my refugee grandparents. But part of the deal is what happens with the second generation. I'm guessing many parents do this, but their kids recoil looking for 'identity'. They are then susceptible to homicidal messaging. If the community is not actively pushing back on this (is the immediate community doing enough?) and if you are not being pulled successfully into mainstream society, it's a problem. As we welcome 50,000 we need to be cognizant of what is happening in these communities to the first and second generation. The fact that the Pulse guy was hearing negative messaging in mosque, his dad was a terrible ass with vocal viewpoints who made trouble with the school about listening to women, the community knew he was weird, his coworkers lodged complaints that went nowhere, his wife did not turn him in, the FBI did not act on so many red flags, he could buy a gun (this loophole needs to be closed, and I'm a conservative. If the FBI is investigating you, you get on a waiting list for a gun - a long waiting list)--just makes me think we do not know how to properly deal with first and second generation refugees or immigrants from Islamic countries. We need to figure that out, first.

Prior generations had immigrants and children of immigrants assimilating, fighting in the Civil War, ww1, ww2. Not this conflict or negative messages. Some Christians changed here from RC or Eastern Orthodox to various Protestant denominations. Happy to be here, pay taxes, go to school, vote, belong to volunteer fire companies, etc.

FBI investigation with cause [ie mateen] should mean permanently no fly[unless leaving permanently ], no gun, no security job. No sponsering a bride etc.
But how do you deal with the bombers? Note police man and wife killed and the French Citizen Islamic Terrorist broadcast the video. Freaks.