Donald Trump

Number of Americans Killed by Terrorists Who've Entered U.S. as Refugees? ZERO.

Donald Trump's poorly designed and xenophobic executive order is attempting to improve on a perfect record. Republicans need to push back.

|

Time, Nick Gillespie

When it comes to Donald Trump's immigration- and refugee-related executive orders (EOs), some of his harshest critics are fellow Republicans. That's a good sign, as it suggests that the Grand Old Party, which in the not-so-distant past was the pro-immigration party (even illegal immigration!), isn't simply rolling over for the new president.

Consider, for instance, Pennsylvania Rep. Charlie Dent, who represents the area around Allentown and a large Syrian ex-pat community. The Trump EO banning all visitors, including those holding green cards, from Syria and six other majority-Muslim countries, was put into effect at midnight on Saturday without any warning. "This is ridiculous," Dent told The Washington Post, "the order appears to have been rushed through without full consideration. You know, there are many, many nuances of immigration policy that can be life or death for many innocent, vulnerable people around the world."

Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) released a statement that read in part:

We fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. At this very moment, American troops are fighting side-by-side with our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL. But this executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies. Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred. This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.

Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) has a long history of being pro-immigration in general and has always shown a principled commitment to aiding those displaced by war, especially wars waged by the United States. At Medium, he wrote:

It's unacceptable when even legal permanent residents are being detained or turned away at airports and ports of entry. Enhancing long term national security requires that we have a clear-eyed view of radical Islamic terrorism without ascribing radical Islamic terrorist views to all Muslims.

And then there's Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, a lawyer by training and the son of Syrian and Palestinian parents. Amash explains all of his votes and many of his positions on his Facebook page. Here are some snippets from his reaction to recent actions by the Republican president:

Like President Obama's executive actions on immigration, President Trump's executive order overreaches and undermines our constitutional system. It's not lawful to ban immigrants on the basis of nationality. If the president wants to change immigration law, he must work with Congress.

The president's denial of entry to lawful permanent residents of the United States (green card holders) is particularly troubling. Green card holders live in the United States as our neighbors and serve in our Armed Forces. They deserve better….

He also points his readers to lengthy responses to "unhinged" supporters of Trump's actions, explains in detail how the Constitution lays out differences between immigrants and non-immigrants and more. Amash's Facebook is a miniature master class in how legislators should explain themselves and their stances. No wonder, then, that he opposes Trump in this instance and many others.

Facebook

Criticism is almost always more important when it comes from within a person's political party or ideology. It's a sharp sign that the person being criticized has wandered into some deep and dangerous territory. That's certainly the case with Trump and his orders on sanctuary cities (read Damon Root's withering critique here) and on immigration and refugee policy. The laws were not just poorly phrased and timed, they clearly will not work to address the basic issues they ostensibly are meant to ameliorate. As Anthony Fisher noted here earlier today, the U.S. embassay in Iraq has said that Trump's action is a recruitment tool for jihadists, as pro-American Middle Easterners realize they're being hung out to dry. As for keeping America safe from terrorists entering the country as refugees, the fact is the country has an incredibly safe record:

No person accepted to the United States as a refugee, Syrian or otherwise, has been implicated in a major fatal terrorist attack since the Refugee Act of 1980 set up systematic procedures for accepting refugees into the United States, according to an analysis of terrorism immigration risks by the Cato Institute.

Before 1980, three refugees had successfully carried out terrorist attacks; all three were Cuban refugees, and a total of three people were killed.

Since the Cato Institute analysis was published in September 2016, a Somalian refugee injured 13 people at Ohio State University in November in what officials investigated as a terrorist attack. No one died.

You got that? Precisely zero foreign-born terrorists admitted as refugees have killed anyone on American soil (and no, the Boston bombers were not refugees). That's the situation that Trump's executive order is designed to improve.

Earlier today, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Matt Welch, and I talked about Trump's executive orders, liberal "resistance" to the president's agenda, and where libertarians fit in today's struggles over political power. Take a listen to the Reason Podcast by clicking below or subscribe to it at iTunes and never miss an episode.

Don't miss a single Reason podcast or video! Subscribe, rate, and review!

Follow us at Soundcloud.

Subscribe to our video channel at iTunes.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump's Executive Order on Regulations Is Welcome, But More Is Needed

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OK, how many Americans have been killed by terrorists with green cards? Because the EO didn’t just close down the refugee program, it closed down all visas and green cards for those countries.

    1. Number of civilians killed by Japanese Imperial Army in the US 1942-1945:0

      1. So, the camps worked then? Whew, that’s a relief.

        1. No, there are two points to be made with that comment. The first is that security theater is security theater, the actual government prescription is either too broad or too narrow, always. The second is that until yesterday, nobody but reason was citing Korematsu vs. US as extremely bad precedent that should have been overturned. The USSC has determined that even natural born US citizens may be detained if it serves a compelling national interest. If that is the case, the Executive surely has the power to do this. Where were these protesters in 2011?

          1. Fuck off slaver! Charged with a crime or free to go! Mass detention is ridiculous.

            1. ah lol. I am mistaken hahaha. I thought you meant the detention was good and constitutional. I misunderstood what you were saying haha.

              Yea the USSC was full of shit.

        1. Kicking a bomb? Sounds like autodarwination.

        2. That was the Imperial Navy, not the Army.

          /Pedant.

          1. No, RTFL:

            The balloon campaign was the fourth attack the Japanese had made on the American mainland. The f?sen bakudan campaign was, however, the most earnest of the attacks. The concept was the brainchild of the Imperial Japanese Army’s Ninth Army’s Number Nine Research Laboratory, under Major General Sueyoshi Kusaba, with work performed by Technical Major Teiji Takada and his colleagues. The balloons were intended to make use of a strong current of winter air that the Japanese had discovered flowing at high altitude and speed over their country, which later became known as the jet stream.

            Reading further, all the ranks and unit designations involved in launching the intercontinental weapons are Army as well.

      2. Wrong. A pregnant woman and five children were killed by one of the Japanese balloon bombs (Fugos) in 1945. I suppose one could argue that the bombs were not “Japanese Imperial Army”, but I think that way lies madness, whereby armies are excuse all the deaths caused by weapons rather than hands-on violence. The bombs were not a project of the Japanese Boy Scouts Auxiliaries.

        Let’s be as accurate as reasonable here shall we? The American public are, reasonably or not, leery of refugees from various Islamic countries. The Democrats have studiously ignored these fears, or pooh poohed them. The Democrats lost the Presidential Election. Maybe Trump’s actions won’t accomplish a damned thing, except make the people who voted for him feel better. He promised he’d do something of the sort. He did something of the sort.

        Open borders probably are the best policy …. AFTER we establish that if you attack American citizens after we let you in the country we will have you rendered into long-pig on national television and force fed to whatever idiots harbored you. Until we are not being beset by barbarians, I’d rather we were at least TRYING to keep an eye on our borders.

        1. See above. The balloon bombs were weapons of the Imperial Army.

        2. The Japanese boy scouts have auxiliaries?

        3. I stand corrected on this question. Also SIV. I misremembered and thought the balloon bombs were all non-fatal. I was trying to be tongue in cheek and point out that while the “no one has been killed by x” is not a definitive logical win in argumentation, it is also the case that most security measures enacted by the government are ineffective (as no local agents committed terror acts). Mea culpa for not googling first.

        4. That’s just FAR too reasonable.

    2. OK, how many Americans have been killed by terrorists with green cards? Because the EO didn’t just close down the refugee program, it closed down all visas and green cards for those countries.

      Why does this look so familiar? I know why! Because Reason writers don’t look at the comments from the last time they posted the exact same nonsense.

    3. I don’t know the total number, but I recall some ragh um… devout and deeply faith-based mohammedans, Rizwan and Tashfeen, shooting well over the bag limit of fellow bureaucrats in gun-free California–the case of the locked government cellphone McAfee offered to crack. Half the tag team was born-again ‘Murrican from Obama’s state, the other half, a resident alien from Pakistan with a government-issue Green Card. Americans killed: 13, including one of the devout and deeply faith-based mohammedans.

    4. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

      =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  2. Rifles kill, what, 2% vs pistols, yet all the efforts are against those scary assault weapons and ‘high capacity’ magazines.

    1. They’re going after tactical rifles because tactical rifles pose a threat to agitprop fueled mobs and the various alphabet agencies.

      1. Actually, I think they go after tactical rifles because they are used disproportionately to kill cops.

        Source : FBI data.

        1. That is total BS. Handguns are used to kill more people period. Tactical rifles are no different than any other semi auto rifle except in the minds of clueless morons.

    2. Um… I think Reason is also against assault weapons and high capacity bans as well.

      1. Who knows these days?

        Cato sure loves some gun control.

        1. That they do.

          1. Really? Not disbelieving you, but link?

              1. Meh, Cato went downhill after Rothbard left the board. And the Mises Institute was downhill from the beginning (especially their recent Trump cheerleading).

              2. Cucks.

                1. “Cucks”? Really? Hasn’t that been Godwinned out of existence yet?

                  1. Reductio ad Cuckoldii

              3. And my response is, “Sorry, Cato, but there are no grounds for compromise UNTIL the Gun Control advocates admit that the Second Amendment was written to ensure citizens access to military grade weapons, however bad an idea that may or may not be, and put forward a proposal to further Amend the Constitution to achieve their goals. Until then, they are dishonest scofflaws.”

                That to Cate, not you, BTW.

  3. It’s never happened in this country, but two of the Paris attackers came into Europe via the Leros refugee camp. I believe the Berlin truck attack driver was a Tunisian national.

    But yes, no Americans have been killed by terrorists posing as refugees. Just like how on 9/10 we could write an article about how no one has ever flown multiple jets into a civilian building, and thus it would be the height of irrational paranoia to suggest that such a thing was possible.

    1. Yea thats kind of my argument it is bit of a red herring compared to what is happening now.

      I dont really agree with the visa or green card portion of eo.

      However if the president can accept 110k refugees like obama was planning….using tax dollars….why doesnt trump have power to make it zero?

      Reason wants refugees which is fine but what about using tax dollars to do so?

      1. It’s not that he doesn’t have the power. It’s that he is a fucking moron for doing so.

      2. Reason appears to want open borders. With a war on – and the Terror War has been ongoing since long before 9/11/2001 – and something damn close to a failed State to our immediate South, that doesn’t strike me as clever.

    2. Perhaps Nick is championing the US’s prior policy of letting in a tiny percentage of those who want to come (and occasionally bumping that number up a negligible amount for some warm fuzzies), then spying on them and everyone else.

    3. Just like how on 9/10 we could write an article about how no one has ever flown multiple jets into a civilian building, and thus it would be the height of irrational paranoia to suggest that such a thing was possible.

      It would be irrational to be fearful of such a possibility, but to say it’s not possible would just be silly. In fact, it’s still irrational to be fearful of terrorists.

      1. yep. on 9/9, we could’ve written the same article. and on 9/8. and 9/7 and 9/6, 9/5, 9/4 etc.

        In fact we could’ve made that statement for the previous 22,000 (or so) days. If we include the time before jet planes and even before buildings, we could keep going.

        So, it’s very irrational to be afraid of it happening. Possible plus incredibly unlikely does not justify fear.

        1. It’s *still* irrational to be afraid of dying in a terrorist plane hijacking, because you’re far more likely to fall in your driveway on your way to the taxi.

      2. I’m not fearful of “terrorists”, I’m fearful of a mass migration of a people who have a fundamentally different view of the world than I do.

        To wit – Muslims who don’t (in the main) jump at the ideas of women’s rights, gay rights, or what the heck – individual rights.

        And we’ve got a petri dish experiment in Europe going on right now which proves that fear is grounded in reason.

        Europe is already not Europe anymore. What it is on its way to being is not something that I want to see happen here.

        The only thing wrong with Trumps EO is that it doesn’t go far enough, cover enough countries, and isn’t PERMANENT.

    4. The difference between the US and Europe in refugees is that we don’t let in brigades of military age single males and then shove them all into a ghetto to fester with nothing better to do. I don’t think anyone is saying we shouldn’t be selective and vet who we let in, but there are smart ways to do it and a heavy handed blanket ban is not it.

      1. I point this out all the time. The reason that America can get away with more immigration than Europe is precisely because Europe is so economically illiberal. There are virtually zero avenues to professional success for a recent immigrant to any European country. You get on the teat of the state, or your starve.

        America basically throws economic opportunity at those who want it, at least compared to Europe. Immigrants come here from poor countries, and somehow they manage to pool enough resources to buy a convenience store, and in less than a generation the family runs a chain of respectable automotive service garages.

        Sure, we have plenty of lazy indigenous poor who don’t seem to get it and will stay that way forever, but the fact remains that someone enterprising enough to emigrate from their home will typically find themselves enterprising enough to rapidly form economic ties which would dis-incentivize Islamic radicalism.

        We abandon the lessons of classical liberalism in favor of illiberal progressivism and neoconservatism (or reactionism) at our own risk.

    5. Except your point about 9/11 is irrelevant, as all of the information necessary to prevent the attacks was known. I’m unable to discern what your contention is, really. No one is arguing that the U.S. no be scrupulous in avoiding an influx of terrorists.

  4. Nick what about doing analysis for europe?

    Do we know who is currently under investigation in america and europe?

  5. Well, Nick, look at it from Trump’s point of view.

    You can’t Make America Great Again with all of these raghead Moooslims running around.

    1. You’ve got that strawman on the ropes there chemjeff.

      1. Is that the new euphemism for autoerotic asphyxiation?

      2. No, it’s literally what a lot of you conservatives think.

  6. “[Back in 2009] [s]everal dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees, according to FBI agents investigating the remnants of roadside bombs recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan.”

    US May Have Let ‘Dozens’ of Terrorists Into Country As Refugees
    http://tinyurl.com/ldmo4d3

    “As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News ? even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets.”

    1. Here are the results of a DHS study on the security risks and counterterrorism challenges with respect to Syrian Refugees. For full text: http://tinyurl.com/naf697j

      Finding 1: Islamist terrorists are determined to infiltrate refugee flows to enter the West?and appear to already have done so in Europe.

      Finding 2: While America has a proud tradition of refugee resettlement, the United States lacks the information needed to confidently screen refugees from the Syria conflict zone to identify possible terrorism connections.

      Finding 3: Despite security enhancements to the vetting process, senior officials remain concerned about the risks and acknowledge the possibility of ISIS infiltration into U.S.-bound Syrian refugee populations.

      Finding 4: Surging admissions of Syrian refugees into the United States is likely to result in an increase in federal law enforcement’s counterterrorism caseload.

      With respect to Europe:
      Finding 9: Syrian refugee populations in Europe have already been directly targeted by extremists for recruitment, and in the long run certain communities in which they resettle are likely to become “fertile soil” for violent radicalization.

      1. The purpose of Trump’s modest and constitutional EO is to halt immigration from countries of concern while his administration can review the processes and procedures for admittance. As he has said on the campaign trail and in office, he wants to make the citizens of America safe since he does not believe that the current processes and procedures are achieving this end.

        Who give a fuck if the number of terrorist attacks in the U.S. is zero. Some refugees have tried. Moreover, ISIS has been telegraphing for years that its goal is to take advantage of the refugee crisis to get fighters here. There appears to be no reliable way of verifying the IDs of Syrian refugees, and so it is reasonable to issue such an EO. Personally, I would have expanded it.

        What should we do, Nick, wait for it to happen and then react to it? Do you regard the lives of your fellow citizens as having less value than the immigrant?

        1. What should we do, Nick, wait for it to happen and then react to it?

          Yes. That is what liberty entails. No one is guilty until they have performed guilty actions.

          This is what I’m hearing, y’all. I’m hearing people are best presumed guilty by happenstance of national birth or religion. Iranians are terrorists, or maybe terrorists, we don’t know, but let’s just say they are, wouldn’t that be bad and scary?

          That old prog saying, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” has come back. Only we’re not mocking it this time.

          BE AFRAID. IF THIS DOESN’T HAPPEN, DEATH IS COMING. Last week, we got shirty when the FDA said that. All those nanny-staters saying that, we laugh at it. We’re X times more like to be killed getting blown by a Cuban hooker in the bathtub, and et cetera. Humans have a talent for fearing the wrong thing.

          And naturally, the solution is our government. It always is.

          Nick’s rhetoric is shitty. That’s just embarrassing. I’m not going to defend that, the staff seem to have forgotten their libertarian principles in their other pants today.

          Between people borrowing hysterical prog rhetoric (with reason, I’m sure, but borrowing nonetheless), and the staffers, this feels unfunny.

          Boo.

          1. Exposing certain people to more scrutiny because they come from failed states with high concentrations of violent extremists – and even excluding people from immigrating on that basis – does not adjudicate them guilty of anything. It’s not a criminal trial. The constitution doesn’t even discuss immigration, only naturalization. The courts have decided that authority extends to restricting entry. The constitution may well be a suicide pact, but it’s irrelevant in this particular case (except for the overreach regarding those already given legal status, which the courts have addressed). Liberty doesn’t necessarily entail coercing money from the collective public and using it to relocate the world’s persecuted from their shit holes. That’s something we do out of our own generosity and at the discretion of the people whose money was coerced for the purpose, which exposes it to the political process. For libertarians this is a moral issue, but this ain’t Libertopia.

            1. ^^THIS-

              This new reading of the US constitution as applied to the human population of the universe vs the citizenry of the United States proper is absurd, its our social contract with ourselves. It’s a laudable goal but we will likely need to fight and win a few hundred more major wars or one epic universe spanning conflict to achieve that end.

              I understand the opposing argument at the margins however–detaining or denying entry for legal residents rightly deserves scrutiny–just like dropping hellfire missles on US citizens abroad deserves review.

          2. “That is what liberty entails.” No, it doesn’t. Nor does denying migrants access to our country an act of deeming someone guilty. The government’s only job is to protect our rights. Pausing immigration in order to ensure that our immigration process is effectively screening incoming visitors from countries from failed states is perfectly legitimate.

      2. Oh, that DHS study was released in 2015. Surely it’s outdated now that we have a new administration.

  7. Serious question Nick:

    Should we believe the Iranian government in terms of verifying whether or not an Iranian is a potential threat to Americans when we are vetting immigrants from Iran?

    If not, who else could supply verification?

    Or, do we just let everyone in from Iran with no vetting?

    1. Does anyone trust US government to vet these folks effectively? I dont

      1. And the DHS admits that it doesn’t believe that it can confidently vet Syrian refugees to determine possible terrorist connections.

    2. When was the last time an Iranian lied to you? They are the human equivalent of Vulcans, they are.

      1. The only Iranians I’ve met were like that. One was a super-successful doctor who donated a fuckton of money to a nursing campus for a community college, and the other one was in my single semester in grad school. The guy in grad school may have lied to me.

    3. Forget Iranians. Why should I trust people from Detroit or Chicago, those cesspools of violence and crime? I want them vetted before they are let into my peaceful city.

  8. At least crazies from Saudi Arabia can’t get here…oh, wait.

  9. I hope Rep. Amash won’t mind my quoting one of his Facebook posts:

    (trigger warning: contains nuance)

    “Many supporters and opponents of President Trump’s executive order are conflating the terms “immigrant” (which encompasses green card holders), “nonimmigrant,” and “refugee.”

    “It’s not lawful to ban immigrants because of “nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” This nondiscrimination provision comes from a 1965 law (8 U.S.C. 1152 Sec. 202(a)(1)(A)) that limits the 1952 law (8 U.S.C. 1182 Sec. 212(f)) that the president cites.

    “It’s lawful to ban nonimmigrants for almost any reason. These are people who are temporarily visiting the United States, like tourists or students.

    “It’s lawful to ban refugees for almost any reason. But banning all refugees from particular countries is harsh and unwise. We still should admit well-vetted persons.

    “Understanding these distinctions is important because supporters of President Trump’s executive order continue to wrongly insist that the order is lawful and that President Obama did almost the same thing in 2011. And opponents of President Trump’s executive order continue to wrongly insist that banning refugees violates the Constitution or the law.

    1. “President Trump’s executive order covers not only refugees but also immigrants and nonimmigrants. As noted above, it’s not lawful to discriminate in the issuance of an *immigrant* visa because of the person’s “nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

      “President Obama’s action (which wasn’t disclosed at the time) covered only refugees and, therefore, did not violate the Constitution or the law, even if one finds it objectionable for other reasons.”

      1. So green card holders if exempted would have been ok? If i read that right. What about visas?

        1. Amash doesn’t think the ban is *wise* as applied to nonimmigrants seeking to come to this country – he just says it’s legal.

        2. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there’s immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, and Amash makes a good case that you can’t hold up someone’s visa simply because they’re from a specific country – with some exceptions which apparently don’t apply here.

          1. Amash cited this law

            “Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

            Depending on how you read it, this may allow for extra vetting for people from some countries, but not different *standards.*

            1. U.S. Code ? 1182 – Inadmissible aliens:

              “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

              1. I’m no immigration expect, but generally different statutory provisions have to be read to harmonize with each other – the law Amash quoted didn’t make an exception for Presidential orders under 1182, which certainly could be interpreted to mean that orders under 1182 cannot discriminate based on “nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

                But don’t worry, the administration has a team of lawyers to explain away any details like this.

                1. I’m no immigration “expert”

                  And no spelling expert either.

                  1. And we don’t even have to wait for the administration’s lawyers to weigh in, we have Andrew McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. Attorney and National Review contributor, to explain why Trump’s order is lawful:

                    Based on a rah-rah approach to executive power and national security, he says that 1182 must be broad enough to allow exclusion from particular countries. Also, Congress excluded certain countries – the very countries in the EO – from the Visa Waiver Program, and apparently this law about the Visa Waiver Program creates an invisible national-security radiation justifying national exclusions in general.

                    And here’s a contrary view from David J. Bier at Cato, with a contrary viewpoint.

                    The point, however, is that whichever interpretation you adopt, it is the self-evidently correct one and anyone advocating a different interpretation is a moron and/or evil.

                    1. “The point, however, is that whichever interpretation you adopt, it is the self-evidently correct one and anyone advocating a different interpretation is a moron and/or evil.”

                      If you’re still around tonight, your final comment touched on a point that’s discussed in this article about Rule of Law. I stumbled upon this many years ago and it was crucial in my development towards embracing libertarianism. It’s proposed logical conclusion leans towards advocating a nightwatchmen state. I’m not sure I entirely agree but it’s a fascinating read and goes into detail regarding its proposition on how unworkably rigid, arbitrary and ultimately unjust the concept of Rule of Law may be to govern a rapidly evolving culture.

                      It’s a fairly long read but worth it. Whether you agree or not.

                      http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj…..ythWeb.htm

                    2. I’m reading it with interest, thank you.

                      He scores some palpable hits, but sometimes, alas, he can’t seem to resist a bit of straw manning, like his reference to “[t]hose who believe that the law can and should be rendered *fully* determinate” [emphasis added] – who, specifically, does he have in mind who holds such a belief? Or is this the rhetorical tactic of making the best the enemy of the good? While it may not be possible to write out the exact value of pi in our standard numbering system, there’s a point where we get to a good enough approximation that it can be usefully applied to actions in the real world.

                      Then he acknowledges that the idea of the indeterminacy of the law was a favorite concept of the Critical Legal Theorists, which is a big red flag (almost literally) for any liberty-lover tempted to adopt the concept.

                      Let me scroll down a bit to see his bottom line…

                    3. “My personal belief is that under free market conditions, most people would adopt compositional, rather than confrontational, dispute settlement procedures, i.e., procedures designed to compose disputes and reconcile the parties rather than render third party judgments.”

                      OK, but I think that most people even today resolve their disputes by some sort of negotiation – even those who go to court tend to end up with a settlement. The key word is *most* – and those who aren’t part of the *most* need some sort of govt to keep them in line.

                    4. I certainly think that in the U.S. we frequently flunk the rule of law test.

                      But I’ll lay my cards on the table – I think that the rule of law is commanded by God, and God doesn’t command the impossible –

                      Check this out:

                      1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:

                      A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.

                      1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.”

                      1904 “It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the ‘rule of law,’ in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men.”

          2. Yes, but immigrant visas include more than just green card holders.

            1. right, if someone in Syria applies for an immigrant visa then the fact that they’re Syrian can’t (apparently with irrelevant exceptions) be the basis for denying the visa.

              But terrorists from any country are banned – they can’t say Syrian terrorists are banned and Canadian terrorists are OK, that would be discrimination, but *maybe* there’s the option of extra screening for Syrians.

              (not that Canadians are always safe and never need screening)

          3. can’t hold up someones *immigrant* visa

        3. Depends on whether it is an immigrant or non-immigrant visa.

          1. Immigrant front
            It’s an immigrant front
            It’s an immigrant front, it’s a put on
            It’s a put on, it’s a put on, it’s a put on
            Come and join the party
            Dress to kill
            Won’t you come and join the party
            Dress to kill, dress to kill
            Drinks flow
            People forget
            That big wheel spins, the hair thins
            People forget
            Forget they’re hiding
            The news slows
            People forget
            Their shares crash, hopes are dashed
            People forget

            1. Who are you??

    2. *”It’s not lawful to ban immigrants because of “nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” This nondiscrimination provision comes from a 1965 law (8 U.S.C. 1152 Sec. 202(a)(1)(A)) that limits the 1952 law (8 U.S.C. 1182 Sec. 212(f)) that the president cites.*

      things really change when new political parties take power.

      a few years ago I thought it was called prosecutorial discretion. we don’t have the time or money to vet the people from these regions, so we are vetting who we can. it’s got nothing to do with their place of residence or the name of the country per se, but the fact that there is no entity in charge that can help us determine who is good and who is bad and it would take ungodly amounts of money to do so and still not be effective. this is a primary function of the executive: take account of scarce resources and make choices with regard to conflicting priorities.

      but the order should simply state that if the DHS can’t get a valid security screening as determined by the head of the DHS the visa application fails to clear up concerns.

  10. Can we please get more articles about this EO? I love to hear the same facts and signalling a dozen times in the same day.

    1. Virtue signalling by Reason writers? Or just Reason’s ‘no such thing as a bad immigrant’ standard line?

    2. Yeah, it’s almost as annoying as people who snidely refer to anything they disagree with as “signaling”.

  11. Number of Americans Killed by Terrorists Who’ve Entered U.S. as Refugees? ZERO.

    This is going to make for an interesting narrative between the Trump administration and his own security agencies. I believe the FBI has claimed it’s thwarted dozens of attacks by refugees.

    1. How do folks feel about using tax dollars to settle refugees?

      If the politicians who are responsible partly for their situation and celebrities had to hoise them in own homes…id be on board.

      Of course limousine liberals want all the credit with someone else doing the work

    2. The FBI has thwarted dozens of attacks and has the capacity to thwart hundreds, depending on how many agents they can get out in the field as agents provocateur and how many drunk halfwits they can rope into agreeing to do something stupid.

      1. It’ll certainly be interesting to see if the media starts discounting the veracity of the Obama administration’s efforts on this front.

    3. The FBI had investigated the Boston Marathon brothers, the San Bernadino guy, and the Orlando guy, so obviously they aren’t up to the task of keeping America safe. It’s past time to implement Plan Crusty.

      1. Hide your kids, hide your wife.

        1. Cash me ousside, how bout dat

  12. Well said. This is why I once again present my plan to keep America safe, and that plan is to simply round up all the people in the country with Muslimy names and place them into fenced-in “safe zones.” Boom, no more terrorism in America.

    More like no boom, am I right?

    1. Rename them safe spaces and you got yourself a deal.

      1. Crusty Juggler – #2,

        This is why I once again present my plan to keep America safe, and that plan is to simply round up all the people in the country with Muslimy names and place them into fenced-in “safe zones.” Boom, no more terrorism in America.

        America? America?

        It has been The Homeland for long enough for you to get it correct, has it not?

        1. No, you are thinking of a show about a crazy girl who cries a lot.

          1. Who in the hell would hire anyone with Claire Danes eyes at the CIA?

    2. FDR is back from the dead!

      1. It worked then, and it will work now. It’s no coincidence that FDR won World War II, is it?

  13. “Since the Cato Institute analysis was published in September 2016, a Somalian refugee injured 13 people at Ohio State University in November in what officials investigated as a terrorist attack. No one died.”

    Oh, well, that’s OK, then.

    1. Yeah but one non-lethal example in 35+ years, in which hundreds of thousands of refugees have come here, is not a sane thing to base policy on.

      1. The most honest answer I can give is I don’t know what terrorists are going to do in the future and which security weaknesses they will try to exploit.

        Now, the executive order suspends all admissions for people from the targeted countries – 90 days except in the case of Syria where it’s indefinite. So the refugee thing is just one part of the order.

      2. More recently, Omar Matteen was born in America, and he self-radicalized and then killed many innocents in Orlando, which is why my plan to round up all similarly named people is the only way to keep America safe. I am not worried about the refugees, I am worried about the American-born.

        1. He was also gay and a registered democrat so can we add those to Operation Crusty?

      3. Yeah but one non-lethal example in 35+ years, in which hundreds of thousands of refugees have come here, is not a sane thing to base policy on.

        No shit. there’s also a dozen or so who have been deported for criminal-charges related to ‘aiding terrorism’, etc. most of which were listed in a scare-piece from Jeff Sessions last year

        I would also argue that none of those things are a sane thing to base policy on either. It would STILL make the claim that the problem is “non existent” (which nick and the rest of the media are trying) utter horseshit.

        The bullshit people are trying to get away with here is the same sort of thing Rape Crisis!!! people do when they insist 1-in-5 women are raped = lead with a completely contrived claim that is patently false. If they are attacked, they will simply say, “But any rape is too much rape!”

        Likewise, Nick et al (or you) are pretending, “But there’s no problem at all!” – and when its pointed out to be false, you’ll just go, “oh, but that’s so small”.

        Sorry, but that’s classic intellectual-dishonesty, and if your point were legitimate you wouldn’t need to resort to that sort of bullshit.

  14. At least four National Guardsmen were killed by people in the US masquerading as refugees, although they killed the US troops with IEDs in Iraq before they came here. After they got here though, they were intent on providing support back to their al-Quaeda brethren.

    Fortunately the FBI was notified of their activities, they were caught, tried, and are sitting in prison with 40-year and life sentences.

    The incident led Obama to halt refugee immigration from Iraq for 6 months while they tried to sort out how people who are now know to have killed US troop, who had previously been detained in Iraq for planting IEDs–whose fingerprints were on IEDs the US had in evidence–could just check “No, I’m not a terrorist.” on the form and get admitted to the US.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/…..d=20931131

  15. Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) released a statement that read …That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.
    For Frith’s sake, these two Congressmen have initiated and helped pass legislation that would likely “help terrorist recruitment than improve our security” by earnest efforts.

    We fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. I suggest that these men (in addition to many others in our government ) take an objective look at recent history before pronouncing their rhetoric, and then adjust their statements with less hypocrisy.

    1. Hopefully my comments will be understood despite the misuse of italics on my part,

    2. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.

      “Muslims are not terrorists, it’s just that if you imply they are, more of them will become terrorists.” Um, OK….

  16. Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) released a statement…

    McCain and Graham belong to the invade the world/invite the world 3rd political party in the US. McCain was soundly defeated by Obama in 2008 and Graham didn’t get past the kid’s debating forum in the 2016 GOP primaries. They are both popular enough in their home states to get re-elected but fell flat on their faces during a general election.

  17. “That’s certainly the case with Trump and his orders on sanctuary cities (read Damon Root’s withering critique here)…”

    That critique withered alright.

    1. You could even say it reached way up to withering heights.

  18. How about keeping out refugees cause they consume an average of U$64,000+ in gov’t benefit for just the first 5 years they are in the country.

    http://cis.org/High-Cost-of-Re…..n-Refugees

    Oh, I forgot we’re all Libertarians at Reason and opposed to gov’t spending unless:

    Ron Bailey wants federal research dollars for certain stem cell lines

    ENB was tax-payer financed abortions

    Nick wants to import more welfare staters.

    I am NEVER going to renew my subscription.

    1. I’m going to take out 10 subscriptions and CANCEL THEM ALL!

    2. Don’t forget museums. There’s one guy that loves those.

    3. I donated $150 to Reason last year. I won’t donate anything this year. I do not agree with Reason writers on many topics, but that’s OK with me. What pissed me off was I got swag (a Reason water bottle), 12 printed magazines, and a couple dozen or so printed invitations to conferences in my mailbox. I don’t want any of that. I meant only to donate to the salaries of Reason writers and the overhead.

      1. I donated $150 to Reason last year.

        Cuck!

    4. This is one of the big libertarian arguments against any refugees.

  19. Reason – do you have any data on where all the refuges are being settled? For some reason, I think my prog friends would change their mind if they all went to their neighborhood.

    I would be fine paying refugees to all go to the trendy arts district in San Francisco, or to Marin county. Yeah why don’t I think that would ever fly?

    1. Many come to Clarkston, GA. We’re the Horn of Africa’s second home.

      1. But perhaps now you’ve seen the last train to Clarkston.

    2. I would contribute to this plan. The refugees will need as much financial, emotional and political support as possible. What makes more sense than locating them conveniently in the top 15-20 Deep Blue Democratic voting districts, stack ranked by average household income of course. We can go the additional step of assigning each refugee an affluent progressive accountabilibuddy to help them “progress” in their new found home.

  20. Donald Trump’s poorly designed and xenophobic executive order is attempting to improve on a perfect record

    You were doing so well, and then you had to fuck it all up with over-reach.

    Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees, according to FBI agents investigating the remnants of roadside bombs recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky — who later admitted in court that they’d attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq — prompted the bureau to assign hundreds of specialists to an around-the-clock effort aimed at checking its archive…for other suspected terrorists’ fingerprints.

    If you haven’t figured it out by now, Trump picks his ridiculous ideas based mostly on *shit Obama already done*, so he has that as a fallback when he’s criticized (see: deportation targets). Of course, it won’t work because the media is full of turd-polishing screaming hypocrites.

    Trump’s EO IS fucking stupid. But you’re not really helping

  21. I believe the Ohio State University attacker was a Somali refugee. He didn’t kill anyone, but it wasn’t for lack of trying.

      1. I’ve saved this front page “info-graphic” to remind myself how fucking baldly mendacious the news media sometimes is willing to be

        Its bloody insulting. in this case, they were doing it while the bodies of the victims are still warm. and why? because they were frightened that there would be a “military response” or something ‘serious’? No, because they were afraid Obama would be criticized. That’s it. Pure, petty fucking politics.

        1. “Be sure to start the graph in 2002!!”

          1. as playa often pointed out, even if you accepted the idiotic comparison of

            “Islamic Extremist mass murder” vs “NON-Islamic* Extremist mass murder”…

            (*where basically they throw any random events they can find together to try and gin up some ‘domestic terror’ stats to counterbalance the islamic threat)

            …. they’re still basically saying, “1% of the population in the US (muslims) are responsible for 50% of the terror attacks”

            But of course, the point of the chart is simply saying, “you’re stupid and we expect you to draw the conclusions we tell you to draw”

  22. I seem to recall Rand Paul introducing legislation to stop the flow of refugees from the Middle East into the United States in light of the terrorist attack in Paris by ISIS back in 2015.

  23. But quite a few have been killed by the children of Muslim immigrants.

    Ft Hood, Orlando, San Bernadino.

    Then of course there were the 3,000 killed by Muslim tourists and students on 9/11.

    But hey, whats a few dead here and there in the name of diversity?

    1. Was the foreign born wife not shooting in San Bernadino?

      1. She was in the kitchen getting raped while the man did the real work.

      2. But she wasn’t a refugee, so… I guess Reason has managed to score a point that no one really gives a shit about?

  24. No person accepted to the United States as a refugee, Syrian or otherwise, has been implicated in a major fatal terrorist attack

    nevermind the ones who tried, right?

    Because people are stupid, and they won’t instantly recognize that you’re changing the terms in order to slip by the few cases where refugees actually DID attempt to murder people.

    This shit is no different than Vox/Mother Jones et al changing the definition of “Mass Shooting” to include ones where no one was actually killed, but 2 or more were wounded… so they could claim “MASS SHOOTINGS UP 120%” to achieve their rhetorical goals.

    Technically true! the best kind. and entirely full of shit.

    Is it OK when do it for “good reasons”? (minimizing the issue to pretend there’s no “problem” to address in the first place)….

    ….but bad when they do it for bad reasons? (because they need to maximize the issue to demand more gun-control)

    I don’t care what your goals are, but don’t piss on my leg and tell me its raining.

  25. OK, the MSM is starting to piss me off. I’ve seen *three* stories tonight about Muslim supporters of US troops (e.g., military translators) who’ve been caught up in the “ban”.

    Not one fucking word about how the Obama administration basically did the same thing.

    1. “And did we mention the homeless? There seem to be a lot of them in the Age of Trump.”

    2. …and one of these interpreters was murdered while waiting for the ban to be lifted.

    3. Check the Reason posts/comments over the past few days for “translator” – apparently, we are all seven degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon and Iraqi translators…

  26. There also needs to be something called, “THE MCCAIN RULE”

    which is = If you need to cite John-“senile old man who wants to start WWIII“-McCain to validate your shitty point? You’ve got nothing.

    1. Hey! What is Lindsey Graham, chopped liver?

      1. He’s like Robin to McCain’s “BatshitMan”

    2. Yep.

      These guys have a hard on for war

      1. Hey, if you’re going to hang around here, at least learn the vernacular.

        The proper term is “war boner”.

    3. Excuse me, that’s John “Quite Possibly the Shittiest Pilot to Ever Grace The Navy With His Presence” McCain to you.

      1. I’m sure there are some who had the class to die on their first solo flight.

  27. And another thing — several MSM mentions of how this “makes us less safe”.

    If the attitude of our “allies” and “immigrants” (even desperate refugees) is leaning toward bellicosity over this, doesn’t that sort of validate Trump’s position?

    1. Ive noticed this and reason does as well. They make claims but dont really say how.

      Even if something i agree with at times reason does a poor job substantiating their proposal

      Europe had an opem arm policy and appeasement…how did that work out?

      If you rely on appeasement for someone else to respect you and not do anything …you have already lost. That said doesnt make eo good

    2. Indeed.

      Never have people so removed from their senses been so moved to action.

    3. Perhaps we should negotiate with terrorists who take people hostage so they wont do it again!

    4. “If we don’t let them in here, they’ll try to come here to kill us!” is perhaps the least convincing argument I’ve ever heard.

      1. This. If they have the inclinations to kill they will do so either way. Might as well make it harder

  28. The Reason security plan: wait until horse is stolen, then consider locking barn door.

    1. Trumps EO is stupid, isn’t anything to do with “Security”, and is purely optics so he can pretend to have fulfilled a campaign promise.

      That said = the stupid way nick is reacting to it, and joining the chorus of bullshit artists trying to pretend that every single immigrant or refugee is as pure as driven snow and everyone is racist to think otherwise is complete fucking horseshit and all they’re doing is VALIDATING the sort of bullshit games Trumpists play.

      I’m actually making a Robby-point here. Nick has the right idea, but he’s choosing the methodology of the retards. To be sure.

      1. I think part of the EO is political theater, but it’s basic statistics that the fewer Muslims we have in the country, the lower the risk of Islamic terror (by them or their children), the lower the amount of money donated from here to Islamic terror or Islamic supremacist organizations, and the lower the need for government surveillance. And as someone pointed out above, less need for welfare.

        1. it’s basic statistics that the fewer Muslims we have in the country, the lower the risk of Islamic terror (by them or their children), the lower the amount of money donated from here to Islamic terror or Islamic supremacist organizations, and the lower the need for government surveillance. And as someone pointed out above, less need for welfare.

          You’ll forgive me for also thinking that argument incredibly stupid

          I think one can argue that refugees receive vigorous screening, or that we limit the intake of people from countries we’re CURRENTLY bombing. Or at least be picky about who/how many we take in.

          but pretending that sweeping bans which treats every muslim as a de-facto or potential criminal are “worth it” based on some flimsy and specious assumption that it inevitably leads to less government is both absurd and insane. You’re basically demanding “more security state” on the basis that it will produce “less security state”… just ‘later down the road’.

          1. It is perfectly logical to play the odds. The odds that a Christian or Buddhist refugee (or their children) will turn to terror, or even support it, are vanishingly small. Not so with Muslims. Read what all Muslims are supposed to believe. Look at the experience of France, where the earlier Muslim immigrants were fine, but their kids and grandkids are not.

            The unpleasant fact is that Islam is a uniquely violent, aggressive religion. Their theology shows that. History shows that. The news shows that. Not every individual Muslim is a danger, sure, but one cigarette won’t kill you, either. It’s just that the more you have, the more danger you are in.

            1. Look, my point was to say that the rhetorical method Nick employs here is dishonest.

              Saying that critics of xenophobia resort to dishonest rhetorical tactics to pretend there’s “no problem at all” was not in the process endorsing xenophobic collectivist paranoia.

              No, it is not logical to “play odds” based on your contrived collectivist assumptions about Islam. No, i don’t think merely because people are muslim they somehow de-facto add to the threat of terror.

              i think your entire approach to how you think about the subject of Islam is wrongheaded. The part of Islam we are engaged in a conflict with is not the “islam the religion” as much as “islam as a political movement”. The same terms apply, but they’re actually different things entirely. the latter of which really only dates back to the 1970s

              There are billions of religious muslims, but only a tiny fraction of them are even vaguely associated with the latter.

              I’m not even interested in debating the subject with you because i think its a waste of time, i doubt you’ll change your POV at any point. Just because Nick’s wrong in borrowing a shitty, intellectually dishonest M.O. doesn’t make your own misguided ideas “correct”, or even better by contrast.

              1. I am not making “contrived collectivist assumptions” about Islam. Saying Muslims are likely to oppose some basic libertarian (and Western Enlightenment) beliefs is no more a “collectivist assumption” than assuming Nazis hate Jews or Communists hate capitalists. Maybe such assumptions aren’t always 100% true, but it’s the way to bet.

                Islam the religion and Islam the political movement are inextricably linked, for theological reasons too much to explain here (again). Yes, it was revived in the 70s, after being largely dormant for hundreds of years. But it was dormant, not gone.

                It astonishes me that intelligent, well-read libertarians, of whom I consider you one, are so blind to what is clearly the greatest enemy of libertarianism on the world stage. Take many libertarian principles, invert them, make them a religion you can’t leave, and that’s Islam. It’s time everyone here recognized that, instead of clinging to sweet, abstract fantasies about all religions being the same.

        2. This is only a temporary measure though. So realistically speaking, it won’t make any difference in that area unless Trump renews it every time it’s about to expire. Which frankly, I think is highly unlikely. He’s done it once. He’s kept his campaign promise. Now he can go do whatever he wants without technically being a liar.

        3. it’s basic statistics that the fewer Muslims we have in the country, the lower the risk of Islamic terror

          Just like fewer guns means fewer “gun deaths”, right?

          1. But not fewer deaths. The ability to keep guns is a natural and constitutional right. The ability to collect muslims on your neighbors taxes- not so much.

          2. Yes exactly, except guns don’t have agency, humans do…so no not even fucking close.

    2. Then explain why locking barn door would still be counterproductive.

      1. Better late than never in this case.

        We should bar the door and let the more sophisticated Europeans test the open borders strategy for another decade or two. What’s the hurry?

  29. It’s been all the rage to point that that Obama overhauled visa process (temporarily barring many Iraqis who had passed the old background checks) in 2011 when it was discovered that a couple terrorists snuck into country posing as refugees. As Glenn Kessler noted, Obama tried to hush this by not making major announcement.

    A terrorist incident isn’t like death by dog attack or even gun homicide, which are unforeseeable anomaly, There IS a terrorist organization that actively trains or recruits agents. Their mission to take as many lives as possible. All it takes is like a 2 year trip to Pakistan for legal Muslim Americans to take up the cause. The SB shooters killed cowokers who threw them a baby shower.

    What was that popular argument against Reagan’s Star Wars program? Even if could stop 95 nuclear warheads out of 100, the few that it missed would be enough to devastate the country. That’s radical Islam. You only need a few radicals with handguns and a big truck to erase 50 plus lives. Worst case scenario is something that resembles a 9/11 attack. And recent attacks were carried out by government contractors,

    Refugee wave is one of the ways they can try to infiltrate us. They can’t send a battalion this way. They don’t have to.

    1. Refugee wave is one of the ways they can try to infiltrate us. They can’t send a battalion this way. They don’t have to.

      They’re already here.

      1. Then we should stop digging.

  30. OT: There was a “public lands” rally at my state’s capitol building. Apparently there are some federal bills floating around that propose the sale of some 3 million acres of federal land, including 100,000 acres in my state. At the rally, there were numerous signs stating things like “Keep your greedy hands off my public lands!” Our Democrat governor was in the thick of the crowd, and he shouted, “It doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat, Republican, or libertarian, these lands are our lands!” (I was half-expecting a Howard Dean finishing screech).

    Two things: (1) What makes federal land “my” or “our” land? (2) Clearly Governor Bullock does not understand libertarianism.

    1. If you think federal lands are your lands, try using a lot of them for things like growing crops, camping, snowmobiling, etc.

  31. Does anyone know if san fran and marin county have refugees?

    1. They have refugees from flyover country.

    2. According to this map, between 2012 & 2105 the answer is no. The closest they got was 16 in Oakland.

  32. The purpose of the ban isn’t to prevent attacks, it’s to cause them. It’s like the drug war – the purpose of cracking down on heroin isn’t to prevent deaths, it’s to kill people. Last week Seattle opened up the first safe injection site. It will save lives, as will pot legalization around the country. In the same way, the immigration ban will kill people (on both sides), and reversing it will save lives. This is blatant extortion by our own government and I won’t stand for it. Thanks, Reason, for your principled leadership.

    1. If this causes attacks doesnt that sort of prove trumps point?

      Terrorists are not the same as the drug war. Drugs are things used by others per their own personal time….terrorists sneaking in refugee camps trying to kill people isnt the same

      It is silly to think they wont try to attack us because there isnt a ban.

      What would you propose addictionmyth?

      1. In fact, the terror attack in Canada yesterday was probably caused by Trump’s incitement. White nationalist young men with guns are a far more dangerous threat to the country than well vetted refugees fleeing our bombs. What would I propose? You don’t have to let them in but you must stop killing them with the justification, “If we don’t kill them then Americans are likely to vote for a president who’ll let them in and then they’ll kill us.”

        1. For some reason i dont see that guy who did that because of an executive order

        2. than well vetted refugees fleeing our bombs.

          I heard today that Obama’s bombs were less explodey than Trump’s bombs. Obama took great care before droning a wedding party, where Trump doesn’t seem to have careful analytical process.

        3. In fact, the terror attack in Canada yesterday was probably caused by Trump’s incitement.

          “Caused”, eh? Bullshit.

        4. In fact, the terror attack in Canada yesterday was probably caused by Trump’s incitement.

          “If we don’t bow to their whims, they’ll try to kill us!”

        5. You are an impossibly dull mind.

      2. Man, don’t bother.

      3. He doesn’t have anything to propose or argue except sophistry.

        1. And this site needs less Sophistry and more Sappho.

          So sayeth Anacreon.

  33. The US government and mainstream culture have been opaque RE: Muslims and anti-terrorism efforts, so most people are reacting from rules of thumb and their outside bias to evaluate decisions and people they have little experience with. Frankly, this includes the President-elect: not only have we already had similar EOs come from the Obama administration, but it’s also not really clear *how* radical resettled refugees actually are or what national security is doing to verify the refugees coming through. Cato and Reason sure as hell don’t have any interest in being honest brokers. Going on these biases, the American people are — quite rightly — going to say that they don’t want immigrants with values diametrically opposed to their own, and are — perhaps wrongly — going to assume that this is the case for the vast majority of immigrants coming from Islamic countries.

    The media and other supposedly impartial sources for a counter-narrative are giving them no reason to reassess this bias.

  34. help terrorist recruitment

    the Jihadi Precautionary Principle

    we should only do things that we think make jihadis happy, lest we “create” more of them. The false premise being that “jihadis are entirely the creation of our unpopular actions“, and not by any forces outside our control or circumstances which we can’t undo/ameliorate.

    its an incredibly narcissistic point of view. it basically assumes everything is about “us” and that they don’t actually have any independent desires of their own.

    1. People in the middle east are entirely without agency.

      1. When it comes to terrorism – true. They are often incited by others. This is true for Dylan Storm Roof as well – can you guess how?

        1. Please enlighten us.

          1. What’s his middle name?

        2. “When it comes to terrorism – true. They are often incited by others. This is true for Dylan Story Room as well – can you guess how?

          –god damn you are a dumbfucker dajjal. The only thing that incites jihadis, outside of their own interests, are others making fucking excuses for them. This doesn’t just apply to Jihadi’s, it applies evenly to all humans, to include any children you may be raising …god help them.

    2. Timothy McVeigh was radicalized by the heavy hand of Clinton domestic policy.

      1. Thank Gore Vidal for that information.

    3. I was just pointing this out to Hamster of Doom in a thread yesterday where he said that nobody with a job, a house, and 5 credit cards would ever commit terrorism, then when confronted with the example of the San Bernardino shooters said that America’s insufficiently capitalistic mixed economy was to blame for that too.

      1. Yeah. Yeah, that’s exactly what was said.

        I tell you, it’s just amazing all the things I say sometimes.

        1. That actually is exactly what you said, and then when it was pointed out precisely how stupid that was you did the same thing you’re doing here and pretended that quoting what you actually said was so far beyond the pale as to not warrant addressing and refused to defend it or explain in what way the words you used didn’t actually mean what they plainly said.

    4. Next you’ll tell me federal policy is not the sole driver of global climate change.

      1. EGADS MAN UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING THE PLANET IS DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED

  35. A transition period in which to develop systems that can research immigrating throngs for murderous evil offends people who fucking believe in the goddamn second amendment? -which derives its basis from the mindset of those who will likely never face a life-threatening altercation but choose to arm themselves because the planet of humans consistently proves itself random and unreliable in terms of personal safety.

    Common sense has fled the Reason quarters and Nicky G is leading the fucking charge.

    Islam and its atrocious track records cannot ever be lumped into the same forthright blaze of integrity that imbues those who immigrate to this country holding the American Bill of Rights and its constitutionally-enshrined privileges in the highest of regards. Islamic adherents MUST be proven under rigid appraisal to be qualified to walk the shores of liberty by disregarding Sharia and its totalitarian gutting of human rights.

    A nation designed for and by people who wish to remain unfettered by draconian religions (which includes Christianity) and violent governance should employ common sense defense measures whenever possible to reject that which erodes and defaces the republic and its potential.

    1. This has nothing to do whatsoever with freely admitting people proven to be fleeing hellish circumstances seeking relief and liberty.

      Just as no one in their right fucking mind allows their personal space or property to be invaded by just any fucking person out of the blue so it goes with free countries on a planet where hell has made itself home.

      This isn’t goddamn eutopia, Nick.

    2. Well said, Agile. Trouble is, someone can’t both be a Muslim and not believe in Sharia. It’s stupid to try to have an immigration policy that says: “We’ll only accept half-assed Muslims who don’t really believe the basic tenets of their religion.”

      1. Again, I’m not going to insult America’s Muslim allies, or assimilated Muslim-American citizens, by saying they’re half-assed Muslims who are too stupid to understand their own religion.

        I’m going to say that *if* a Muslim interprets his faith as meaning fighting the U.S. or imposing sharia on us, then we should oppose him militarily (in the former case) or politically (in the latter case). And the sharia and jihadi types should be kept out if possible.

        But Muslims who sincerely reconcile their faith with support for the U.S. Constitution or alliance with America – I won’t insist that they be politically correct regarding every issue, they are OK by me.

        The problem is when the jihadi and sharia types *pose as* America supporters when they’re in fact no such thing. This is why we have to be careful.

        1. In and of itself, for example, a woman with different ideas of modesty than your average skank is not a terrorist threat. The problem arises if her adoption of a modest lifestyle is part of a whole ideology by which America is evil and corrupt.

      2. “…someone can’t both be a Muslim and not believe in Sharia”

        Precisely.

        1. AC writing in prose? Trump really has ruined everything.

  36. So now that the Quebec Mosque shooting was a right right white guy, the progs are all giddy. It really says a lot about you when you’re hoping the attacker is a certain ethnicity after a mass shooting.

    I picture then after the Orlando nightclub massacre saying “ah shucks”

    1. I admit that when a “right-wing” terrorist like Roof or, apparently, this guy, does a nasty crime I think “the progs are sure to exploit this.”

      But then I need to tell myself: “The first reaction you should have to a murder is to be appalled at the wickedness of it and sorrowful at the deaths. Then you can figure out how it fits into the political situation.”

  37. Obviously the Trumpkin scum here just want to start a war. The goal is to incite violence in the middle east and use it as a pretext to nuke them to disrupt supply to boost prices for Tillerson’s interests in the US and Russia. Honestly it’s not that hard to understand what’s going on. These pointless bans in conjunction with bombing raids are calculated to instigate people to violence against us. A few Trumpkins benefit financially but most will have to pay higher prices for energy and other commodities, especially if he rounds up the illegals as well. (Not to mention, the costs of detaining them until the wall is built – i.e. never.)

    1. Why would this incite violence?

      1. Bombing people incites violence – at least among the survivors. You didn’t know? Now you know.

        1. You were talking about the ban. Not bombs

        2. Sorry, but nobody really knows what causes terrorism. Neither victimization not poverty, the two most common suggestions, are adequate explanations.

    2. How about if Trump pulls out of the Middle East for six or eighteen months?

    3. europe had open arms and their problems really suggest your point isnt well thought out

      1. His only true point is he wants attention.

      2. Most of the European attackers were home grown. You haven’t thought our your own point, buddy.

        1. The paris attackers? Didnt they come from a refugee camp?

          1. They came from Brussels – born and raised.

            1. The majority of the Paris attackers were born in Belgium or France, but two of them came through Greece as Syrian refugees – http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34832512

        2. And then sent away to terrorist college. But plenty of the attacks have been carried about by “refugees”, although not necessarily actual refugees. The term itself is basically rendered worthless by the inability of government to properly validate such claims and the sheer amount of fraud. At any rate, lots of attacks (not just terrorism, but ordinary hate crimes like the various gang-rapes) have been perpetrated by migrants.

    4. You dumbass. How many wars is Trump responsible for? Even a little? 0?
      OK, now HRC, and the establishment of both parties: view many wars are they responsible for? Dumbass.

      1. Yea where i am at. Does anyone think the alternative would be better?

        1. “let’s enforce a no-fly zone in Syria, against Russian aircraft!”

  38. White supremacism? An immediate danger we must constantly hunt for and suppress!

    Islamic supremacism? What are you, a racist? Only a large percentage of Muslims actually believe what their holy book says about that!

    1. Wrong – we must stop hunting and suppressing ideologies. Why? Because welcome to America.

      1. Except for the ideology of “leave me the fuck alone and let me do business with whom I please.” That must be terminated with extreme prejudice.

      2. It’s perfectly aligned with American values to not bring in people who oppose American values.

      3. We simply should follow long standing US tradition and exclude people who believe in murderous, totalitarian ideologies: fascism, communism, Islam.

        All three of those political ideologies are associated with religions; that doesn’t make them safe.

        Fortunately, believers in totalitarian ideologies haven’t been numerous enough in the US to force us to face the question of how to deal with them in an otherwise free country. That’s a situation I’d like to see continue. It certainly isn’t the case elsewhere.

  39. Wow, Nick, you are so woke. Too bad you weren’t as woke in 2011 when President Obama suspended Iraq refugees.

    So it’s not ‘libertarian’ to even pause refugee visa for 90 to 120 days?

    It’s weird how Reason focuses so much on the noise (8 articles on this non-issue) rather than talking about, you know, reducing the size and scope of government.

    Wait- I think there’s another bathroom bill! Six articles tomorrow!

    1. I hope you’re kidding about the bathroom bill.

      1. It’s stalled in committee.

        *** bites lip ***

    2. Or reason doesnt focus on the taxes spent on this refugee program

  40. The American people are tired of working hard so that their government can extort them into paying for ‘protection’ from the ‘jihadis’. It’s just a twist on olde-tyme witch hunts.

  41. Omar Mateen was radicalized by the FBI and his father was mujahedeen – a CIA front group. So yeah, American ideology is what creates many of these people. Another factor is cultural – stop encouraging your children to get married early and have kids. This makes them feel trapped, and they are more likely to explode. This is true for all religions – including Christian, Muslim, and ‘mental illness’ e.g. Adam Lanza: “You have autism which means you can’t have meaningful relationships with your peers but you can live here with us and we’ll set up the basement/garage/attic just how you like it.”

    1. Omar Mateen was radicalized by the FBI

      *buys industrial grade tinfoil*

        1. 1) Alternet, really?
          2)

          after Mateen threatened a courthouse deputy in 2013 by claiming he could order Al Qaeda operatives to kill his family, the FBI dispatched an informant to “lure Omar into some kind of act and Omar did not bite.”

          So, after the dude threatens a state agent with terrorism, the FBI ineffectively tried to get him in a sting?

            1. Funny thing is, 1) he was already into terroristy shit and 2) your own source says that he didn’t bite.

              Do you even reading comprehension, bro?

              1. Yes – because he was also radicalized by his father who was radicalized by the CIA and yes he bit – even if it was a few months later. He was an idiot but he wasn’t that much of an idiot.

                1. Omar Mateen was radicalized by the FBI

                  Put the goalposts back.

                  1. Also, don’t forget “Matteen” is Arabic for “spittoon”.

        2. Which does not prove your statement in the slightest.

      1. dajjal thinks non-whites have no agency.

    2. This is at least the second time recently you’ve called the mujahedeen a front door the CIA. Bullshit. The mujahedeen existed to resist foreign, non-Islamic interference in the middle East, at that time the Soviet Union.
      Since the USSR was a fire of the united States, we armed and trained them as they were fighting the USSR in Afghanistan.
      The CIA didn’t create them. They were not a “front” for the CIA.
      Now, go away, you dishonest lying liar.

      1. Sigh fucking auto fill. * A front for the CIA*

        1. Also *was a foe of*

  42. Europe doesn’t have free speech or religion. As a result people were jailed for speaking out against the Muslim influx. As a result they end up with political crises and extremist groups and they repeat the cycle over and over and it doesn’t end well. America has constitutional protections because of exactly this problem – this is why the country was founded in the first place. We have free speech and religion and fortunately most Americans remember this lesson from high school history class. We must aggressively defend these rights for all people, including the ones that the government agents insist will surely be our own undoing.

  43. Man are you guys sa-low.

    Can’t you see what Trump is doing?

    He’s basically putting into motion what many people wondered for a long time: Why do we have to take care of their mess when they don’t? That is, provide security to your own people in an effort to keep them. It’s actually a GOOD thing for Muslim countries to keep their talent. If you keep bleeding you can never progress. Migrant problem offloaded.

    It also extends into his musings on NATO which are not insane. He’s telling those countries to man up. It’s nice that they were able to provide welfare and luxuries to their people at the expense of American taxpayers (never mind then turning around and mocking them for not being sophisticated like them) but now it’s time to ween themselves off America’s Linus security blanket. European dependency buh-bye.

    Same with Canada. This country abandoned its military responsibilities in the 1960s mostly because it had an unwritten agreement – wink – with the USA to protect it during the Cold War. Our nationalists then took to the same sophomoric ‘look at those dumb Americans’ spiel the Europeans engaged in. No more Canadian flappy heads.

    Someone had to get that ball rolling and as an outsider, he was the guy to do it. All he needs is 3-4% growth and the eventual restructuring of the domestic bureaucratic machine and presto! Bigger than…?

    In other words, he just may have changed the trajectory of Western civilization.

    /This Kool-Aid is delicious. I’m sticking to it.

    1. Re Canada – not sure how he will pressure us.

    2. I have some concerns but i do think he can do alot of good. If he diminishes power of federal agencies i think it will be worth it

      1. It’s a little like that show Rusted Development. You have to clear out the hoarded cars to rebuild/custom that ONE classic.

  44. The people who commit terrorist attacks are not evil geniuses. They are generally idiots and low lifes and street thugs. They are often drug users with little interest in religion. So in their mid 20’s they are particularly vulnerable to Western influences who propose Islam as a vehicle for a bigger caper. The problem isn’t the religion, the problem is that we create these jihadis. We are the real danger here, and we need to stop.

    1. There is some truth to the idea that people with no hope in this life cling to the idea of rewards in the next. But many terrorists are well educated, and better of than their country men. Osama bin laden, for example.
      The leaders are people who are very well educated, especially in Islam, and are fighting what they believe to be a holy war. Hiding your head in the sand and blaming poverty won’t work.

      1. Plenty of other examples as well. Many of the 9/11 hijackers had attended college.

        Here’s a 2007 article citing several studies to make the case that there is a positive correlation with living under repressive governments, but not with poverty – http://www.aei.org/publication…..terrorist/

    2. Have you ever read Hoffer’s “The True Believer”?

  45. Extreme Trumpkinism is an ideology more dangerous than can be dreampt of in the Radical Islamic theosophies.

    1. You actually made some what of a decent point @ 8:32PM, and then you go and destroy what little credibility you may have had.

    2. Hiw about modererate trumpkinism?

  46. I’m not scared of terrorists.
    Most of them who are probably already here, probably didn’t immigrate.
    I might or might not have (a) gun(s) that I (would) carry (if I had them).
    I will usually look if I hear a truck engine revving behind me.
    If a secret bomb blows up near me, it probably wasn’t a good day for me, but I otherwise might have gotten hit by a meteor or struck by lightning.
    I think this EO is stupid, fear-driven and irrational. According to Amash’s cites, it’s actually illegal. And it was under Obama in 2011 too, apparently. Trump is just trying to reshape the whatchamacallit window (reference, GILMORE?).
    I think open borders are against property rights, but closed borders are against freedom.
    This is Trump seeing how far he can take it. I am ambivalent and watching with popcorn, but I think he already fucked up.

    1. Ambivalent about Trump’s actions in general, not this one in particular.

  47. You better watch out, you better not cry, you better not pout, I’m telling you why. Donald Trump is coming, to town.

    He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you’re awake, he knows if you’re a Muslim, so hide the bomb for goodness sake!

  48. 90 days and 120 days. Who the fuck cares.

  49. Muslim refugees are so safe, and so good for a country, that Saudi Arabia takes most of them! Oh wait, they don’t take any, despite having huge, empty accommodations for pilgrims to Mecca. Well, they must be Islamophobic!

    1. In fact, Trump’s EOs reveal how Americans will protect and defend their vulnerable minorities. His orders will backfire bigly. The rest of the world will be inspired to stand up to their own governments and do the same. Welcome to Dajjal’s Libertarian Utopia. I will dub it, “New Somalia”.

      1. Trump’s EOs reveal how Americans will protect and defend their vulnerable minorities.

        First you create or import a ‘vulnerable’ minority where there wasn’t one, then you defend them. Make work.

        1. You don’t have to let them in and give them jobs and too-generous social services, but if you do, you aren’t allowed to round them up and imprison them indefinitely. You don’t have to let them in but then you can’t bomb their homes and put the ones who flee in refugee camps.

          1. That’s the idea: we not letting them in. And yes, we should stop bombing innocent people. In fact, until Congress declares war, we should stop bombing any people.

    2. What is The Deal that Trump struck with them? I’ve seen only vagueries.
      They do have a lot of A/C tents set up from what I’ve seen.

  50. CVE (countering violent extremism) says to kids: “Don’t watch ISIS videos or you might have to commit crimes against your families and communities.” This indoctrination is very dangerous for the impressionable kids. It’s very similar to drug addiction propaganda: “Don’t take a pill or you might get ‘hooked’ and then you’ll have to commit crimes against your families and communities and you’ll stop doing your homework too.” Both ideologies can be quite appealing. CVE is big in Europe – many of their attackers were actually subjected to it. Fortunately it hasn’t really gathered much steam in the US, though the Ohio knife attacker seemed to have been a follower.

  51. The brothers Tsarnaev were granted U.S. asylum, which is indistinguishable from refugee status.

    1. This. Technically it was their parents, I guess, but I would still count them. I don’t see why they were ignored when writing this-everyone remembers them and failing to include them just makes it seem like you didn’t check your facts.

      1. Yes, the fact that the brothers happened to ride in on the coattails of their parent’s asylum request is trivial, the whole family was here by virtue of their status as refugees-seeking-asylum.

        The rest of the family’s no bargain either, to supplement their assorted welfare benefits, the mother was an accomplished shoplifter. Wretched refuse indeed.

    2. Gillespie is a professional liar. It’s what he does.

  52. When your ideology makes you threaten to kill even your own apotheosis – you might want to reconsider.

  53. Gillespie’s premise is pedantic to the point of absurdity.

    Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsaernev received derivative asylum status, based upon their parents asylum, being refugees fleeing Chechnya.

    And one of them was still a residing here on a Green Card.

    1. And one of them was still a residing here on a Green Card. When they managed to blow a child to smithereens.

      Go fuck yourself Fonzie.

      1. The elder brother was married with a young daughter. This seems to be a common trait among these attackers – perhaps they felt trapped and had no way out. Even white guys I’m sure can appreciate the conundrum – though they are more likely to turn to excessive drug use and anti-depressants.

  54. “You got that? Precisely zero foreign-born terrorists admitted as refugees have killed anyone on American soil (and no, the Boston bombers were not refugees).”

    I do not believe that is correct.

    Dahir A. Adan (c. 1994 ? September 17, 2016) was a member of St. Cloud’s Somali-American community.[15] He was born in Kenya and moved to the U.S. at the age of two[16][17][18][19] on a refugee visa, becoming a U.S. citizen in 2008.[20][21]

    http://tinyurl.com/htuom3q

    “ST. CLOUD, Minn. — Authorities are investigating the stabbings of nine people at a Minnesota mall as a potential act of terrorism — a finding that would realize long-held fears of an attack in the immigrant-rich state that has struggled to stop the recruiting of its young men by groups including ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).

    A young Somali man [Dahir A. Adan] dressed as a private security guard entered the Crossroads Center mall over the weekend wielding what appeared to be a kitchen knife. The city’s police chief said the man reportedly made at least one reference to Allah and asked a victim if he or she was Muslim before attacking. The rampage ended when the man was shot dead by an off-duty police officer. None of the injured suffered life-threatening wounds.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mi…..l-somalis/

    1. But Ken, don’t other refugees do this sort of thing all the time, too? No?

      Gosh, if only there were some common factor we could suss out to help us prevent things like this…!

  55. That CBS article goes on to mention that 20 Somalis are known to have left Minneapolis to join al-Shabaab, which is an Al Qaeda affiliate in Somalia, and that another dozen are known to have left Minneapolis to join “militants” in Syria–presumably they’re fighting for ISIS.

    Also, nine Somalis have been convicted in Minnesota for trying to join ISIS.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mi…..mza-ahmed/

    So, again, I don’t believe the claim that there’s never been a terrorist attack in America by a refugee is accurate, and it appears to be the case that people who’ve been let in from Somalia in recent years have, in fact, presented a real security threat.

    And that’s just talking about the Somali community in Minnesota.

      1. I shouldn’t believe that this man was a refugee from a country on Trump’s list and perpetrated what appears to have been a terrorist attack–because I read it?

        I shouldn’t believe that these other men, from a country on Trump’s list, were convicted of trying to join ISIS or that others have, in fact, joined Al-Qaeda and are probably fighting for ISIS–because I read it?

        That’s a non-response. It’s a contradiction. It isn’t even an argument.

    1. I don’t believe the claim that there’s never been a terrorist attack in America by a refugee is accurate

      Which is why they didn’t phrase it that way. It was “fatal attack”

      because they know the claim is weak, and need to fine-tune it to meet specific conditions which are even then barely-defensible. But they don’t want to defend that claim = they want to throw it out there and repeat it like a mantra so that by mere virtue of the echo other voices are silenced.

      if they wanted a debate on the merits, they wouldn’t resort to intellectually-dishonest claims. The reason he needs there to pretend there are “ZERO” incidents meriting mention is because he knows there isn’t ZERO risk = but acknowledging ANY risk at all would suddenly mean that the debate would have to rely on evidence rather than mere moralistic handwaving.

      Reason has often done the same thing about foreign policy, fwiw; its been a very long time, but this idea that …

      “there’s nothing we can do about terror (because there’s no defense), ergo we SHOULD do nothing”, etc.

      …was frequently resorted to. Basically if they conceded that “maybe” some approaches were better than others, they would no longer have the principled moral high ground

      1. Thank you for pointing that out. No, the knife attack in the mall wasn’t fatal, but, yeah, that seems to be beside the point. The question is whether Trump’s policy (outside of violating the due process rights of people who already have green cards) is in response to a genuine security risk, and I think it is.

        If that’s what they’re going for, I think Reason’s read on this is wrong. The legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights. The legitimate purpose of foreign policy is to protect our rights from foreign threats, and our asylum policy on refugees should reflect that if refugees represent a security threat.

        And that’s as libertarian as any small-state argument needs to be.

        It’s different when we’re talking about torture–that’s an Eight Amendment violation.

        It’s different when we’re talking about mass surveillance–that’s a Fourth Amendment violation.

        It’s different when we’re talking about denying Guantanamo detainees council or a trial–that’s a a Fifth Amendment violation.

        The part of Trump’s order that impacts asylum seekers from countries that represent a terrorist threat to the United States takes pains to comply with the First Amendment–and does so successfully.

        That’s my response to Gillespie on this. That’s my small-state libertarian response.

  56. “Our greatest enemy is our own APOTHEOSIS – who is a hypocritical liar and takes many forms to bedevil us.” – This is the core doctrine of Trumpkin Extremism.

  57. I don’t know why the left love muslims so much. 6 of the 7 countries Trump is banning refugees from have a policy of executing homosexuals.

    I believe in allowing immigration and for the record, I am against dropping bombs on countries that cause the instability that created this refugee situation, but I’m also not enthusiastic about hoards of potentially-religious extremist Muslims moving into the U.S. either.

    1. Libertarians aren’t the left, and this isn’t about Muslims.

      Do you believe in Fifth Amendment rights for rapists and arsonists?

      Libertarians do, and it isn’t because we care about rapists or arsonists.

      It’s because we care about our Fifth Amendment rights.

      We also care about our First Amendment rights. Among other things, the First Amendment prohibits the government from discriminating on the basis of religion.

      It’d be a lot easier to defend a policy that keeps asylum seekers that represent a security threat to our rights out of the country if people would stop making it about religion–unnecessarily.

      1. Well i dont the first amendment applies to non citizens that are outside borders. And the practice of islam is not being infringed here. They are still free to do it.

        1. “Well i dont the first amendment applies to non citizens that are outside borders.”

          The First Amendment doesn’t give anybody any rights they wouldn’t already have without it.

          The First Amendment is a prohibition on government action. So long as we’re talking about the U.S. government, our government cannot discriminate on the basis of religion.

          Now do you understand?

          1. We can discriminate on the basis of politics, and Islam is politics.

            1. Whatever else Islam is, it’s also a religion.

          2. So long as we’re talking about the U.S. government, our government cannot discriminate on the basis of religion.

            The Constitution protects American citizens from government interference in the free exercise of religion.

            I don’t think it says anywhere that the government can’t discriminate against non-citizens outside the US based on religion.

            1. “I don’t think it says anywhere that the government can’t discriminate against non-citizens outside the US based on religion.”

              I think I’ve already responded to this. The First Amendment is a prohibition against the government. So long as we’re talking about the U.S. government, . . .

              And we’re not the only thing going in circles, here. So is your argument.

              Whatever else preferring one religion over another is, it’s also establishment.

              Thank God, the government’s not allowed to do that.

              1. So according to you, it is an establishment of religion when the US excludes communists (=atheists) and Nazis (=positive Christianity)? Mein Kampf becomes OK according to you because it justified is intolerance with God?

                The establishment clause means: no state Church and no state support for specific churches. It doesn’t mean tolerating every murderous ideology that associates itself with a deity.

      2. It also prevents viewpoint discrimination, and yet if we were obligated to import as many Nazis or Communists dedicated to overthrowing the US as felt like coming, it would be impossible to survive as a country.

        The fact of the matter is that practically no one gives a shit about Muslims for religious reasons (unlike vice versa), they are opposed because of the perception that they more often than not adhere to a cruel, illiberal, authoritarian politics that is inextricably intertwined with their faith and which promotes bigotry against (sometimes going as far as genocidal violence against) groups of people accounting for 99% of the country (100% once you take sectarian hatred into account).

        1. “It also prevents viewpoint discrimination, and yet if we were obligated to import as many Nazis or Communists dedicated to overthrowing the US as felt like coming, it would be impossible to survive as a country.”

          People are free to say what they want, but where does it say we can’t discriminate against Nazi or communist refugees for being Nazis or communists?

          Certainly we can during war time.

          And Muslims everywhere aren’t dedicated to overthrowing the U.S. I’ve met them. I’ve known them. I’ve attended their mosques.

          There’s nothing that says we have to accept ISIS, Al Qaeda, or members of any other organization that’s dedicated to destroying the United States.

          Nothing at all.

          1. The Quran tell Muslims to kill idolaters and apostates. If you declare yourself to be a Muslim, that’s what you declare yourself to believe in.

            For American citizens, we can’t do anything based on beliefs, but for immigration purposes, we can certainly take it into account.

      3. I was commenting on the people out in the streets shitting their pants, which is by and large leftist never-Trumper SJWs who for whatever reason, love Muslims.

    2. I think a lot of it is anti-Semitic at its core. Muslims are the replacement for Jews in the Oppression Hierarchy – Jews are too ‘white’ and too privileged, and yet have an undeniable history of oppression, so in order to dismiss that, progressives have to argue that Muslims are even more oppressed. This forces them to ignore and dismiss any claim that Islam itself is at all oppressive and cry “Islamophobia!” at any criticism. Basically, they’re doing exactly what they condemn everyone else for doing: #NotAllMuslims

  58. Also, I’m not sure why we’re giving what has or hasn’t happened within the United States’ borders so much weight.

    If ISIS has been using refugees as cover to infiltrate Europe and stage terrorist attacks there, why shouldn’t we take the threat of the same thing happening here seriously?

    Does anyone imagine that they hate the Europeans more than they hate us? That ISIS infiltrators would restrain themselves within our borders because we’re Americans?

    1. You are clearly on a jihad. You make up nonsense and then shove it down your own throat. And I believe that you honestly believe it. The funny thing is, you accuse the other side of doing the same thing. Fortunately decent average Americans are taking a stand against people like you and they aren’t going to back down. I’m actually very optimistic about how things will turn out, though I’m a little nervous for the ‘dead-enders’ as Rummy might say.

      1. I don’t see how anything you wrote relates to anything I wrote in any way.

        1. Ken,
          Do you think it matters to dajjal what you actually wrote?

          1. No, but he needs to have his face rubbed in his stupid shit.

            It’s good for him.

        2. Ken ~ Dajjal is a nutcase that posts his idiotic nonsense on several websites i.e. The Atlantic. All he cares about is spewing his poison all over anyone who questions him. I wasted about an hour on him several weeks ago. He’s hopeless.

          1. “I never argue with mystics.”–Ayn Rand

      2. I’ma say this one more time, dajjal: you’re a dumbass. That is all.

  59. Well, because the only possible criterion for whether I want to have someone as a neighbor is whether they are a terrorist! /sarc

  60. The number of killed civilians shouldn’t be the benchmark. We need to take into account the individuals arrested on terror related charges. We shouldn’t be comfortable knowing that people we allow into the county as refugees didn’t kill anyone only because we have vigilant law enforcement that intervened.

  61. So is this Nick’s way of issuing a call to arms to rally mystics from their dereliction of sacrificial duty? Why not a DEATH TO INFIDELS bumper sticker?

  62. It is certainly not true that the number is zero in Europe. Mr. Gillespe, are you saying we should not learn from what is happening elsewhere? The question of whether it causes more problems than is solves is different and I agree with that. I am not in favor of the moratorium, but the zero attack argument is false and ignores reality.

  63. The guys who write the ISIS monthlu rag are laughing their balls of. Dolan is doing exactly what they tell their peasants that America does: mistreating Muslims are waging war with Islam.

  64. *off. Install an edit button. JFC.

  65. Yeah, but do we not learn anything from the European example with increased rates of rape, assault, and other violent crimes perpetrated by refugees? Why do we think we can expect a different result while importing the same populations?

    1. Ya. I’m personally against the ban, but ignoring the European issues is a very disingenuous argument.

  66. Yeah, but do we not learn anything from the European example with increased rates of rape, assault, and other violent crimes perpetrated by refugees? Why do we think we can expect a different result while importing the same populations?

  67. Not sure why even within the libertarian “party” there is such disagreement about this issue. Seems like the large majority of you here feel that its perfectly fine (legal, logical even) to keep out anyone from the country that “we” so choose for whatever reason we deem fit (from security issues to choice in shoe color). Isn’t the real question about what the potential long-term consequences (both positive and negative) of such a policy, whether it be economic, cultural, or in terms of international image? I’m not as smart as any of you have such strong opinions on the topic, so I try to just adopt what smarter libertarian writers tell me to…are there any that have argued in favor of the policy? I’m genuinely curious and would love to learn and also be told how to answer someone’s question about what I think about it, you know as a libertarian.

  68. The author forget about September 11, 2011?
    Actually, what Mr. D. Trump did is not enough!
    Islam is not a religion, it is political doctrine promoting hate to infidels (Muslims are using a different word, Kafir, with a strong harsh meaning.)
    As any political doctrine, declaring inequality in right among people with different faith, it should be prohibited.
    The religion has name Muhammadism in not so distant past, and that name should be used again.
    The sharia law should be prohibited and its followers should be punishable in the same way as fascists.
    Finally, we are must start to fight terrorism, instead of fighting only with terrorists.

  69. upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

  70. Holy crap! How is that refugee immigration working out in the EU? For God’s sake pull your heads out of your arse.

  71. We fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. At this very moment, American troops are fighting side-by-side with our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL. But this executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies. Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred. ????? ???? 2017
    ????? ????? This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.

  72. What about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev? True they were naturalized citizens by then but it seems to me that would just be a good cover?

    I think people that agree with this as a preventative measure since the Berlin and Nice Truck Attacks were refugees? OR at least one of them was, I think….

  73. my co-worker’s half-sister makes $71 /hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for ten months but last month her check was $21762 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you can find out more

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.moneytime10.com

  74. How many crimes go unreported or are covered up for fear of deportation? Aside from the above article, among illegal immigrants, domestic abuse is rampant. Happened quite a bit in my own neighborhood where there were MANY illegals. Do you even consider how many domestic abuse cases never get reported by either legal Americans or immigrants? Drugs are the same. It’s not like they’re going to sell each other out. If refugees commit crimes, they’re going to be sneaky about it like any other criminal. There may be even some crooked cops not doing their job in reporting anything. People don’t often look into these factors. It’s sad. They are human like us, but I think crime in any case is often times underrepresented because of what often goes on behind the scenes.

  75. If you really want to push back on something, consider the Dept of Homeland Security. What every citizen needs to understand is that DHS was not created to protect us from terrorists. It is to protect those in government from “massive civil unrest”. In the view of the globalists in government (nearly everyone) that is the real threat.

  76. so those folks in Boston weren’t killed by refugees?

  77. The key word is not “Refugee” it’s “terrorist.” There is a PC reluctance in America to label anyone from the middle east a terrorist; ergo, zero have been killed by refugee terrorists; and there never will be.

  78. What about the Tsarnaev brothers? Their family originally came here on a 90 day visa, and then applied for, and received, assylum status.

    Perhaps the author is mincing words, but that doesn’t sound like it differs much from refugee status.

  79. But if you instead looked at the amount of violent crime committed by such refugees, you’d understand the problem.

    Switzerland have linked their serious increase in violent crime to their influx of immigrants. Yet you are happy to spread fake news by pretending that America has no such problem!

  80. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  81. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

  82. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.