MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Hey, GOP Fearmongers: Not One Terrorist Act by Refugees in U.S.

Trying to gain power by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people

SyrianKidsworldvisionIn reaction to the terrorist murders in Paris on Friday, Republican presidential hopefuls including Rand Paul (say it ain't so, Rand) are demanding that no refugees be admitted to the United States. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex) claimed that letting in Syrian refugees would be a "roll of the dice." Reality TV billionaire blowhard Donald Trump declared that the refugees could be "one of the great Trojan horses." Politico reports that at least ten Republican governors are vowing to keep out of their states any of the 10,000 or so Syrian refugees that could be admitted to the U.S. next year. Just how the governors think they have the authority to prevent people who are legally in this country from going where they want is not at all clear.

So what does history say about the dangers posed by refugees? Over at the Niskanen Center, David Bier who heads up the immigration policy department provides Six Reasons to Welcome Syrian Refugees After Paris. Number 2 is most relevant to the fearmongering Republicans pols:

2. U.S. refugees don’t become terrorists: The history of the U.S. refugee program demonstrates that the lengthy and extensive vetting that all refugees must undergo is an effective deterrent for terrorists. Since 1980, the U.S. has invited in millions of refugees, including hundreds of thousands from the Middle East. Not one has committed an act of terrorism in the U.S. Traditional law enforcement and security screening processes have a proven record of handling the threat from terrorist posing as refugees.

Demagoguery is the practice of a politician to gain power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people. For shame!

Note: Several commenters suggested Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev, who committed the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013, were refugees. Strictly speaking, they were the children of asylees. As Bloomberg News explained the two were given “derivative asylum status” and didn’t come through the refugee admissions program. Apparently the legal distinction is too fine a point for some readers. So be it, but they should nevertheless keep in mind that the brothers were two people out around 1.8 million people who were granted refugee or asylee status between 1995 and 2013.

Update: Readers might want to see the data on refugees and terrorism in my new article, "Refugees and the Risk of 'Sleeper' Terrorists."

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.

  • ||

    Tsarnaev?

  • ||

    probably not a refugee. just immigrant terrorist welfare mooch.

  • JWW||

    What difference, at this point does it make?

  • Chrissycrunch||

    He certainly was a refugee. His parents came as refugees.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    As the author notes, asylum, not refugees.

    Their parents sought asylum from the Russian government which was persecuting them for harboring terrorists.

  • TGGeko||

    http://www.uscis.gov/humanitar.....plications

    There's very little difference. To apply for asylum, you must meet the definition of refugee.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    In Cosmotarian parlance, receiving asylum erases all traces of their refugee status. Now, off to the juice box cocktail party at VOX!

  • Ron Bailey||

    Not refugees - The 2013 Boston Marathon bombers were the young children of an asylee, but not asylees themselves.

  • Drake||

    Not helping your argument here Ron.

  • PapayaSF||

    Indeed. Of course this is similar to the "illegals don't get welfare" argument: just ignore that fact that half their kids are on welfare.

  • ||

    As opposed to all kids of legal residents?

  • SIV||

    ^reading comprehension fail^

  • ||

    I think not.

  • SIV||

    You're not very clever.

  • PapayaSF||

  • PapayaSF||

  • Free Society||

    "62% of illegal immigrant households on welfare"
    Among other data points. Data is from US immigration services or whatever they're calling that bureaucracy these days.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Oh, I see you are peddling that Center for Immigration Studies study. Hardly what I would call a credible study:

    http://www.cato.org/blog/cente.....elfare-use

  • C01iN||

    That CATO study basically lets immigrants off the hook for being poor and having too many kids. Of course welfare for American-born children of immigrants should be counted as a cost of immigration. CATO's argument that this would require us also to count welfare use of immigrants' great-great-grandchildren is risible at best. Costs incurred by any child should be attributed to his parents. When a child turns 18 he becomes free to make his own choices; from that point on his costs apply to him.

  • Jimbo||

    So we should keep them both out? Trying to understand your point.

  • Jimbo||

    Directed towards The Worst.

  • Free Society||

    She really is.

  • Ron Bailey||

    D: FWIW, official definitions of refugee and asylee.

  • wareagle||

    which makes it convenient to ignore Ft Hood and the recruiting station murders, the latter being more than IIRC. No, not large numbers but is volume the calculus?

    By the way, let's say the doors open wide. What do these people do for work, housing, food, health care, education, transportation, and for how long will those things be on the taxpayer's nickel? What expectation might we have that they want to be here and to be integrated into broader American society? Does there ever come a point where we suggest that perhaps the Islamic world address the radical Islam problem, or do we just remain an enabler? I guess it's nice to hand wave any question that is raised as irrational fear-mongering.

  • Ron Bailey||

    w: In re Fort Hood and recruiting station murders from Bier in The Hill:

    The 1997 Empire State Building shooter, a Palestinian, was in the country on a nonimmigrant visa. The 9/11 attackers all arrived in the United States on student or tourist visas. Neither of the 2002 Beltway snipers were refugees. The 2015 Chattanooga, Tenn., shooter, a Jordanian born in Kuwait, gained American citizenship as an infant.

    The majority of U.S. terrorism is homegrown. The 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooter was a native-born American, as was the 2009 Little Rock, Ark. recruiting office shooter. The 2009 Fort Hood, Texas shooter was born in Virginia. A Kansan was responsible for the 2013 Wichita airport bomb attempt. The three men who carried out the attack on the 2015 "Draw Muhammad" contest in Garland, Texas were Americans born and raised.

  • wareagle||

    that answers none of the questions involved in let-them-in scenario. And the Ft Hood shooter being born in VA, along with the Muhammad shooters plus the recruiting stations, ignores some reality about the culprits. You're still clinging to "refugees" as the foundation for the case, as if nothing can be brought into play

  • PapayaSF||

    The majority of U.S. terrorism is homegrown.

    Even if so, why add to the problem? It's absurd to ignore the link between Muslims and terror, so why import more Muslims?

  • Tak Kak||

    I think the link is clear, Virginia, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee. As always, the bad guy here is the South.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Islam? What Islam? What does Islam have to do with terrorism, racist hater?

    // Sarc

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    What the fuck kind of retarded logic is that? Just because a very small percentage of Muslims are terrorists, we should enforce some kind of dumb policy against all Muslims? Just because most instances of polygamy and childhood marriages are some crazy Mormon cults, we should persecute all Mormons? Just because some small percentage of people use guns to commit mass shootings, we should ban all guns? Just because a small percentage of cops are horrible human beings, we should hate all cops?

  • Long Woodchippers||

    So it will take a generation until they shoot us?

    It's important to know that it hasn't happened before, even if you might have to split hairs on the definitions of various immigration statuses - but because it hasn't happened before does not mean it would happen this time. The evidence is that it's unlikely, but if ISIS is claiming that they have jihadis hidden amongst the refugees, should we ignore that because of what's happen before, when ISIS wasn't involved?

  • WV_Wood_Chopper||

    Large portions of Muslims support what the Jihadists are doing even if not directly involved so it makes no sense to import more Muslims. I really favor putting a halt to almost all immigration as they mostly feed the welfare state, cause over population reducing green spaces, and often do not assimilate.

  • Old.Mexican||

    Re: Drake,

    There is a clear distinction between an asylee and a refugee.

    The refugee is a person from another country seeking asylum in a foreign country, whereas an asylee is a foreigner seeking refuge in another country.

    Totally different things.

  • Jimbo||

    Thanks for clearing that up!

    ...*walks away mumbling*

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Without reading the legal definitions, I would have said that:
    refugees are part of a mass exodus caused by a wide spread conflict
    asylees are individuals who had been singled out for persecution

  • ||

    according to the link all asylees are refugees.

  • JWW||

    Thanks Ron, but we all know that asylee's that come into this country will demand to bring other family members along. See: The Tsarnaev brothers. Or the FIRST DAMMED POST to this article.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    +teh internets

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Thanks for the link Ron!

    Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:
    Meet the definition of refugee
    Are already in the United States
    Are seeking admission at a port of entry

    BTW, do you read these things and simply ignore them, or do you not expect anybody to question your word?

    Sounds like Reason adopted the Weather Underground Style Guide, or they have hired Billy Ayers to ghost write articles. When you and the rest of the staff finally accept the proper definition of a refugee, you will be telling us their acts of terrorism were merely childish pranks gone wrong or extreme vandalism.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Now I have to (re-)read all his science stuff more carefully.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    No offense, but that seems to be a distinction without much substance. I don't think "bring the asylees, but screw their children" is the option you're aiming for here, is it?

  • ||

    The vetting works on people who are vetted. It doesn't work on people who aren't.

    You know it's possible for the children of native-born USians to become terrorists too, right?

  • Raven Nation||

    Doesn't happen to the children of Australians - provided you keep them supplied with beer.

  • ||

    You're not nearly shitting your pants enough over the dirty foreigners, Nicole. Try harder. Have some ExLax or something.

  • Los Doyers||

    And be on the toilet longer than 10 minutes? Do you know not of the scourge that are hemorrhoids?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Fuck off.

    I didn't say that we should not accept refugees or that we should. But, saying that the Tsarnaevs weren't, for all practical purposes, refugees because it was their parents who applied for asylum is only going to persuade the otherwise unconvinced that you're not arguing in good faith.

    Personally, I'm fine with admitting refugees provided they're properly vetted. But sticking you fingers in your ears and yelling when people acknowledge the risks doesn't do much to enhance your credibility.

  • ||

    You're pants-shitting. Sorry, but it's true. You are reacting to Paris just like the screaming gun grabbers reacted to Sandy Hook. You just want common-sense solutions, right? To something there really isn't a solution for?

    Telling me to fuck off doesn't change the very simple fact: you are doing exactly what everyone you hated did after Sandy Hook. You might want to think about that. I know you'll try and list the reasons why THIS is different, but guess what?

    It's not. It's a horrible, senseless tragedy committed by fucked up people, and you want to punish a lot of people for something very few people do and that it's almost impossible to guard against.

  • wareagle||

    there is one rather clear distinction between Paris and Sandy Hook: the latter was done by a mentally unstable individual, the former was a planned attack involving many parties and good deal of coordination and logistical support. Paris was not a "senseless tragedy," it was something purposely done by people who think that sort of thing is okay. Otherwise, totally like Sandy Hook.

  • Jordan||

    I hate to tell you this, but most mass shooters are not insane.

  • ||

    I hate to tell you this, but most mass shooters are not insane.

    The medicalization of everyday life is a hell of a drug.

  • SIV||

    Insanity isn't a medical term, but then you wouldn't know that.

  • BillEverman||

    And Sandy Hook was unintentional? an accident? Nope, pulling a trigger is intentional, whether it's a screwed up kid or a religious fanatic. I frankly don't care whether they think it's okay or not, or whether that means they're crazy or not. In each case it's an evil act committed by someone who knew what they were doing, who represents a vanishingly small percentage of a larger group with whom they are associated, whether white guys with guns or Muslims.

    And yes, it is a senseless tragedy, in that the only people to whom it makes sense are rabid extremsts.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    How am I "pants-shitting"?

    Take a break from the internet. Seriously. Make yourself a nice cocktail. Acknowledging facts that don't fit your narrative isn't pants shitting. It's being intellectually honest.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    In this thread:

    Epsiarch = Holly Holm

    Bill Dalasio = Ronda Rousey

  • SIV||

    ^THIS^

  • paranoid android||

    Yeah, but the issue at hand is whether the existing screening process is effective at weeding out potential bad actors. Bailey's argument is that the evidence says it is. Weeding out people who will one day have children that will grow up to become bad actors in the future is impossible, unless your suggestion is to seal all borders forever and let no one in.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Actually, the Tsarnaev brothers weren't born here. They came with their parents as children.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    Bailey's argument is that the evidence says it is.

    I'm suddenly supposed to trust Fed fuck ups that they know how to properly vet something???

  • paranoid android||

    I'm suddenly supposed to trust Fed fuck ups that they know how to properly vet something???

    It is of course typically prudent to be skeptical of such things. On the other hand, if we're starting from the premise that the government will screw up anything they try at, that's not a very stirring argument for giving them increasing amounts of power to seal the borders, is it?

  • ULOST||

    Bill says, "acknowledge the risks" which when presented honestly are about equal to attempting to clear a mine field with a blind fold on. Something that is best observed from a distance and should include a border of separation. My fingers are back in my ears now. Continue.

  • DoubtingThom||

    You generally clear minefields by feel, not sight.

  • PapayaSF||

    Well duh, sure it's possible for native-born to become terrorists, but why import tens of thousands (or as Obama plans and all the Democrat candidates agree, hundreds of thousands) of people who are statistically much more likely to be terrorists, or become terrorists, or have children or grandchildren who become terrorists, compared to the native-born? (Not to mention dislike Jews and gays and so on.)

    A poll published in November 2014 by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies found that 13% of Syrian refugees have positive feelings towards the Islamic State terrorist group.

  • Los Doyers||

    Bailey upstaged Santa by bringing Christmas to Papaya early this year.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    The vetting works on people who are vetted. It doesn't work on people who aren't.

    Sure. And that's a solid argument for careful vetting.

    You know it's possible for the children of native-born USians to become terrorists too, right?

    Well, sure. But, that's a different argument, isn't it?

  • ||

    I don't see why it's a different argument, when the refugees and asylees vetted by the feds haven't done anything but their nonvetted kids have.

  • Not okay||

    Because neither would be here.

  • ULOST||

    Vetting!? Hahahaha. How does one vet the (non-existent) records of those from the stone age residing in antagonistic, I mean, allied countries.

  • Drake||

    So part of the admittance program is mandatory sterilization.

    That is a compromise I think everyone can accept.

  • ||

    Only if Americans have to play too. Who knows what your kids will grow up into?

  • ||

    Hmmm. Mandatory sterilization might seriously crimp my crowd-funded voluntary sterilization venutre "SnipStarter".

    So, I'm against it.

  • Los Doyers||

    RISUG!

  • Drake||

    Taxpayers?

    Better they never existed.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Uh, if Twitter is any indicator, we know what American children will grow up into.

    I'm coming around on the sterilization issue.

  • ||

    mandatory autocastration.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Maybe he means to suggest it is ok to take refugees, as long as you chemically castrate them?

  • JWatts||

    Yep, that fact kind of undermines your entire article. Sorry but FAIL.

  • ||

    Why?

    Serious question. I have no idea why anyone thinks it undermines anything.

  • JWatts||

    "Hey, GOP Fearmongers: Not One Terrorist Act by Refugees in U.S.
    Trying to gain power by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people"

    Clearly the implication of the post is that Refugees don't commit terrorist acts. But if their children do at a much greater rate than normal then, Bailey is just being pedantic and his response isn't an effective argument.

    Both the Tsarnaev children and the Fort Hood shooter are the children of Islamic refugees. So, a prudent person is going to assume that it's likely the future children of Islamic refugees will also be prone to terrorism.

    That may not be a sufficient reason to stop accepting refugees from that region, but it's ridiculous to try and paint the people raising the point as fear mongers.

  • SIV||

    The Tsarnev children weren't born here they came in as asylum seeking refugees.

  • wareagle||

    asylum-seeking refugees. This does not help Ron's argument.

  • ThomasD||

    It's like a bearded-Spock version of the gun banners argument - the Second Amendment allows gun banning because otherwise we'd all be free to own an M1 Abrams.

    Likewise open borders means we simply must resettle people from regions known to harbor large numbers of murderous religious fanatics.

  • ||

    it's likely the future children of Islamic refugees will also be prone to terrorism.

    Likely? 3 people out of how many makes it likely?

  • SIV||

    Likely? 3 people out of how many makes it likely?

    It only takes one to make it certain.

  • SIV||

    Because the Tsarnev children were admitted as refugees, contrary to Bailey's lie. Two 9/11 hijackers were asylum-applicants but had not yet been granted that status (which would've made them eligible for welfare) and some number of refugee/asylum visa holders have been arrested for conspiring to commit terrorist acts. I'd say that totally undermines the entire post.

  • SIV||

    tag-fail

    strike the strike

  • Ron Bailey||

    S: Just FYI. From good ole wikipedia: In the U.S. the parents received asylum and then filed for their four children, who received "derivative asylum status".[42] ... The family settled in Cambridge and became U.S. permanent residents in March 2007. [Dzhokhar Tsarnaev] became a naturalized U.S. citizen on September 11, 2012, while in college.[1][35][39] His mother, Zubeidat, also became a naturalized U.S. citizen, but it is not clear if his father, Anzor, ever did. Tamerlan, his brother, was unable to naturalize expeditiously due to an investigation against him, which held up the citizenship process.[46]

  • SIV||

    So the whole Tsarnev family were "asylees" and not "refugees". Now tell us how no "asylees" are eligible for food stamps because they actually receive Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program benefits which they can exchange for food at the grocery store WITHOUT EVER GETTING ANY ACTUAL STAMPS.

  • JWW||

    Oh, then thats totally ok. Their asylum was DERIVATIVE.

    ugh.

  • SIV||

    At least Ron admitted he was totally wrong:

    Ron Bailey|11.16.15 @ 3:56PM|#

    Not refugees - The 2013 Boston Marathon bombers were the young children of an asylee, but not asylees themselves.
  • ||

    Ron, just an FYI from your link on the subject. an asylee is a subset of refugee. do you need a Venn diagram?

  • kbolino||

    Ron, just an FYI from your link on the subject. an asylee is a subset of refugee. do you need a Venn diagram?

    Technically, that would be an Euler diagram.

    /no bearing on the topic at hand

  • ||

    Well, it should have been sort of obvious. Don't admit people with names like Dzhokhar and Tamerlan. What happens when Jinggiz or Attila show up at the door? "Oh, well, it seems all your papers are in order. Nothing suggests you might ever cause any trouble... Come on in!"

  • Seamus||

    That's right. Because "asylum" (including "derivative asylum") is completely different from a refugee." As anyone can tell by looking at the dictionary:

    "refugee : one that flees; esp a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution."

    "asylum . . . 3 a : the protection or inviolability afforded by an asylum : REFUGE b : protection from arrest and extradition given esp. to political refugees by a nation or by an embassy or other agency enjoying diplomatic immunity."

    Completely different.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    From the source for the good old Wikipedia article [35] Finn, Peter (April 19, 2013). "Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were refugees from brutal conflict". Washington Post. Retrieved April 19, 2013.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Tamerlan Tsarnaev was born in 1986 in the Kalmyk Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, North Caucasus.[171] Dzhokhar was born in 1993 in Kyrgyzstan, although some reports say his family claims he was born in Dagestan.[172] The family spent time in Tokmok, Kyrgyzstan, and in Makhachkala, Dagestan.[84][173] They are half Chechen through their father, Anzor, and half Avar[174] through their mother, Zubeidat. Although they never lived in Chechnya, the brothers self-identified as Chechen.[172][175][176][177]

    The Tsarnaev family emigrated in 2002 to the United States,[17][175][178][179] where they applied for refugee status, settling in Cambridge, Massachusetts.[76]
  • SIV||

    But as minors they came in on their parents visa so that's totally different.

  • Free Society||

    Not surprising considering that 2nd and 3rd generation descendants of Islamic immigrants are far more likely to hold extremist views in basically any western country you examine.

  • PapayaSF||

    Yup. As France has discovered.

  • JWW||

    I have no problem advocating for turning away refugees where all previous experience indicates that they will not assimilate into the culture.

    Ironically, I also believe that over time Mexican migrants to the US assimilate very well by the 2nd or 3rd generation.

    But with Muslims, its not the same.

  • ULOST||

    "Hey, GOP Fearmongers: Not One Terrorist Act by Refugees in U.S."

    Hey, Ron. I do not give a shit about your bullshit claim. Cut off those refugees' extortion money (welfare payments) and see how quickly they overtly radicalize. Stop splitting hairs between asylees and their ungrateful children. I thought all of those children were suppose to be so innocent anyway. You know, all assimilated and shit.

  • Seamus||

    Actually, asylees are different from asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are people who are, you know, *seeking* asylum. Asylees are those who have got it.

  • Dan Bongard||

    Ron's argument relies on word games -- excluding "foreigners who came here as children of refugees" from the category of "refugees".

    So fine, Ron. Let's accept the "refugees". Provided they all leave their kids behind.

  • Jimbo||

    I read the headline as if the GOP had a bill in congress called the Not One Terrorist Act by Refugees Act.

  • RightFolks||

    They were refugees http://wapo.st/1kAb2ej

  • John||

    So it's okay if their kids do it? Jesus Fucking Christ Ron, have you lost your mind?

  • ThomasD||

    It all makes sense once you recognize that nothing can stand in the way of Reason's pending endorsement of Hillary.

  • Pulseguy||

    ISIS has specifically said they are using the quick vetting procedures to instill operatives in Western countries. Which part of that do you not understand? How then would fast tracking 75,000 mostly 18-35 year old males not pretty much guarantee 10 or 15 attacks in the US in the following year or so?

    But, maybe you don't have kids. Maybe you live somewhere safe. So, what do you care?

  • Bruce Majors||

    This is why, if we are going to accept Obama's central planning of which refugees we take in, and his MFA from NYU foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes saying we know how to vet them, all at taxpayer expense, I think we should just be consistently statist. We should have conscription for the people to run refugee centers and feed and teach and clean and entertain the refugees, the conscripted to be paid minimum wage at most. And we should conscript libertarians who apologize for this system to do it.

    Then the refugees would be able to learn all about libertarianism. Or liberaltarianism. Or bleeding heart libertarianism (probably literally once they fashion a shiv). Or hair splitting.

  • Dot||

    http://archive.courier-journal.....s-Kentucky

    A friend posted this to a similar article. Does that count?

    PS I have very mixed feelings about this issue, but this seems to be a spurious claim, particularly when parsing words to make it true.

  • Seamus||

    Are you really going to rely on that technicality?

  • Suicidy||

    Like it fucking matters. Next time that shit happens, I hope it's YOUR family or YOU that gets blown apart by these assholes. As opposed to those of us with basic sense.

  • EndTheGOP||

    Ronald Bailey says:

    "So be it, but they should nevertheless keep in mind that the brothers were two people out around 1.8 million people who were granted refugee or asylee status between 1995 and 2013."

    Well hopefully the next 2 people out of 1.8 million will destroy YOUR family Mr Bailey instead of mine, since you appear to be okay with the odds.

    Or if you could direct them to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I'd be okay with that too.

  • Marshall Gill||

    That is the key here, isn't it? Ron is willing to sacrifice what he thinks is other people so that he can look down on others as xenophobes or racists or pants-wetters. He is totally cool with a few more deaths of people he doesn't know. It is a good trade off for feeling superior about yourself.

  • ThomasD||

    Not Pennsylvania Avenue.

    Hyde Park.

  • ThomasD||

    And build them a housing project right across from Sidwell Friends.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Sidwell Friends has lovely lacrosse fields and abuts a high end nursing home. You don't have to house them all the way across the street. Indeed, why not stick them in the classrooms.

  • Always Awakening||

    This is not true...

    http://abcnews.go.com/Internat.....d=35252500

    Check it for yourself...

  • Long Woodchippers||

    but see, they attacked Americans BEFORE coming here as refugees, so that doesn't count

    Also, I think Mr. Bailey's only counting successful terrorist attacks (of which thankfully there have been few) - but what about those attacks that have been foiled before they were carried out? I seem to recall several Somalis arrested in various locations as they were planning or training.

  • Real American||

    let's not take the chance.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Thanks for deciding for us.

  • Free Society||

    Funny, I would say that of the multicult, who in the presence of a welfare state and absence of free association rights, would import 3rd world immigrants in a concerted effort to change the demographics of the United States, whether it's for political gain or fairy tales about egalitarianism. They're taking it upon themselves to squander our fragile 2500 year old inheritance bequeathed to us from men and women that bled and died to establish the principles and institutions we take for granted.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    That's not funny.

  • Free Society||

    You don't get the joke you told. If it's "thanks for deciding for us" to oppose their migration to these shores, how is not "thanks for deciding for us" to support it? Granted democratic majorities and governments should have no say in these matters, that's the system we're forced to rely on since the system afforded by free association and property rights has been effectively outlawed.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Well since the government has the power to control immigration, we may as well use it.

    Don't want them on your property? That's your business. Don't want them in your town? That's not your decision.

  • Free Society||

    Well since the government has the power to control immigration, we may as well use it.

    That's right, we have no other choice at the moment.

    Don't want them in your town? That's not your decision.

    Well that stands in direct opposition to your first sentence above. You're really not helping your argument that it's somehow unjust to craft policy opposed their migration but perfectly just to craft policy that supports it.

  • ULOST||

    I must object. Teddy Kennedy said the Immigration and Reform Act of 1965 would not change the face of America. Since when has a Kennedy ever lied. Er, a, er, a the cost of a Big Mac.

  • ||

    "our fragile 2500 year old inheritance"

    What 2500-year-old inheritance do we have that the Islamic world didn't participate in?

  • Free Society||

    Pretty much all of it? What made the Islamic Golden Age so damn golden was the relative weakness of Islamic religious authorities and the scholars were themselves known at the time to be pushing the envelope of acceptable scholarship. This is like saying that we can thank Catholicism for the works of Copernicus and Bruno.

  • R C Dean||

    I thought what made the Islamic Golden Age so shiny were all the non-Islamic dhimmis who were doing the actual math and shit that the Islamic-educated were ill-suited for, on account of Islamic education being mostly recitation of Islamic religious cant.

    But, I'm not terribly well-educated on it.

  • Free Society||

    They tolerance of the period was far and away more ethical than you see in the ME today. The rate at which they're murdering Coptic Christians and Yazidis et al makes you wonder how those groups managed to survive in the region for this long.

  • Free Society||

    The*

  • ||

    "makes you wonder how those groups managed to survive in the region for this long."

    Or it makes you wonder whether their theocratic-genocidal blood lust is really all its made out to be . . .

  • ||

    "I thought what made the Islamic Golden Age so shiny were all the non-Islamic dhimmis who were doing the actual math and shit that the Islamic-educated were ill-suited for"

    Largely non-Arabs, yes, and conversion was actually pretty slow in the conquered lands, so a lot were not Muslims, but a lot were, like Muhammad ibn Rushd and Abu 'Ali al-Husayn ibn Sina, who were two of the most influential philosophers of the late medieval period, in Europe in particular.

    When things turned was the blowback towards fundamentalism that started in North Africa in the 12th century in reaction to scientific thinkers like ibn Rushd who were questioning a lot of the traditional wisdom (in a way that got bequeathed directly to Europe in the form of Thomas Aquinas, Siger of Brabant, Thomas of Buckingham, and the like). The Muwahids of Morocco reacted in a similar manner to the way the Catholic Church did a few generations later, exiling ibn Rushd and destroying his writings.

    In neither case is any of the behavior essential to either religious tradition.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Muhammad ibn Rushd and Abu 'Ali al-Husayn ibn Sina, who were two of the most influential philosophers of the late medieval period, in Europe in particular.

    It isn't that I don't believe you, but I don't believe you. Got a cite for this claim?

  • Seamus||

    You must be joking. Any student of medieval European history would agree with the quoted statement. If you're looking for a cite, you might start here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entr.....influence/

  • Seamus||

    Or this: http://bit.ly/1MTjjzX (If you don't trust it, it's the Wikipedia article on Averroes (ibn-Rushd), the section on "Significance."

    Or this: http://bit.ly/1kCHL2A (If you don't trust it, it's the Wikipedia article on Avicenna (Ibn-Sīnā), the section on "Legacy," sub-section on "Middle Ages and the Renaissance."

    Among medievalists, saying that Avicenna and Averroes greatly influenced medieval European philosophy is about as controversial statement as saying that Thomas Aquinas was pretty important.

  • Bruce Majors||

    The Islamic rationalists, Platonist and Aristotelian Islamic scholars influenced by Plato, Aristotle and their Jewish predecessor Maimonides (just as Aquinas was), were totally routed, in terms of influence, by later Islamic theologians who rejected rationalism (I am told - I've read Avicenna and Averroes long ago in English translation). Today's Islamic theologians are not their intellectual descendants.

  • ||

    "This is like saying that we can thank Catholicism for the works of Copernicus and Bruno."

    Where to even start?

    So, you're saying that Islamic society is not part of the history of civilization because some of their religious authorities persecuted philosophers whose thought went outside the mold.

    And you're *example* why *why it is absurd* to call these people part of civilization is THE VERY SAME CIVILIZATION THAT YOU'RE SAYING IS SO MUCH BETTER -i.e. the persecution of people like Copernicus (who learned his heliocentric model from an Algerian) and Bruno by religious authorities in Europe.

    If the Islamic world doesn't count as part of the history of civilization because of religious persecution of scientific thinkers during the Renaissance, why does Europe count?

    What was happening in Germany 2500 years ago that makes it a more solid part of the history of civilization than Iraq, Syria, or Iran?

  • Free Society||

    So, you're saying that Islamic society is not part of the history of civilization because some of their religious authorities persecuted philosophers whose thought went outside the mold.

    I'm saying that Islam itself, as a belief system, did not contribute to philosophical and social innovations of European civilizations.

    If the Islamic world doesn't count as part of the history of civilization because of religious persecution of scientific thinkers during the Renaissance, why does Europe count?

    Notice I don't say the European intellectual inheritance is a product of Christian civilization, I said it's a product of European civilization.

    What was happening in Germany 2500 years ago that makes it a more solid part of the history of civilization than Iraq, Syria, or Iran?

    Not sure what you're asking. Maybe use more asterisks and CAPS LOCK.

  • ||

    "I'm saying that Islam itself, as a belief system, did not contribute to philosophical and social innovations of European civilizations"

    Because you have no idea what you're talking about. Scientific thinking was introduced to Europe in the 12th century via Islamic Spain. For a brief period, learning Arabic outstripped learning Latin as the primary way for young men to become educated.

    The first real exposure to classical Greek thinking came to Europe in Arabic translations. The Europeans worked frantically to outstrip Islamic civilization, and due to some retrograde things that were happening in North Africa and the Near East, they started succeeding in the mid-14th century (cf. Thomas Bradwardine and Merton College, Oxford).

    No Islamic civilization = no Renaissance.

    Europe is not special. Most of what you think of as scientific innovation prior to the Renaissance happened in Asia and North Africa, not Europe.

    My point about the Germans is that your precious date of 2500 years of European awesomeness puts the Germans in the forests wearing furs and brandishing spears while civilization is arising out of, wait for it, Asia and North Africa.

  • Free Society||

    Because you have no idea what you're talking about.

    So uhhh, I plainly show that you weren't addressing my argument and you move the goal posts and start talking about whatever the fuck you're going on about.

    My point about the Germans is that your precious date of 2500 years of European awesomeness

    When someone mentions European civilization from 2500 years ago, you really think they're talking about the Germans? Or are you just being disingenuous? From what I see from your debating style all up and down this thread, I think you're just being disingenuous. Cheers.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Kind of irrelevant. Pre Islamic Arabic civilization also invented the zero and algebra. Islamic culture rejected rationalism after its classical period. So European Christianity and Judaism and secular schools of thought have more connection to Averroes and Avicenna than does current Moslem theology.

  • Suicidy||

    Who gives a fuck either way. Currently, Islam is an ignorant, bloodthirsty, xenophobic, genocidal religion responsible for most armed conflict in the whole world. The worst Muslims are the ones in the ME and N Africa. Keep them far the fuck away from us.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Right. European based Christianity reformed itself 800 years ago. The Muslims don't even want to start yet.

  • ||

    Fuck, man. All the heavy cream in Rand's objectivist philosophy is skimmed right off of Ben Sina, and just about any decent European philosophical orientations after Ben Sina are in some sense derivative of his philosophy. There is some less derivative modern European philosophies, but it's all shit work.

  • Bruce Majors||

    You. not the fedgov, should be free to import at your own expense any refugee not known to have a criminal background. And then be legally responsible for his actions until he achieves citizenship.

  • ||

    Demagoguery is the practice of a politician to gain power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people

    It's also their primary tool that they go to almost every time, whether it's Trump blowharding about immigrants or Sanders blowharding about one percenters or whatever any of the blowhards are squealing about at any given time.

    They're not going to stop. Because it works. Because people are stupid, and they let it work.

  • Winston||

    "Demagoguery is the practice of a politician to gain power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people. For shame!"

    Well that is democracy for you.

  • tarran||

    I will point out one thing: my patriotism and love of freedom was the product of coming from an unfree country (Turkey) to a free one.

    It saddens me that so many Americans have so little faith in their country that they assume most people who come here from other places will fail to fall in love with it.

  • Microaggressor||

    Well, many of the young native born ones want to make it more like Venezuela.

  • Free Society||

    I have little faith in those with an Islamic ideology to not shit on all the things that make western civilization good. Insofar as Muslim immigrants come to embrace liberty and the fundamental rights of others is the degree to which that individual is un-Islamic.

    Good example, a friend of mine who is dating a Muslim girl holds her up as an example of how "not all Muslims support death for apostates, suicide bombers, conquest of the west et cetera". He said "And she dates me despite that if her parents and brother found out, they'd kill her." He unknowingly made my point for me. She may well be an example of a "good Muslim" in that regard, but that's only because of how unencumbered she is by Islam. Which cannot be said of her entire family and those Muslims who actually hold to their faith dearly. She is an outlier, there are lots of individual outliers, but they aren't the ones upon whom you can base your analysis of Islamic ideology or it's followers more generally.

  • PapayaSF||

    +1

  • Los Doyers||

    And how can you measure how much one is "unencumbered" by Islam?

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    Check and see if you've still got your clitoris?

  • Free Society||

    +1 clit

  • Los Doyers||

    IIRC, that's more of an African pagan practice rather than an Islamic one, since it's not mentioned anywhere in the Quran, and I believe it's been denounced by most Muslim clerics. I'm definitely not one to ever defend Islam, as that religion has a multitude of other issues, but my question stands: how can you possibly measure how "unencumbered" someone is by Islam? I think this ties in with Epi's point above about these horrible acts being extremely difficult to prevent.

  • Free Society||

    How do you determine if a Mormon girl is unecumbered by Mormonism? Well does she drink? Does she smoke? Does she let boys get to third base? Don't act like you couldn't tell the difference between fundamentalist Christian and a party girl with a crucifix around her neck.

  • MSimon||

    Mormon girls love to give boys fourth base and then demand marriage when there is issue at issue.

    I lived among them for a while. I have a friend who lived among them a while longer and he agrees.

  • ||

    "that's more of an African pagan practice rather than an Islamic one"

    And, IIRC, is also practiced by sub-Saharan "Christians."

  • Free Society||

    And we shouldn't be too keen to import them en masse either.

  • ||

    "And we shouldn't be too keen to import them en masse either."

    Keep your eyes on the goalposts. You're trashing Muslims, remember. Trashing Africans is for a different thread.

  • Free Society||

    You literally brought it up. I never said that Muslims are the only group that have such profound cultural backwardness. And insofar as Christianity in Sub-Saharan Africa is characterized this way, it's clearly an outlier, i.e. not what a reasonable person would say constitutes a distinctly Christian practice.

  • ||

    My point is that there is neither rhyme nor reason in your ranting. You're simply arbitrarily creating groups, applying your own definitions unencumbered by any knowledge of history, and then demonizing those groups based on those assumptions.

  • Free Society||

    Is that an argument? Accuse me of ranting, accuse of me being ignorant of X, Y and Z, accuse me of inventing categories that clearly predate this little "debate" we're having. All while not addressing any arguments that I've actually made.

  • Marshall Gill||

    My point is that there is neither rhyme nor reason in your ranting. You're simply arbitrarily creating groups, applying your own definitions unencumbered by any knowledge of history, and then demonizing those groups based on those assumptions.

    Utter projection, here. Your attempt to attack all things Western as being the product of other places as is typical of Leftists. It wasn't the horrible white people who built the modern age but the noble savages of Asia and Africa. Why these places lag behind the West in almost every category today you don't "explain". Because of us, one assumes?

  • ThomasD||

    He didn't bring it up, you did.

    You don't get to call him on his reply.

  • Free Society||

    Assuming that you're talking to a somewhat honest/ unabashed person, you could ask them; should apostates be executed? Should adulterers be stoned to death? Should women be allowed to wear X, Y or Z styles of clothing in public? Should your daughter be killed if she is raped? Is jihad legitimate? Is targeting civilians a legitimate means to a political goal? Should a young girl's clitoris be removed? Et cetera et cetera These positions almost all enjoy wide levels of support in the Islamic world, things that are basically deal breakers.

    I'm not going to get into the theological weeds of Islam with you, but it's really not hard to discern a friend of liberty from a foe.

  • Los Doyers||

    Assuming that you're talking to a somewhat honest/ unabashed person

    I have a hard time believing someone intent on carrying out an Islamic terror attack will be honest about their intentions if asked these questions.

  • Free Society||

    I have a hard time believing someone intent on carrying out an Islamic terror attack will be honest about their intentions if asked these questions.

    Check the Pew polls out. The proportion that are perfectly honest about their extremism is high enough that you might wonder how many aren't telling you about their extreme views. But I'm not claiming that to weed out a terrorist you ask him if he's a terrorist. I'm claiming that Islam itself is a religion that demands extremism, and that those who hold that faith most dear are the group from which terrorists receive their support and recruits.

  • ||

    I'm claiming that Islam itself is a religion that demands extremism, and that those who hold that faith most dear are the group from which terrorists receive their support and recruits.

    Would you say the same thing about Christianity if your friend had been dating a Christian with a conservative family?

  • Free Society||

    Well no, why would I? I don't remember the last time my town had a Christian honor killing. Is that a thing that happens with some frequency comparable that of Islamic honor killings?

  • ||

    Well no, why would I? I don't remember the last time my town had a Christian honor killing.

    Maybe that's because your town is full of fake Christians, who don't do what Real Christians (TM) know is the right thing to do.

    I mean, that's your assumption about Muslims who aren't into honor killings, right? Why not assume the same about Christians? Why would fundamentalism qua fundamentalism be right for Muslims and wrong for Christians?

  • Free Society||

    Maybe that's because your town is full of fake Christians, who don't do what Real Christians (TM) know is the right thing to do.

    Well that's good.

    I mean, that's your assumption about Muslims who aren't into honor killings, right?

    Pew Research (2013): Large majorities of Muslims favor Sharia. Among those who do, stoning women for adultery is favored by 89% in Pakistanis, 85% in Afghanistan, 81% in Egypt, 67% in Jordan, ~50% in 'moderate' Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, 58% in Iraq, 44% in Tunisia, 29% in Turkey, and 26% in Russia.

    http://www.pewforum.org/upload.....report.pdf

    Pew Research (2013): Honor killing the woman for sex outside of marriage is favored over honor killing the man in almost every Islamic country. Over half of Muslims surveyed believed that honor killings over sex were at least partially justified.

    http://www.pewforum.org/upload.....report.pdf
    Turkish Ministry of Education: 1 in 4 Turks Support Honor Killings
    1 in 5 young British Muslims agree that 'honor' violence is acceptable.

    Is it your assumption that all religions are ethically equal in their teachings and precepts?

  • R C Dean||

    Nikki, I wouldn't start down the road that Islam and Christianity are equally compatible with a libertarian society.

    That dog just won't frickin hunt. Sorry.

  • Free Society||

    Now now. Let her have as much rope as she needs to hang herself with that stupid fucking argument.

  • bacon-magic||

    Not a good argument Nikki. Name one Christian honor killing condoned by other Christians.

  • ||

    Why not? The attacker on the train in Belgium after having his gun taken away from him asked for them to give it back. I think he even said please.

  • ||

    give her a break. she's just trying to get Epi to neg her again.

  • R C Dean||

    Assuming that you're talking to a somewhat honest/ unabashed person

    I thought lying to infidels wasn't a sin to your more radical Islamic types, anyway.

  • ULOST||

    Good points. It's not like the outliers can be relied on to expose jihadists when they don't even have the courage to expose themselves to their own family's.

    The Muslim translation of embracing liberty and fundamental rights really means exploiting them and using them against their host infidels.

  • ||

    If I had more faith in our president, the competency of our government and we didn't have a terrorist state openly claiming that they are planting jihadists in with a huge flood of refugees and planning attacks I wouldn't worry.

    Also, Ron, if the bulk of the asylum seekers were like the ones in your photos I would take some of them in and raise them, even if I am a little old, myself. But that isnt the case, is it?

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    All Syrian migrant women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.

    /Garrison Keillor

  • wareagle||

    desert home companion

  • Not okay||

    The concern is for the ones that blow it up. Some percentage loving America is meaningless appeal to emotion.

  • ULOST||

    The operative word being "most people." I'm glad you fell in love. My list just shrunk by 1. :-)

  • Bruce Majors||

    They don't assume that. But they are unwilling to have hundreds of their fellows murdered because we let in 10 terrorists among 100,000 refugees that the Obama administration is too incompetent or dishonest - or malicious - to process correctly. Other countries can take them.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    I'm not worried about most people. My heart goes out to the victims of violence.

    But my head also tells me that even if a tiny fraction of the people leaving the area are embedded terrorists, then we have a big problem.

    I'm in favor of sending the bulk of Christian refugees to Christian countries, and the bulk of Islamic refugees to Islamic countries.

  • Microaggressor||

    Traditional law enforcement and security screening processes have a proven record of handling the threat from terrorist posing as refugees.

    I dunno Ron, that's a lot of faith to put in Top Men. I suppose we should thank the TSA for making air travel safe again.

  • ULOST||

    Yeah, Top Men were just a step behind the underwear and shoes. Proven record to be sure.

  • ThomasD||

    Libertarianism means putting your faith in the all knowing, all seeing, all powerful Federal government.

    Didn't you get the memo?

  • Drake||

    Yet.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    OH FUCK YOU'RE RIGHT

    /shit self, runs for cover

  • Free Society||

    Not one Syrian refugee in the US is a refugee. Unless they hopped on a plane in Aleppo or Damascus and flew to the US. The migrants come from camps in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. They come here for economic reasons, be it the welfare state or less likely, employment. That makes them migrants, not refugees.

  • ||

    Where do the Tsarnaev's fit into this? I believe the brothers were born in the U.S. but the parents?

  • ||

    Tsarnaev brothers. I blame the Bosnia-Ireland match for the error.

  • ||

    Ok. I'm off to a terrible start. Shoulda read up thread first. Sorry.

  • Jimbo||

    Just never do it again!

  • MSimon||

    Does PTSD Cause Terrorism?

    Where do you get suicide bombers? From people already inclined towards suicide. PTSD fits the bill.

  • Winston||

    I thought it was global warming?

  • ||

    Doesn't AGW cause PTSD? I am sure I have seen that somewhere.

  • MSimon||

    Discussion of the Ft. Hood shooting in the article.

    So why so few jihad mass murders in the US? The wide availability of cannabis.

  • ||

    You mean these guys?

    "The name "Assassin" is often said to derive from the Arabic word Hashishin or "users of hashish",

    "While "Assassins" typically refers to the entire medieval Nizari sect, in fact only a class of acolytes known as the fidai actually engaged in assassination work. Lacking their own army, the Nizari relied on these trained warriors to carry out espionage and assassinations, and over the course of 300 years successfully killed two caliphs, and many viziers, sultans and Crusader leaders.

    At their peak, many of the assassinations of the day were often attributed to the hashashin. Even though the Crusaders and the other factions employed personal assassins, the fact that the hashashin performed their assassinations in full view of the public, often in broad daylight, gave them the reputation assigned to them."

    Politically motivated suicide killers are nothing new. The originals were prolific dope smokers.

  • MSimon||

    Well if heavy cannabis use is a marker for PTSD what better recruiting tool?

    And I only looked at the medical aspects. Culture also has an effect. "Feeling like suicide? Kill some infidels. That will solve your problem. The infidels will kill you. After you kill some of them."

  • ||

    My comment was tongue-in-cheek.

    I joked to my father about it just yesterday. The little convenience store down the road is owned by some of them. Six mid-twenties to early-thirties guys. No women. They tend the store and smoke dope all day and night. My wife refuses to go in because they creep her out, but they are friendly to me. I call them the assassins.

  • MSimon||

    I have a tobacco store run by a few of them near by. My obvious Jewishness (the nose) used to freak them out. They are used to it now.

    They are also what passes for a head shop in Illinois.

    They used to be heavy into ME politics a few years back. Now they are either more discreet or don't care so much.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    There's a cheap gas station in Virginia, I don't know whether they're Indiana or Pakistani or what, but usually it's a couple of middle aged woman and sometimes a couple younger guys (likely sons). One of the women is quite a cougar

  • ||

    more likely it refers to haşış, which refers to opium pods, than to haşiş, being hashish as we know it.

  • MSimon||

    BTW the article is full of supporting links.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Hey, GOP Fearmongers: Not One Terrorist Act by Refugees in U.S.

    Wait a second, is that what anyone in the GOP is really focused on? I mean, sure, the issue du jour is the Syrian refugee crisis, but from my read, the GOP is concerned about Immigration at large, it doesn't matter under what circumstances that immigration happened.

    Given that what, all 17 of the 9/11 hijackers were immigrants, I believe the argument is, "restrict all immigration- especially from the M.E." which would, of course, cover Syrian refugees.

  • Bean Counter||

    Well, by all means, let's wait for a few hundred people to be slaughtered before we do anything nasty like run background checks on asylum seekers.

  • Drake||

    Now you are thinking like a leader.

  • PapayaSF||

    But of course, proper background checks on Syrians are impossible. What is ICE supposed to do? Call up Damascus and have them run checks on tens of thousands of people? Yeah, that'll work.

  • robc||

    Psych profiles?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Holy shit, that'd be worth paying for - getting college protesters from UMizz to give surveys to Syrian refugees. I bet the results would be either hilariously funny or unbeliveably cringe-worthy.

  • ||

    I can't imagine that they would look any different from copy-paste prog derp. Someone could write a program for randomly generating prog-derp and it would save them a lot of time.

  • PapayaSF||

    Can we select gay, trans, and Jewish protestors to do the interviewing? That would add to the fun.

  • ThomasD||

    "Psych profiles"

    No doubt overseen by the same people responsible for cleaning up the mess at the VA.

  • Bubba Jones||

    This is Rubio's point. He favors accepting refugees, but says vetting Syrians is a nonstarter.

  • Tak Kak||

    Is there an internal conflict in praising the extensive vetting system and being pro-open borders?

  • robc||

    No.

  • Drake||

    Yes.

    Maybe.

  • Tak Kak||

    Ajar borders?

  • Private Chipperbot||

    Jar Jar Borders?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Having open borders is the only thing that makes vetting possible. Once you start to arbitrarily deny access to people who want to get in, you empower the black market to start smuggling people under the walls.

  • Tak Kak||

    That doesn't sound very open, honestly. Just look at the LP's position on "open borders" before and after 9/11.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I think the counter argument is going to be that if you allow 100% of everyone through the border, then 100% of the undesirables are going to get in.

    I believe that opening up your borders comes along with the possibility that this type of shit is going to happen on occasion.

  • Tak Kak||

    "I think the counter argument is going to be that if you allow 100% of everyone through the border, then 100% of the undesirables are going to get in."

    Where do the libertarians who argue about "rights" or "justice" stand on this though? If they're really sincere then this shouldn't matter. Right?

  • Free Society||

    There is no natural right to immigrate to any one particular place, unless it's frontier. Sure everyone has a right to emigrate from somewhere, but what right does a Somali have to enter my property? What right does the same Somali have to use stolen property? If he doesn't have rights to either of these things, he doesn't have a right to immigrate. Immigration is a contractual right only, not a natural right. You want to help some Syrian refugees? Sponsor them, put them up in your house or your property. You have no right to force others to do so.

  • Tak Kak||

    But most libertarians do believe in a natural right to travel what with the roads being public and all. (I know Hoppe and Rothbard disagreed, but it's safe to say they're in the minority here)

    And since there's quite a bit of unoccupied land within the US is as it stands, actually stopping them from migrating would be a form of aggression (this is from Walter Block).

  • Free Society||

    But most libertarians do believe in a natural right to travel what with the roads being public and all.

    "Public" here is a euphemism for "stolen".

    (I know Hoppe and Rothbard disagreed, but it's safe to say they're in the minority here)

    The accuracy of an idea is not dependent on popularity of that idea.

    And since there's quite a bit of unoccupied land within the US is as it stands, actually stopping them from migrating would be a form of aggression (this is from Walter Block).

    How much of it is frontier? Unoccupied land isn't necessarily the same thing. One could argue that "owned" property that's not being used is forfeit, but that's a whole can of worms and in any case doesn't mean there exists a natural right to immigration for the immigrants we're talking about.

  • Tak Kak||

    "'Public' here is a euphemism for 'stolen'."

    Sure. Libertarians mostly agree there as far as I can tell.

    "The accuracy of an idea is not dependent on popularity of that idea."

    Agreed. But I'm only interested in the libertarians who *do* believe in a natural right to immigrate.

    "How much of it is frontier?"

    Couldn't say, "frontier" has multiple meanings. If we mean "un-settled" or "un-homesteaded" then most of it. Particularly in the Western states.

  • Free Society||

    Couldn't say, "frontier" has multiple meanings. If we mean "un-settled" or "un-homesteaded" then most of it. Particularly in the Western states.

    It's all owned by somebody, even if that somebody is that expropriating institution we call the state. So it's not frontier in that sense. But at what point can some 3rd party come a long and homestead a piece of these large land holdings for themselves is a topic that could an occupy the page count of an Ayn Rand book. It's hard to say for sure since the various levels of government hold a monopoly on the economic good that is title enforcement and protection. Government just fucks everything up, huh?

  • Hugh Akston||

    That's also a possibility. The risk of living in a free society is that some will use that freedom to hurt people. The alternative is to live in a police state where it is guaranteed that the people in power will use their freedom to hurt people.

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    The alternative is to live in a police state

    This is a false choice, a binary choice.

  • Hugh Akston||

    No, you either live in a free society or a police state. But police states do come with varying lengths of chains around your neck and different sets of perks for trustees.

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    So you're not into 50 shades of grey, eh? You're a utopian. That's awful sweet.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I just calls 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist.

  • Free Society||

    A free society has free association rights and well-respected property rights. We have very little of either.

  • Microaggressor||

    I don't know.

  • R C Dean||

    Is there an internal conflict in praising the extensive vetting system and being pro-open borders?

    I think its technically a "contradiction in terms."

  • ThomasD||

    No. Because shut up you racist bagger.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I have a serious question for the group..

    Republicans worry about "foreign terrorist threats", Progressives have worried about domestic terrorist threats of the violent anti-abortion, tea-party, anti-government Timothy McVeigh brand.

    Since most of the attackers were not Syrian refugees but residents of Europe, can we call this attack on France "domestic terrorism"? And if so, what say the Southern Poverty Law Center?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Racism. By Southern white males.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    So people from the Caucasus?

  • Ron Bailey||

    DR(P): That would be the southern Caucasus?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If it's south of something then it's southern.

  • ThomasD||

    Someone should warn Santa.

  • ||

    Wasn't the Charlie Hebdo attack also domestic terrorism?

    It makes perfect sense for them to bomb Syria.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    No, it was a complaint to the Newspaper Ombudsman.

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    I would call it domestic terrorism supported by an external group with an expansionist ambition.

    The immigration/migrant issues is less "pants shitting" concerning to me than reconciling the rights of second generation Muslims to promote jihad (free speech) with the rights of other citizens to live without being murdered.

  • robc||

    Leon Csolgosz(sp?) Was born in michigan. That makes him a refugee.

  • ||

    I predict that a whole lot of pants-shitting has occurred in this thread.

    *checks thread*

    Holy shit, I'm a fucking psychic or something.

  • Los Doyers||

    WHYCOME NO MUSLIM WALL

  • ||

    I thought I was being hyperbolic when I started doing the WHYCOME voice.

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    I bet there will be a whole lot of accusations of pants-shitting in this thread.

    *yep*

  • bassjoe||

    Nothing uncovers the jingo in a libertarian like a good terrorist attack by an Other.

  • ThomasD||

    "... the jingo in a libertarian..."

    "Is there an internal conflict in praising the extensive vetting system and being pro-open borders?"

  • Free Society||

    All you've contributed to any of these threads is to drop a comment or two about how everyone is a disgusting pantshitter. Not you though, your pure and acceptable views on culture and society are beyond reproach. If I predict that you'll respond with name calling and some CAPS LOCK, will that make it not come true?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I have poopy in my pantz!

  • Tricky Dickie||

    Hey, GOP Fearmongers: Not One Terrorist Act by Refugees in U.S.

    I think it's a bit early to call.

    But please, don't call me Linsdey.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's technically not true. As pointed out above, the Tsarnaev brothers were in fact refugees.

    Although we're still debating whether or not Boston was workplace violence.

  • Tricky Dickie||

    You got me.

    You can go ahead and call me Lindsey.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Isn't technically not true the best kind of not true? Or do I have that backwards?

  • ThomasD||

    It's only minitrue.

  • JasonPen||

  • MSimon||

  • Ron Bailey||

    MS: Born in the USA - Arlington, Virginia specifically

  • Rich||

    War is Hell.

  • James_R||

    How exactly do you screen a foreigner from a country with no functioning law enforcement agencies or computerized criminal databases?

  • paranoid android||

    "On a Sunday afternoon, I would like to... (Check all that apply)"

    [ ] Go for a bike ride
    [ ] Play in the park with my children
    [ ] Relax at home watching TV
    [ ] BRING DEATH TO THE INFIDELS

  • ||

    You ask them what you want to know. Good grief, you can't that figure out ?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Farcical recognition.

  • Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

    Do you me fecal recognition? I pretty sure that's possible.

  • AlmightyJB||

    On them to provide enough documentation to prove whom they are.

  • James_R||

    We're going to allow potentially dangerous criminals to provide their own documentation? Sounds like a terribly flawed strategy.

  • Not okay||

    Offer them pork.

  • ThomasD||

    "How exactly do you screen a foreigner from a country with no functioning law enforcement agencies or computerized criminal databases?"

    I'm willing to play along, so long as they tell me how many rejects they identify, and what they do with them once they find them.

  • MSimon||

    Does PTSD cause terrorism? It seems like terrorists have all the symptoms.

    Unquenchable anger and the desire for suicide being the chief symptoms in this case. A lack of empathy for others is also a feature.

    http://classicalvalues.com/201.....terrorism/

  • MSimon||

    And I only looked at the medical aspects. Culture also has an effect. "Feeling like suicide? Kill some infidels. That will solve your problem. The infidels will kill you. After you kill some of them."

  • ||

    Also, quibbling about whether it was asylum seekers, refugees, migrants, or native born that commit these acts is a bit dishonest. Obumbles engages in these kinds of semantic games.

    Concern doesn't stem from any of that. It stems from the fact that the vast majority of terror acts in the world are committed by people with a more or less common culture.

  • Free Society||

    It rhymes with Schmislam.

  • Marshall Gill||

    It starts with *I* and ends with *slam*?

  • Ron Bailey||

    S: Check out the Global Terrorism Database - 140,000 incidents since 1970. Briefly searching terms "Islam" and "Muslim" I turn up 7452 and 3228 incidents respectively. Looking deeper the vast majority of the incidents occur in Muslim majority countries. BTW, "Christian" only turns up 841 incidents. Oddly, when I search "Religious" I get only 3981 incidents.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Not useful. If you search for either, the following incident:

    Assailants attacked a military camp in Ashigashiya area, Extreme-North region, Cameroon. It is unknown if the attack resulted in casualties. Boko Haram claimed responsibility for the incident.

    doesn't come up, even though Boko Haram is responsible. Bad tagging, I suspect.

  • R C Dean||

    Shitty database gives garbage results.

    Film at 11.

  • Dan Bongard||

    Looking deeper the vast majority of the incidents occur in Muslim majority countries

    So they're carried out by, what, secret Jewish terrorist groups? Atheists? Buddhists?

  • R C Dean||

    Its either Hindu nationalists, or Presbyterians.

  • DesigNate||

    or Presbyterians.

    Damn! They're onto us.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Christian sectarian conflict between Protestants and Catholics killed roughly 8 million Europeans between 1618 and 1648.

    Imagine if they had AKs and high explosives!

  • Homple||

    Funny you should bring that up. The Catholics and Protestants managed to get tired of slaughtering each other after 30 years. The Shia and Sunnis have been at it for 1300 years or so and aren't done yet. That's some serious perseverance right there.

  • DoubtingThom||

    Except your first sentence is completely lacking in historical accuracy.

  • R C Dean||

    a more or less common culture

    White Privilege, right?

  • NukemHill||

    I was for Open Borders. But then Barnes & Noble put them out of business.

  • DoubtingThom||

    Borders had much better tea...

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    Freedom became a lost cause in this country when we started letting Eastern Europeans in in the latter half of the 19th century, socialism got its foothold and it's only gotten stronger Giving the trollops the right to vote was just another nail in the coffin.

    Can the remaining 2 or 3 percent of us that actually give a shit about freedom get put on sovereign reservations?

  • ||

    Excellent. Perfect imitation of the yokels. Just the right amount of over-the-topness.

  • R C Dean||

    Now that's what I call a paleocon.

    Newsletter, etc.?

  • CatoTheYounger||

    A sovereign reservation full of white anglo saxon protests?

    I think we call that Utah.

  • PapayaSF||

  • Free Society||

    Thank you.

  • AlmightyJB||

    No Gamboling baby. No Gamboling on the dance floor.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Mises should do a better job of protecting its own borders from people like Lew Rockwell.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If we allow anyone to register on the website, everyone will register.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    It's no more compelling than it was on Thursday.

    And do you all really want to align yourselves with Hoppe?

  • tarran||

  • Tak Kak||

    Wasn't Mises himself extremely hostile to immigration restriction?

  • Free Society||

    Being a Jew that was chased out of his home by the Nazis, yes.

  • PapayaSF||

    But being a Jew, I doubt he'd want lots of Third-World Muslims around him....

  • Tak Kak||

    I reckon no one asked him "what about the Right of Nazi's to immigrate?"

    Unrelated: Reading his short essay on the subject, he does seem to limit his view of open immigration to America and Australia to "White European workers". Not sure whether that's intentional view or race, or just because of the Shadow of the World Wars.

  • Free Society||

    I reckon no one asked him "what about the Right of Nazi's to immigrate?"

    Not sure about that. Back in the day, no one really thought twice about banning Nazis in their immigration schemes. In fact, I think that's a valid basis to deny an application in most western countries. So ideological disqualification is already a thing, we just have to pretend that some ideologies aren't festering pits of evil and allow them anyways.

    he does seem to limit his view of open immigration to America and Australia to "White European workers". Not sure whether that's intentional view or race, or just because of the Shadow of the World Wars.

    Because he knew we live in democracies and that mass amounts of ideologically incompatible people is problematic to say the least. Western Europeans in general are part of what you might call the "Freedom club", which are the only societies in world and in history where our particular devotion to principles of liberty and rational ethics actually exist to any appreciable extent.

    Pretending that if you import a massive amount of anti-freedom people from to a place that it won't change the political culture of that place is absurd. The question is then, do people in a society have a right to protect their political culture? I'm not a cultural nihilist so I say yes. I'm also not a statist so I don't think the state is a good mechanism to achieve this, but it's what we're stuck with.

  • Tak Kak||

    "Not sure about that. Back in the day, no one really thought twice about banning Nazis in their immigration schemes. In fact, I think that's a valid basis to deny an application in most western countries. So ideological disqualification is already a thing, we just have to pretend that some ideologies aren't festering pits of evil and allow them anyways."

    Agreed. For better or worse, I'm not nearly as extreme as Mises, so I wish I knew more about his view here.

    "Because he knew we live in democracies and that mass amounts of ideologically incompatible people is problematic to say the least. Western Europeans in general are part of what you might call the "Freedom club", which are the only societies in world and in history where our particular devotion to principles of liberty and rational ethics actually exist to any appreciable extent."

    Eh, I'll have to look at the timeline but I vaguely recall in another work he did mention other races and ethnicities moving to the open space of the US. (Nation, State, and Economy maybe?). The context may have been different though.

  • Hugh Akston||

    The real problem with immigration under anarchism is that without a welfare state, what would crypto-racists use as a dog whistle?

  • PapayaSF||

    So Islam is a race now?

  • Free Society||

    When it's convenient for it's apologists, yes.

  • DesigNate||

    Wouldn't it be crypto-antireligionists?

  • R C Dean||

    The history of the U.S. refugee program demonstrates that the lengthy and extensive vetting that all refugees must undergo is an effective deterrent for terrorists.

    Lengthy and extensive vetting doesn't sound much like open borders.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Or like Syria

  • Tuan Jim||

    Aside from the Tsarnaevs, did the Somali community in MN wind up there as a refugee policy or an asylum policy?

    While admittedly their acts of terror may have taken place overseas, there have been a surprising number of them more than happy to volunteer for jihad over the past decade or so. That their suicide bombings, etc didn't take place on US territory is hardly a glowing endorsement of their assimilation into proper society.

  • FatDrunkAndStupid||

    It should also be noted that Tsarnaev's father was connected to Chechnya's ruling elite. He and his family were in danger. To the contrary, they were the sort of people everyone else needed to be afraid of. So besides letting in terrorists, our refugee program apparently can't even distinguish between actual refugees and their oppressors.

  • SIV||

    Oppressors are first in line. It takes influence connections and clout to score one of those limited visas

  • Dan Bongard||

    The prophet of Islam taught that atheists were to be killed. Most modern Muslims still agree with him.

    I'm an atheist. Anyone who looks up to Mohammed can eat poo and die, so far as I'm concerned.

  • Reflections||

    We have more to fear from law enforcement than terrorists.

  • Dan Bongard||

    Sure, but nothing prevents us from dealing with both problems at once.

  • R C Dean||

    In fact, if I have to choose between banning immigration from MENA, or continuing to allow it but giving the police even more power (because of the risk of terrorism from MENA migrants), I'll go with a ban, thanks.

    Naturally, I'm betting we'll get both, because compromise.

  • RickC||

    This.

  • pronomian||

    How many terrorist acts have there been in France by refugees before the ones in Paris? I really don't know.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Prolly have to go back to the Moroccan occupation.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Algeria... fuck. That was some rookie shit on my part.

  • JeremyR||

    Uh, we had some Bosnians here in St. Louis get arrested for shipping stuff to ISIS

  • SIV||

    Denier! The demographic science is settled.

  • The artist known Dunphy||

    Good to see so much REASON here, apart from Epi of course

    Bailey is mixing a word salad. Call it inaccurate, disingenuous, or simply utter rubbish as you will

    Tsarnaev brothers as have been pointed out, as well as plenty of native born sons of refugees prove his claim wrong

    This isn't pants-shitting. And one can still be pro admitting refugees WHILE acknowledging the fact that Bailey is wrong

    It's nice to see yet again that reason (Bailey) demonstrates yet again that this libertarian flagship is no different from the Nation or NRO

    none are above twisting facts for an agenda

    The article is simply put - a lie

    Again, good on all the people here who are willing to call it what it is

    Just as some leftists will attack truth tellers with 'racist!!!' I guess the equivalent here is 'pants-shitter'

  • Angry Mob||

    The broader point is that Muslims have a higher propensity to condone terrorism. Admitting large numbers of Muslim refugees from anywhere inevitably leads to *some* increased risk - even if you have 100% faith that the vetting process is perfect, which it isn’t. Several attacks by refugees have been stopped *after* they passed screening, which is akin to saying that “the system worked” because the underwear bomber didn’t detonate.

    According to Pew, only 57% of Muslims globally have unfavorable views of Al Qaeda, vs. 13% favorable. Compared to 81% unfavorable / 5% favorable for US Muslims. Even if integration lowers the % there would still be a net effect of *increasing* the population sympathetic to Islamic terrorism.

    Categorizing that increased risk as demagoguery seems disingenuous. For shame!

    Fun fact: 68% of US Muslims prefer “a larger government providing more services”

  • Roland Blunt||

    Not sure how the linked article substantiates the claim that there is no danger from refugees.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congr.....nto-the-us

    "A 2013 study by Daniel Milton, Megan Spencer, and Michael Findley found that the location of resettlement for refugees is critical in determining whether refugees would be susceptible to to extremism. The study found that refugees placed in countries that had historic rivalries with their countries of origin were more at risk of becoming radicalized than refugees settled elsewhere. "

    http://www.michael-findley.com.....rorism.pdf

    "To say that all refugees (or even that a large portion of them) are potential terrorists is a misguided interpretation of these results that might lead to attempts by states to implement blanket bans on allowing refugees into their countries. This would be an unfortunate and incorrect extension of the results presented here, to say the least. Refugees undergo terrible experiences and often deserve assistance from both the states into which they have fled and the international community at large.

    Not all refugees will become terrorists, but the size of refugee flows could increase the distribution of individuals’ will to engage in terrorism."

    It's always in the "but"

  • Cytotoxic||

    This is drivel. There still hasn't been any attacks.

  • ant1sthenes||

    As long as you come up with excuses to handwave away the attacks that there have been, then there haven't been any.

  • Homple||

    "And as I stand before you on December 6, 1941, I can assure you that Japan has never attacked the United States."

  • Roland Blunt||

    So you agree with the conclusion of the author who states "Number 2 is most relevant to the fearmongering Republicans pols" which cites the drivel from thehill.com article which cites drivel from a study about Refugee Flows and Transnational Terrorism.

    The study is cited to show "national security risks in not accepting refugees far outweigh the risks of welcoming them into the country"

    When you actually look at the study they say:

    "None of the language inside this paper should be construed as applying to the refugee population at large. We have tried to use language that emphasizes the possibility of terrorism arising from within refugee flows, and are not implying that the two are equal to each other in any way. That said, we have found compelling statistical and anecdotal evidence that acts of terrorism can emerge from within the refugee population. Our hope is that by understanding the potential danger, states can better protect and treat the countless numbers of innocent refugees as part of a solution to the challenge of terrorism."

  • XM||

    The chances of my getting robbed past midnight is low, but I still lock the door at night. That's not a desperate act of irrational fear, it's common sense.

    It's not in the nation's interest to accept thousands of migrants from hostile regions of the middle east, especially when there's no consensus how to properly vet these people. Accepting refugees is a MORAL decision and not mandated by the constitution.

    Why don't we just send troops there to transport masses of people who want to leave? Why leave it to them to risk their lives at the hands of smugglers and the turbulent seas? We should disregard the fact that many of them are economic migrants who use falsified records and at least one terrorist was already uncovered among their ranks?

    Refugees from Cuba or Southeast Asia who arrived in 2001 are not terror suspects. They don't come from terrorist states. I'm all for taking in individuals specifically targeted by their state because of their faith, race, etc. I'm not down with us accepting thousands of young kids from places like Jordan who just want to escape their crap economy. It's not worth increasing the risk of us getting hit here, however small.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "Accepting refugees is a MORAL decision and not mandated by the constitution."

    The USC does not grant the USG authority to keep immigrants out.

    "I'm not down with us accepting thousands of young kids from places like Jordan who just want to escape their crap economy. It's not worth increasing the risk of us getting hit here, however small."

    "I'm okay with Medical Marijuana, but I don't want it on the streets. Legalization is just not worth the risk."

  • Bubba Jones||

    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

  • DesigNate||

    One of these things is not like the other.

  • Dan Bongard||

    The USC does not grant the USG authority to keep immigrants out.

    You are correct: under the US Constitution, the power to deny entry to non-citizens is retained by the states. The Constitution only protects the freedom of movement of citizens, and gives the US Congress the power to establish procedures for becoming one. The right of states to determine who can and can't enter was a pre-existing state power, and thus covered by the 10th amendment.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Typically excellent column by Doherty. You can tell from how agitated the yokels are over it.

  • ant1sthenes||

    How about we compromise, and only take orphans from under the age where they've internalized the nastiness of that part of the world? Say, eight and under. Shit, we could probably get ten thousand of those easily.

  • MMaurer73||

    Hey Ronald nice job slitting hairs with the Tsarnaev Brothers.....However given that this current crop from Syria...You know the ones that turned Oslo Norway, the one time safest city in the world for women, into Rapetown AND are almost ALL military aged males, After Paris are you really foolish enough to think the statistics you site are going to hold up here?! Are you thinking that the refugees that come here from Syria going to be any different than those behind THOSE attacks?!

  • Mark P||

    Has reason magazine lost its mind? Four points: One, at least one of the terrorists in the Paris attacks was a Syrian immigrant; two, the Syrian refugees are mostly Sunni, and therefore come mostly from areas controlled by Isis, not Assad; three, Isis is actively training Sunnis in Syria to become terrorists and has intimated that they will send jihadis disguised as refugees; four, the US government is lying about their ability to vet these refugees, as they can get no accurate information from Syria (both Assad and Isis are enemies and have no reason to cooperate, and there are no U.S. boots on the ground). Although this is primarily a security issue, it is also an economic and cultural issue. It is a fact that the Syrian refugees in Lebanon caused wages to fall and raised unemployment; but at least the refugees in Syria were living in a similar culture speaking a common language.

  • Bhrusovsky||

    What about the Somali refugees in MN being recruited for ISIS?

  • mfckr||

    Someone should explain how the state-facilitated import of refugees is somehow a coherent Libertarian position.

  • Mark P||

    Another point: statistical arguments--even if based on accurate data--are not valid arguments. Say a great college football coach has never lost a game when his team was leading in the 4th quarter. But now his team is ahead by only one point going into the 4th, and his opponent has first & goal one inch away from a TD; and his star quarterback has been injured and is unable to return, the backup completely lacking in experience. Obviously, the existential situation overrides the data, and it is reasonable to worry his streak will come to an end. Similarly in the case of the Syrian refugees, the existential data overrides the data. The refugees are coming from a country that is actively training terrorists; moreover, Isis is a Sunni organization, and the refugees are largely Sunni; furthermore, Isis has intimated that they may send jihadis abroad disguised as refugees, and one refugee has already been involved in the Paris attack. This existential situation is much different than previous refugee situations, and thus it is reasonable to worry our streak will come to an end.

  • The artist known Dunphy||

    Excellent points

    This reminds me of Seattle's former (vs current) idiot mayor who insisted riots could not happen here during WTO because Seattle just doesn't have riots

    Despite the fact riots were following WTO around Europe like flies on a summers day (thanks Bertrand)

    And I agree - asking the govt to vet thousands especially from locales that are practically still in the dark ages

    As pointed out, an incredibly high %age of foreign born Muslims per Pew etc are sympathetic to murderous Islamist tactics, and we know one of the Paris terrorists was a refugee from Syria

    Furthermore, what about an alternate solution. Refuge for refugees could be set up somewhere outside our borders

  • JasonPen||

    What about the Iraqis in Bowling Green that were caught in a sting by the FBI? They were attempting to buy missiles or something...
    http://www.npr.org/2011/06/08/.....-screening

  • The artist known Dunphy||

    You haven't heard?

    Any inchoate offense interrupted by law enforcement or weapons purchase sting by FBI is always hapless, innocent, mentally challenged etc innocents dragged into / entrapped by law enforcement that actually represented no real
    Threat but was instead a manufactured crime by the govt

    Or so goes the typical response here

  • thrakkorzog||

    Simple solution to the refugee crisis. The only reason there haven't been more successful attacks in the US is because the shoe bomber, underwear bomber, times square bomber were morons. So before any refugee comes in they have to take an IQ test, and anybody who scores over 90 is rejected. We can change the the plaque on the statue of liberty to say "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to mouthbreathe."

  • Rg1221||

    Actually, Rand Paul is for stopping immigration from 25 countries specifically, and nearly EVERY terrorist attack committed on American soil was perpetrated by immigrants from countries on that list. So...the argument this article makes is unwarranted for those advocating a similar stance to Paul.

  • JasonPen||

    Mohanad Shareef Hammadi and Waad Ramadan Alwan were both convicted of terrorism charges in 2013... Both Iraqi refugees living in Bowling Green, KY.

  • RoninX||

    Rubio has argued that we should reject 10,000 refugees if just one of them could be a terrorist, but does that really make sense from a libertarian perspective?

    Do we block 9999 innocent refugees to keep out one ISIS terrorist?

    Do we take guns away from 9999 innocent gun owners to disarm one mass murderer?

  • Dan Bongard||

    Nobody has a right to live in the nation of their personal choice. Everybody has a right to self-defense. While Reason magazine believes that libertarianism requires an open-borders policy, that is neither a universal libertarian belief nor a rational one.

    Also, in my opinion it is dishonest to use the word "refugee" here. A refugee is a person seeking safety. A person who travels six thousand miles, skipping dozens of closer, equally-safe countries along the way, is obviously looking for more than just safety.

  • RoninX||

    People have the right to move freely, as long as they aren't trespassing on anyone's property. If a Mexican migrant wants to work on a farm owned by an American who wants to hire him, there's no libertarian justification for having the state initiate the use of force to stop him.

    As far as the term "refugee" goes, your point would be accurate if all of those other countries weren't also capping the number of refugees they accept, but they are. There are more refugees than there are spots allocated to accept them (even in the EU), so it's not surprising that the refugees will take whatever opportunity they have. Of course, some of them may also want to come for the freedom and economic opportunity found in a free market economy, as have American immigrants throughout the entire history of the country.

  • CatoTheYounger||

    Why not copy the Dutch? In order to immigrate to the Netherlands, you are shown some videos with "questionable moral content" (e.g. two gay guys kissing) and if you do so much as flinch, you are not welcome into the Netherlands.

    That is a far more libertarian solution, and can weed out the crazies from the refugees.

  • thrakkorzog||

    One obvious problem is that a lot of people, including the Christians being persecuted and a lot of the U.S. soldiers itching to go fight ISIS, would flinch at watching two guys making out. That doesn't exactly make them Islamic militants.

    It would probably be easier to set a 'Women and Children' first response. One of the big complaints about this refugee crisis is that about 75% of the refugees are fighting age men. The counter argument is that since the trek to Europe is so long and arduous, only healthy young men bother. Since the trip to the US is basically getting on a boat or plane, the difficulty of the migration is a moot point.

    So set up a quota system, families first, 51% of adult refugees have to be women. And set up a witness protection type system for the ladies and their kids.

    So when the some family comes in claiming refugee status, take the wife to a separate room, and tell her something along the lines of, "Hey, ISIS has been known to go around enslaving and raping women. I wouldn't put it past them to try to use one of their slave women to get a free pass as a refugee. So say the word, and we lock up your 'husband' in Gitmo, and put you and your kids in witness protection. You get the same benefits either way, but if you want to rat out your ISIS rapist, abusive 'husband', now is the time to do it."

  • Independent Bill||

    Yeahhh this is the same great "Vetting" process that allowed Casto to empty his prisons in the 80s and send them as refugees to Miami. Doesnt anyone remember this? Little Havana still does i garauntee. yes alot of them were women and children, i hing out with them, but a Whole lot were molesters and thieves and turned into worse criminals when they got here. I was there and i saw it first hand. Im watching Scareface now... fitting i guess. All I am saying is those refugees were "Vetted" also and it was a joke. they were all eventually let loose on the streets. none turned back. I had great Cuban friends, and they were afraid of these guys. they ran little havana. Now move the clock ahead to the kind of "bad guys" these radical jiadists are and you get just a few in and they WILL cause problems. It is stupid to think otherwise. I loved my Cuban friends, but even they will tell you the vetting is a joke and bad guys will get in. be ready. its coming.

  • DonnaD||

    I agree with welcoming refugees. They are fleeing for their lives, have been through tragedy, and if it were me I would want someone to open their doors for safety. It is not refugees that are concerning. It is the heinous terrorists looking to exploit humanitarian efforts for evil purposes that need to be stopped. What is being done to ensure terrorists are not posing as refugees to infiltrate the US? US citizens and Syrian refugees that have traveled so far for safety deserve security. I would also like to point out this story http://archive.courier-journal.....s-Kentucky

  • BruceLeeRoy||

    Not one? I find that very hard to believe, but I am always skeptical of numbers, particularly of advocacy numbers, and plays on the definitions of words. How many have attempted an act of terror and were thwarted? How many are enablers? How many in other countries - just for comparison? But, if it is such a great idea, let's import millions of them. We have between 11 to 20 million illegal immigrants, why not the same number of Muslim refugees from the Middle East just for some balance? I mean, aren't most of our Hispanic brothers and sisters undocumented immigrant "refugees" in an expansive use of the word, seeking a better life than the one they're leaving? I mean if 200,000 Muslim refugees makes people feel good, then shouldn't millions or tens of millions make those said same feel downright orgasmic? And wouldn't it dovetail nicely into the idea of #FairShare? And with them being predominantly young Muslim males, our young women would also reap a great bounty. #NothingButWins #RoundsOnTheHouse

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Why do people even feel the need to respond to libertarians anymore? If the point "does not belong at the grownup table" hasn't been made by now, what would it take?

  • Bruce Majors||

    Oh lord. The hair splitting in this piece is ridiculous. You don't have to publish everything you write.

  • jimmyrustler||

    more and more Reason sounds like the cat ladies at Salon. Both want to force Islamic refugees down our throat using government force.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Damn. Ron got chewed up and shit out.

    And I agree with Warty. There are pants-shitters here. The article was written by one and all his cronies joined in.

  • Voice_of_Reason||

    The author of this article is dissembling.

    "not one" refugee committed a terrorist act in the US, if you use the author's nit-picky definition of refugee.

    But WashPost says you're wrong:

    www.washingtonpost.com/politic.....story.html

    "Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were refugees from brutal Chechen conflict"

    plus we know for a fact that the CHILDREN of refugees have committed terrorist acts in the US.

    And here's the kicker: at least one of the Paris terrorists was a "refugee".

  • pronomian||

    Whew! That was scary. Now that we know that we have never been attacked by a refugee implies that we will never be attacked by a refugee(s). And we were worried. But wait, we were never attacked by the japanese prior to 1941, no radical muslim ever hijacked an airplane and used them as bombs before they did. Hmm, but this is different, why? I don't know but it is.

  • HenryC||

    Yet. Sooner or later it will happen. Still taking then in is likely the lesser evil.

  • tbryner||

  • Chrissycrunch||

    If you don't count that whole Boston Marathon bombing thing, maybe this article is correct that no refugees have committed terrorist acts in the USA. Who fact checked this? That was 2013. Only four died so maybe that does not count despite the dozens of blown off limbs and head injuries?

  • SDN||

    Ron bailey is a typical liar working in the Fifth Column. He'll ignore any facts he doesn't like.

  • RealityBytes||

    How soon we forget.....Boston Marathon bomber....."The suspects were
    then identified as two brothers whose family had immigrated to the United
    States as REFUGEES around 2002: 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev and 19-year-old
    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev"

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Ron declared them non-refugees after they gained asylee status. Remember, English is secondary to the Cosmotarian Style Guide.

  • 11bravo||

    In response to the ridiculous headline, "there has been no evidence "so far" Hillary has violated any law.

  • Machtyn||

    2 Iraqi refugees arrested in Bowling Green, KY for terrorism.
    http://archive.courier-journal.....s-Kentucky

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Maybe Reason will explain how that act does not count as terrorism in a future article by guest writer Billy Ayers.

  • Machtyn||

    Bosnian refugee arrested in St. Louis for material support of ISIS.
    https://goo.gl/UkwYEv

  • John C. Randolph||

    The key lesson from the Boston bombing is that the FBI should fucking pay attention when a foreign intel service says "Hey, we think those guys want to kill people in your country", even if it's the Russians saying it.

    Hoover was informed of the Pearl Harbor attack too, he just ignored it because he personally disliked the British agent who told him about it.

    -jcr

  • SDN||

    Ronald Bailey, if you want them, take them. As long as only your family and friends are in danger, I don't care.

  • jimmyrustler||

    Ronald like other liberals wants to import thousands of refugees then "FORCE YOU" to pay by application of government force.

  • Anna Lacey||

  • Wizard with a Woodchipper||

    This headline is flat out misleading. What about two Iraqi refugees who back in 2013 were attempting to purchase stinger surface to air missiles in Bowling Green, KY, to ship to Iraq? These asshats were in fact terrorists who had used IEDs against Americans in Iraq and engaged in other terrorist activities there. According to news accounts, they were refugees who had been vetted by us and gained entry into our country.

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

  • Wizard with a Woodchipper||

    A point apparently made earlier today!

  • Mark P||

    Why is the US administration discriminating against Syrian Christians in favor of Syrian Sunnis? Isis is known for beheading Christians merely for their religious beliefs--is this not religious persecution deserving of refugee status?
    Moreover, Syrian Christians are obviously not being recruited by Isis for training in terror. Yet only 3% of the refugees to date are Christian, whereas in Syria, 10% are Christian. On the other, Isis is a Sunni organization and trains only Sunni Muslims. They are not known for killing other Sunnis, although they will certainly kill other Muslims, namely the Shia. So the Sunnis in Syria are not in as much danger as the Christians, and pose even more of a threat to us; yet they are being favored by our administration. Any explanations?

  • NavyWings||

    Tsarnaev brothers were refugees from Chechnya. Your article is now worthless.

  • maki||

    Ron, you cite your credential as a "science" correspondent and use "GOP" and "Fearmongers" as an opening gambit in your ad hominem headline. Not impressed. Furthermore, your entire argument is a red herring by tying your assumptions to the origin of people with refugee status and making fine distinctions between native and "asylee" terrorist acts. The common thread in all of those attacks is ideology. We are not banning "refugees" (as if it is only the word which disqualifies them); we are banning people coming from Islamic countries. They do not assimilate; they radicalize; and they marginalize other populations (gays and women). Also, this being REASON magazine, can we get an alternative perspective? And maybe we can get an equally affective photograph from the opposite point of view, perhaps one that features Islamists cutting off the heads of men, women, and children.

  • Jim Walsh||

    Let me play devil's advocate here...

    "Not one attack by a refugee..."

    ...yet...

  • Ron||

    it only takes one

  • Bluwater||

    You mean other than the 2 that have just been indicted in Bowling Green KY.

    http://archive.courier-journal.....s-Kentucky

    Or the Kuwaiti born killer of the men in Chattanooga

    Or the 72 that were convicted last year alone, 26 of which have already been identified as foreign born despite non-cooperation from the Justice Department hiding that information and refusing to release it. They are from Bangladesh, Somalia (5), Yemen, Bosnia (6), Uzbekistan (4), Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Syria, Iraq, Sudan (2), Ghana, and Kuwait.

    Yeah, I know you'll find some way to say these don't count just like the Boston bombers don't count and you'll probably say that because the Bowling Green guys were only involved with shipping weapons to kill US soldiers oversees that it doesn't matter. But bottom line Sparky, the people they killed do count, there are many foreign born people here involved in terrorism, and you drawing a line between a refugee, an illegal, or someone who is here on a green card or naturalized doesn't matter one damn bit. It's a distinction without a difference, and basically, you're full of shit.

  • ThomasD||

    I guess seventy is "not one."

    http://tiny.cc/288d6x

  • ThomasD||

    It's GOP Fearmongers vs. Hillary's Scrotemongers.

    We know which side Bailey is on.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Was he one of the Reason staff who voted for Obama?

  • thebull||

    ahhh the reason I unliked and unfollowed reason, outright lies and propaganda for the leftwing agenda.

  • whburgess||

    Wow. A take on particular news snippet doesn't get more context free than this.
    There is a reason this particular form of 'demagoguery' has only recently come into existence--er..like this week--even though refugees have been coming to this country for decades.
    It's called ISIS. A recently new development in the world who have made specific promises regarding infiltrating refugees.
    The actual demagoguery is in completely ignoring this in one's haste to demonize ideological opponents.

  • Scouch||

    What about Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi in Bowling Green, KY? Iraqi refugees Arrested, tried and convicted on federal terrorism charges.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Well, according to Bailey (see upper portion of thread) if they were granted asylum, they were asylees instead of refugees, therefore they do not count as refugees and any acts they do should not count against any other terrorists trying to visit your town.

    Expect a quick switch in the near future on what terrorism is and don't bother with a dictionary either.

  • Don1970||

    This article is not true. There have been instances of refugees in the US that have committed terroristic threats or acts. Here's an example:

    http://archive.courier-journal.....s-Kentucky

    I hate it when journalists make up stories and people believe whatever they read.

  • jimmyrustler||

    i like how 70 percent of the refugees are men, but this article's image gives the impression that they are harmless looking children.

  • Paul8550||

    Boston Marathon bombers were refugees.

  • Always Awakening||

  • SIV||

    How about a retraction, Reason?

    Ron Bailey has gone from inaccuracy-filled sloppiness to outright lies.

  • ThomasD||

    Retraction?

    Hell, they are going to link back to this for support when they issue their Hillary endorsement.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Retraction? They are just getting the dust knocked off of the old WUO Style Guide as edited by Dorhn and Ayers. Everybody knows that a good Cosmotarian has to strike a balance between Worker's World and VOX.

  • Mark P||

    Besides the fact that statistical arguments are invalid (accurate predictions can only be made by understanding CAUSAL RELATIONS), REASON MAGAZINE is with Obama in viciously attacking people that have legitimate security concerns, while ignoring the real threat of Islamic terrorism and its culture of death. The fear for our security is not irrational--as the author suggests--it is real. In fact, it is a given that ISIS will have a successful terrorist attack in America--the only question is when, and how many will be killed. So it is perfectly legitimate to take measures to increase security and minimize the upcoming destruction. In regard to the Syrian refugees, three points, One, there is no need for them to come--Assad has already offered these refugees safe haven in a sanctuary city in Syria, with good accommodations, hospitals, and UN inspection. Two, high ranking officials in the FBI, the state department and homeland security have stated that it is likely that Isis will be able to infiltrate the refugee population in Syria. Three, Isis operatives--whether or not they are already in the US or the ones trying to sneak in with the refugees--will be planning terrorist attacks in the US. I find it morally offensive that REASON MAGAZINE considers those concerned about US security to be the problem, and not the actual perpetrators of evil.

  • Ron||

    Refugees aren't terrorist really tell that to the daily mail
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....error.html

  • ||

    47 House Democrats voted for the Syrian refugee suspension of Syrian refugees. Why is the headline singling out the GOP?

    If the Syrians have fake passports, won't they just buy fake non-Syrian passports instead?

  • ThomasD||

    Bipartisanship only matters when it is a smattering of Republicans crossing over to support a Democrat wedge issue.

    In other news I wasn't watching where I was walking today so I had to scrap some of Ron Bailey's credibility off my shoe.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    It could have something to do with Obama saying something nice about pot once.

  • Arthur45||

    Baily seems to think ISIS is simply making phony threats. ISIS doesn't make phony threats you moron. And we haven't accepted many refusgees, but ISIS and knowledgeable Syrians predict they will get in, and our officials acknowledge that we don't have the ability to vet the tens of thousands who enter our country from Canada,, Mexico or as a Syurian refugee stream. Let's see Baily put his money where his mouth is and promise to resign if
    his Pollyannaish ideas about refugees aren't true. Doesn'y Baily havea clue about the number of murders committed by the non-OISIS refusgees from Mexico? Is he really this clueless? Why does he gamble our lives on his idiotic
    beliefs.?

  • ||

    There were no 9/11 attacks in 70s, Islamic terrorism was not considered a threat and US had money to fight wars.

    Today's situation is different and probably warrants caution. The scare mongering is idiotic but I do think Rand Paul is making some sense. A handful of refugees trying to get refuge in the personal capacity and connections is a different thing from millions of people trying to freeload off the European welfare states and USA.

    I think these people should be welcome to USA provided they do not get any state welfare.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Yea, we only had 100 bombs per month going off in California. Political acts of violence were rampant across the country to the point that firebombs became the weapon of choice for real property insurance fraud.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    I am canceling my own damn subscription.

  • TGGeko||

    Here's seven examples.
    http://redbloodedamerica.tumbl.....-in-the-us

    The things you have said in this article are not true.

  • HTuttle||

    Not a single person was killed by an avalanche in the US this summer, therefore you are perfectly safe skiing or hiking anywhere this coming winter!

  • the 4th survivor||

    "Trying to gain power by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people."

    Reminds me of liberals.

  • trutherator||

    Well Obama's story line on the 10s of 1000s of "children" and people who poured into the country couple of years ago from Central America was that they were fleeing gang violence.

    The entire population of Honduras has had periods of well-grounded fear from gangs. Families chopped up into garbage bags for an initiation once years ago.

    ISIS made a PROMISE that they were going to sneak a LOT of bad guys into these new refugees. Most of them are young men, but in the profusion of videos, there are very few women or children.

  • pjg||

  • KindaSortaMaybe||

    Actually the awful brothers weren't even admitted under refugee status:
    http://www.snopes.com/tsarnaev-refugees/

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online