MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Would Extremer Vetting Have Stopped This Week's Attack in Manhattan?

It is hard to see how anyone could have predicted Sayfullo Saipov's seven-year journey from eager immigrant to Islamic terrorist.

St. Charles County Department of CorrectionsSt. Charles County Department of CorrectionsIn response to this week's terrorist attack in New York City, Donald Trump promised that "the United States will be immediately implementing much tougher Extreme Vetting Procedures," because "the safety of our citizens comes first!" But the more we learn about Sayfullo Saipov, the Uzbek immigrant accused of running down pedestrians and bicyclists with a pickup truck in Manhattan on Tuesday, the harder it is to see how extreme vetting, extremer vetting, or even extremest vetting could have stopped him.

Last night ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, and Saipov has said the group inspired him. But so far there is no evidence that he was directly recruited or instructed by ISIS, contacts that might have offered an opportunity to catch him before he carried out his plan. More to the point, when Saipov immigrated to the United States in 2010, there was no reason to think he would one day murder eight innocent people in the name of Islam.

The New York Times, citing the Uzbek government, reports that Saipov "grew up in a well-off family who practiced traditional Islam and never embraced extremism." The government said he never did anything that raised his neighbors' suspicions and never had trouble with the police. When he entered the United States after winning a diversity-lottery visa, Saipov, who had worked as an accountant at a hotel in Tashkent, hoped to get a job in the hospitality industry, despite his limited English skills. Instead he ended up working as a truck driver, moved around a lot, and became increasingly embittered, alienated, and angry over the years.

Although he was not very observant to begin with and did not know much about his religion (according to a local imam), he was drawn to Islamic extremism. In particular, Saipov cited a video in which ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi asked what Muslims in the United States were doing in response to the killing of their coreligionists in Iraq. Investigators found several other ISIS videos on Saipov's phone, and he made an effort to closely follow the group's published guidelines for terrorist attacks.

Contrary to White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders' claim that recipients of diversity visas come to this country with "no screening," Saipov would have been interviewed and undergone background checks before entering the United States. One can always argue that screening should be more thorough, but it is hard to imagine what procedure or criterion could have identified Saipov as a future terrorist seven years before the fact. How could anyone have predicted the path he would follow between then and now, which was contingent not only on his personality but on his post-immigration experience? For all we know, Saipov never would have turned violent if he had landed the sort of job he wanted or if the trucking businesses he started had been more successful.

I do not know what Trump means by "much tougher Extreme Vetting Procedures." I am not sure he knows. But unless those procedures involve psychics or time travel, they cannot rule out the possibility that seemingly moderate and eager immigrants will become radicalized years after arriving in the United States.

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.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    People have been predicting this for a long time. You all have a term for it that's so cute: islamophobe. How quick we forget.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Predicting what exactly?

  • Domestic Dissident||

    That the more Muslims that come to America, the more shit like this will happen.

    This is what Muslims do: they show up in a country and wage their endless fucking jihad against the non-Muslims until they're either defeated and driven out, or they win and take over.

  • Kivlor||

    And then they wage endless Jihad against their own heretics when they're done. Don't forget that part.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    well that makes me feel better.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Hey! Let's not generalize. Just because this has consistently happened in Spain, Portugal, most African countries and 9/10s of the Middle East over and over again for ten or twelve centuries, that doesn't mean it has to be this way. When Mohammedans settled in Western China a century ago, the Chinese simply made sure there were no survivors. Nowadays they also round up prayer rugs, satanic verses, and those Klan hoods the women wear--just as in other epidemics they eliminate stagnant water, burn infected bedclothes and quarantine the vectors. The Chinese have lots of experience dealing with religious fanaticism.

  • Hugh Akston||

    As of 2016 there were 11 million Uyghurs living in China.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And there are even more of the Hui people a group traditionally used as guards to royalty and other VIP.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You forgot Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Holy Wars are much more fun in fiction. Also video games. I could do without this IRL stuff.

  • John||

    Not necessarily. If your side wins, Holy Wars can be quite fun for some people.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I'll take Inquisition for 1000, Alex!

  • Hugh Akston||

    Well considering that there are approximately 1.2 million Muslim immigrants in the US, and there have been 13 terrorist attacks since 9/11, which altogether have killed fewer than 100 people, those predictions don't seem to amount to much.

  • John||

    So if over the next ten years some group of white nationalists murdered a hundred or so black people, that wouldn't amount to much? You would not be upset by that Hugh?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Hazel would be upset by it.

  • Adam330||

    I'd certainly rather that people not be murdered, but I wouldn't be calling for bans on white nationalist groups. I bet you can more than a few murders of black people by white nationalists in the last 10 years.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm willing to say that. It's a sad thing to see people murdered, but statistical outliers make bad points to reason from.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You know what makes good points to reason from?

    If you let in less Muslims there would literally be less violence from Muslims in the USA.

    You know how many Swedish immigrants went on killing sprees in the USA over the last 50 years? Zero.

    You know how many Irish immigrants went on killing sprees in the USA over the last 50 years? Zero.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    You know how many Muslim immigrants who didn't go on killing sprees went on killing sprees in the USA over the last 50 years?
    Zero.

    As libertarians (or as Americans), do we judge people (wrt government force) as a collective or as individuals? When a dirty Italian murders someone, do we start talking about putting restrictions on all Italians or do we simply punish the particular Italian who committed the crime?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Italian is a nationality.

    It is simply what you are.

    Muslim is the profession and acceptance of a system of beliefs.

    It is something that you have to do and accept.

    When a Nazi murders someone based upon the system of beliefs he accepts and professes, it is not wrong to be leery of another individual professing those same beliefs.

    It is not wrong to judge someone based upon their own stated beliefs and ideals.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Italian is a nationality.

    Fine...a Methodist murders someone...

    It is not wrong to judge someone based upon their own stated beliefs and ideals.

    And you, as a private citizen, may judge any person or any group of people for anything you want so long as you don't initiate aggression against them. Government, with the power to use force, may not (short of war).

    And we are not at war with Muslims, we are at war with terrorists (whatever the fuck that means).

  • Adam330||

    Islam is a belief system, but it encompasses a pretty wide range of beliefs. Most adherents don't believe in terrorism. It doesn't make sense to tar someone who is Muslim with beliefs that he doesn't have just because others within the wider group have them.

    You could play this game with lots of belief systems. There are some Catholics who think it's ok to murder abortion doctors. Sure, it's a very tiny minority, but they are out there. Does that mean we should ban all Catholics from immigrating on the off-chance that one will turn out to be an abortion doctor murderer?

  • Curmudgeon44||

    Show me the Catholic beheading videos. Show me their preaching to kill.

    Basically the problem of Islam, is they believe in a god who hates. There is no "love thy neighbor" in the Koran, there is a strategy of war and conquest. There has never been a Reformation, and scarcely even a hint of one.

    Sure they say love other Muslims, but I saw that much even in the Satanic bible.

  • ||

    Well stated

  • Hicks||

    You mean the police killing 100 blacks in 10 years? That would be a major decrease.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    On the quantity and quality of mass death scale I think you do make a good point here.

    Honestly so what if some other people die as a result of a religious crusade? Many more Americans are just as dead from gang violence and we don't talk about banning gangs. This contrast merits some reflection.

  • John||

    Quality matters sometimes too. Even at the height of lynchings, no more than a hundred or so black people were ever lynched. By your logic, half virtue, lynching was really never a big deal because "hey what are your chances?"

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    As of 1959, which was the last time that Tuskegee Institute's annual report was published, a total of 4,733 persons had died by lynching since 1882

    So, somewhat more than 100. But that's besides the point. Lynching should be illegal as it is murder, as should terrorist attacks. You shouldn't radically shift law to attempt to challenge such statistical outliers though.

  • Azathoth!!||

    How many were black?

  • Hicks||

    Before 1900, there were more than 100 Black lynched per year.

  • Citytrekker||

    If there are 2.4 million Muslims will we just have an equal proportion of increase in domestic terror attacks? What if we have 4.8 million and then there is another Barrack Hussein Obama telling us that we have to accept the new normal. There is a tipping point where data explodes, as in Europe. Fortunately there are smarter wolves out there to protect the sheep.

  • John||

    Reason would have us turn into Europe and see our freedom errode, because they love virtue signaling about their love of Muslims more than they care about actual freedom.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    That leaves off at least the Beltway Sniper (Malvo?).

    Wonder how many others they missed.

  • Curmudgeon44||

    Are you acknowledging the Beltway Sniper was Muslim? If you have hate in your heart, and can be just a little bit obedient, Islam has a place for you somewhere.

  • ||

    I predict that if we don't immediately exterminate all white men, one will eventually beat his wife.

    Don't say I didn't warn you.

  • Hugh Akston||

    White men perpetrate most of the mass shootings in the US. There is an obvious final solution that problem.

  • Fuck =><= sevo||

    Don't allow them to immigrate?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • Ken Shultz||

    If we convince people that we can't figure out how to exclude the bad apples, it won't make them want to jump aboard the open borders express. It'll make them support a president who wants to exclude all Muslims--among other things.

    It's the same thing with convincing people that we can't stop illegal aliens from coming across the border. That doesn't make them want to embrace open borders either. That just makes them want to come down even harder on illegal immigrants when we get them in custody.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Perhaps we can convince people that life, particularly life rooted in liberty, isn't ever going to be safe and attempting to make it so not only decreases liberty but provides motive for its enemies.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, we can work on that, or we can amend the Constitution so that setting the rules of naturalization is no longer an enumerated power of congress--and then we can just force libertarianism on everyone at the point of a gun without those pesky voters to worry about.

  • ||

    and then we can just force libertarianism on everyone at the point of a gun without those pesky voters to worry about.

    Tony? How did you get Ken's handle?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Naturalization is not immigration, so I'd be happy enforcing the current version as written.

  • niagaras||

    Oh hey an opinion piece from mises. That's certainly definitive and something I care about.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Naturalization is the process of coming to the country and becoming an American citizen, and that power was enumerated to congress in the constitution because inflicting an unpopular immigration policy on the American people is like inflicting an unpopular war.

    If you want to be authoritarian with your libertarianism, why not just say so?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Naturalization is the process of coming to the country and becoming an American citizen

    FIFY

    Allowing Congress to determine the process of how one becomes a citizen, and therefore allows that person to have a say in governance, and leaving immigration to the market doesn't violate the Constitution.

    Regardless:

    Convincing people that the principles of liberty are more important than illusions of safety so Congress will implement policy based on such a belief isn't force. And to that end, Sullum is pointing out the futility of sacrificing liberty in an attempt to prevent nutjobs from committing atrocities.

  • Ken Shultz||

    By telling people that we can't screen out bad apples, we aren't convincing them of anything--except that we should restrict legal immigration across the board.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Article I, Sec.9 gives Congress the power to regulate immigration and slavery after 1808.

    Along with Article I, sec. 8's enumerated power for Congress to regulate naturalization, there is clearly federal authority to regulate non-Americans entering the USA and how to become Americans.

    Regulating immigrants and slaves was a state power until 1808 when it became a federal power. This was a compromise to get slave states to adopt the Constitution. The slaves states knew that immediate federal power to regulate slavery would have meant the end of slavery since the North was in the process of voluntarily ending most slavery.

  • Fuck =><= sevo||

    Yeah. That'd be nice. And in the meantime we have to deal with the real world.

  • Adam330||

    If we convince people that we can't figure out how to keep bad guys from getting guns, it won't make them want to jump aboard the second amendment express. It'll make them support a president who wants to ban guns--among other things.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There are number of problems with that analogy.

    I'd start with the fact that the Second Amendment isn't an enumerated power of congress. Our rights shouldn't depend on the outcome of a popularity contest, but other things should. "No taxation without representation" is one such example. Congress should also be held accountable at the ballot box for declaring or sustaining unpopular wars. Another place where democracy is entirely appropriate is in immigration policy, and that's why the framers, in their wisdom, enumerated that power to congress--because inflicting an unpopular immigration policy on the American people is like inflicting an unpopular tax or an unpopular war.

    My right to choose my own religion and choose what I say is mine regardless of whether my choice is popular.

    Citizenship isn't like that at all.

    You're comparing apples to oranges.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Good point Ken.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    The clear answer is to prohibit Muslims from renting/owning trucks.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Precisely! After all, "we" brand anyone who had a roach in the ashtray, a mushroom or a peyote button 40 years ago a "felon" and strip them of Second Amendment rights, and in some places even suffrage for life. No First Amendment problem there, right? So why give special "free exercise thereof" privileges to foreigners whose superstition likewise demands the initiation of deadly force against infidels, but goes on to reward them with heavenfuls of virginal girl-slaves? Let's be FAIR!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's pretty hard for a Muslim to rent a truck when they're all kicked out of the country!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Do we have to kick them out, or can we simply intern them? That way we can keep an eye on them. You see, if we simply kick them out, they might hold a grudge (for some reason) which might lead to anti-Murikin sentiment and possibly more terror as we can't control their behavior overseas. If we intern them all, they might get pissed but will be impotent to retaliate.

    OR...there is another possible solution...a more permanent one...

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Do like Europe. Keep them all in like... one neighborhood.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Maybe surround it with some barbed wire...

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    No, keep them in with free money.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Rhymes with Geppetto?

  • Hugh Akston||

    But unless those procedures involve psychics or time travel, they cannot rule out the possibility that seemingly moderate and eager immigrants will become radicalized years after arriving in the United States.

    Thus was born the Scanners/TIMECOP Act.

  • ernieyeball||

    "But unless those procedures involve psychics or time travel, they cannot rule out the possibility that seemingly moderate and eager immigrants will become radicalized years after arriving in the United States."

    Just as Kim Jong Trump's devotees are radicalized upon hearing their Dear Leader's words.
    "The one that matters is me. I'm the only one that matters, because, when it comes to it, that's what the policy is going to be. You've seen that. You've seen it strongly."

  • colorblindkid||

    The only thing that could have stopped 9/11 was if Clinton enacted a "Muslim ban" beyond what even Trump wanted. It still wouldn't have been worth the cost to our democracy.

  • Rhywun||

    We had a de facto "Muslim ban" before 1965. What exactly did it cost our democracy?

  • Fuck =><= sevo||

    Krugmanian broken window prosperity?

  • ||

    The only thing that could have stopped 9/11 was if Clinton enacted a "Muslim ban" beyond what even Trump wanted. It still wouldn't have been worth the cost to our democracy.

    And presuming that the guys who were willing to enact all kinds of fraud and deception in order to crash planes into buildings and kill thousands of people would draw the line at answering the border patrol's questions untruthfully.

  • Fuck =><= sevo||

    Because that would be the sum total of " a "Muslim ban" beyond what even Trump wanted"

  • ||

    You're going to test them for the "Muslim gene?"

  • Fuck =><= sevo||

    Are you an idiot?

    Border patrol questioning to "Muslim gene" and nothing possible in between.

    Is this kind of disingenuousness typical of how you discuss things?

  • Fuck =><= sevo||

    He said " a "Muslim ban" beyond what even Trump wanted"

    That could ( I won't speak for the op) mean literally a total ban.

  • ||

    That could ( I won't speak for the op) mean literally a total ban.

    And please explain how you're going to accomplish this, since I am too big of an idiot to understand, and all of its advocates seem to feel it's far too obvious to bother going into details.

  • Fuck =><= sevo||

    Why? It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POINT.

    I'm not an advocate you fucking retard.

  • ||

    Why? It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POINT.

    I'm not an advocate you fucking retard.

    Oh. Gotcha. That you for your valuable contribution to this discussion. I have no idea what we would do without you.

  • Fuck =><= sevo||

    Don't get salty because you don't like that I pointed out you're an idiot.

    "Oh. Gotcha. That you for your valuable contribution to this discussion. I have no idea what we would do without you."

    No, thank YOU sir for that outstanding contribution! That absolutely added to the discourse!

  • ||

    By your own admission you have pointed out nothing. You clearly have nothing to say. You can call me names all day long. Doing so would not persuade me to acknowledge your point even if you had one.

  • BYODB||

    Well, with some of the places I've visited inserting non-kosher food into otherwise kosher food as a matter of tradition I'd say that this wouldn't be the first such religious test. Not that this is a good thing, but I've seen a lot of things over the years in several countries that, at least at first glance, appear to be ways of discovering secret Jews.

    I'm guessing the same could be said of Halal. I'm wondering, actually, if there's a bit of the Koran that says that you don't need to follow those rules if it lets you kill infidels, but honestly I'm not really sure that I care.

    Religious tests are worse than simply banning immigration from certain countries, in my opinion, but it's also not a binary choice. Wide open borders, however, is one of the surest ways to become less libertarian as a nation.

  • ||

    I'm guessing the same could be said of Halal. I'm wondering, actually, if there's a bit of the Koran that says that you don't need to follow those rules if it lets you kill infidels.

    Actually, contra hysterical Team Red propaganda, the Koran says that the rules are really more guidelines than rules, and if it's burdensome on you to not always follow them, no biggie.

    This isn't how Islam has traditionally been interpreted in places like Afghanistan, but in places like Afghanistan (like certain places in the US), actually reading and thinking about the sacred texts that justify your hatreds is less fashionable than cherry-picking the sacred texts to fan the hatreds.

    In short, if an infidel said "eat this pork or else," eating the pork would be okay and Allah would forgive you.

  • DJF||

    If a Muslim ban is popular with the voters how does it damage democracy?

  • ernieyeball||

    If exterminating Jews is popular with the voters how does it damage democracy?

  • DJF||

    That does not damage it either, democracy is just a method of creating laws.

  • BYODB||

    Democracy at it's most fundamental level is tyranny of the majority, plain and simple, so one shouldn't be surprised when it enacts ethnic cleansing or genocide. It's baked right into it. But it's usually popular, even when it does those things, so hooray?

    It's one of the best reasons not to be a Democrat, in fact, as they have pushed for more Democracy in America which is one of the reasons why it's failing.

  • ||

    ^ This.

  • Rhywun||

    exterminating Jews

    Well, that analogy went off the rails faster than I expected.

  • Hank Phillips||

    "Our" democracy was the only one with guts enough to break the Mohammedans' blockade at Tripoli as of 1801. When the barbarians were admitted anywhere, it was in chains for exchange of prisoners. Even the Swedes had backbone in them days!

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    When you understand that 'extreme vetting' means 'blocked entry' then you'll understand that extreme vetting will in fact stop things like this from happening.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    That's what I was wondering while I was reading this. Isn't that the argument that Trump supporters are essentially making? Stop immigration and then immigrants won't commit acts of violence.

  • John||

    Pretty much. And it is an argument that last year or hell probably last week, reason tried to rebut by claiming "but the government can vet them to weed out the dangerous ones".

  • Hank Phillips||

    Jacob is patient at explaining and re-explaining the obvious to mystical fanatics whose faith has already determined their belief in something else. The result is that religious conservatives here would still gladly sell their mothers for a chance to toss a grenade into a Planned Parenthood clinic or have thugs strangle someone over a beer, cigarette or joint. Likewise, religious conservatives in Ottoman satrapies would also do exactly those same things... only for Allah instead of Jesus. Yes, we the choir agree the journalism is good, but voting the libertarian ticket hits both death-worshipping gangs where it hurts. What's more, voting libertarian isn't even illegal! At least not yet...

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Far out, man.

  • John||

    Little known fact, conservative Christian churches often raffle off the chance to throw a grenade at a Planned Parenthood facility as a fund raiser. It happens like every day man.

  • Stalwart Sam||

    I've won only three grenades so far, I'm so unlucky.

  • BYODB||

    Look, everyone knows that Christianity is exactly the same today as it was 2000 years ago. Exactly. The. Same.

    But of course the niche groups of pseudo-Christian groups can always be pointed to as a representative sample, and that is in no way disingenuous.

    /sarc

    It always amuses me that someone can simultaneously be anti-Christian and pro-Muslim. There's something wrong those people's brains when they put that kind of shit forward. Either be anti-religious or not. Don't pull this half-assed equivocation.

  • ||

    It always amuses me that someone can simultaneously be anti-Christian and pro-Muslim.

    ^ Exactly this.

    The two religions have always hated one another because the differences between them are so few.

  • BYODB||

    Also, factually speaking there is a difference between a religious sect that might be violent when it comes to protecting defenseless life to one that actively wants to conquer people. I'm not saying that the Christians should get a free pass for violence, but lets recognize that the reasons for that violence is fundamentally different in at least some cases, if not most.

    That said, Christians could probably learn a few things when it comes to being more tolerant of gay people. It is factual to say that some of their beliefs are still fundamentalist, but it's also true that the Pope is pretty on board with treating gay people fairly.

    Christianity evolves, so Muslims can too. I'm not seeing a lot of evolution though, in fact it seems to be a slide in the opposite direction since sometime in the 1950's-1960's.

  • ||

    Christianity evolves, so Muslims can too. I'm not seeing a lot of evolution though, in fact it seems to be a slide in the opposite direction since sometime in the 1950's-1960's.

    It's easy to lose sight of large-scale historical changes that you happen to be standing in the middle of.

    Three-hundred years ago the world was dominated by Muslim powers - primarily the Ottoman, Saffavid, and Mughal Empires, with lots of Muslim principalities of various sorts throughout Central Asia, and arguably three-hundred years ago these Empires were more developed economically, politically, socially, and even scientifically than Europe (Europe started "pulling ahead" scientifically in the fourteenth century, in no small part because of fundamentalist backlashes that were happening in the Ottoman Empire, but it took time for the knowledge to percolate into things like engineering practices).

    These Empires collapsed only just about a century ago. Considering it took Western Europe roughly a thousand years to climb back up to the level of civilization it had under the Romans, what's going on in the Middle East a mere century or so after near-total political and economic collapse is not at all surprising, and doesn't have much to do with "Islam-as-such," any more than the collapse of the Roman Empire was because of Christianity (even though there's a strong correlation there, as noted by late Roman Pagans).

  • Hank Phillips||

    Unlike mystics, I resent and dispense with the initiation of force. But what I want to know is who radicalized Stephen Paddock? Here is absolutely a suicidal berserker who does not appear to have been indoctrinated by Satanic Verses... a copycat?

  • Curmudgeon44||

    Well, we know there aren't websites instructing Paddock how to do his crime, no mullahs celebrating murder as an accomplishment, no thousands or millions who look at what he did and say it is a good thing. He just wanted to murder, for no apparent reason.

    The NY truck murderer, he was given instructions and he followed them. And people say there is a moral equivalence?

  • Kivlor||

    Yup. Planned Parenthood just can't keep their doors open because Christians (who make up 70% of the US population) can't wait to draw lots for who gets to put them down violently.

    Is that what you imagine this country is actually like you retard?

  • Hank Phillips||

    It's what observation tells me mystics are like, genius.

  • John||

    Sullumn's argument proves too much. He is right that no amount of "vetting" could have 100% predicted this guy was a terrorist. Sullumn thinks that means that we should just let everyone in because there is no way to tell anyway. If you really don't care about stopping terrorism, sure. But, if you do care about stopping terrorism, the answer is to not let anyone from these places in.

    And lets not forget that Reason spent all of 2016 telling us about the wonders of vetting and how immigration from failed states with known ISIS and Al Quada presences was no big deal. Now after one of the little darlings reason wanted in the country so badly went and murdered a bunch of people, it is all "well there is nothign that could have been done."

    Reason refuses to honestly discuss immigration. They are just hacks.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Reason refuses to honestly discuss immigration.

    No they just think the death of others is a small price to pay and/or a fair exchange, for maintaining principles of liberty.

  • John||

    They always seem okay with other people dying for reason's principles. There is that I guess.

  • ||

    And lets not forget that Reason spent all of 2016 telling us about the wonders of vetting and how immigration from failed states with known ISIS and Al Quada presences was no big deal. Now after one of the little darlings reason wanted in the country so badly went and murdered a bunch of people, it is all "well there is nothign that could have been done."

    This guy was from Uzbekistan. Not even Trump has proposed banning immigration from Uzbekistan.

  • John||

    That is true. But, Reason is now admitting the government can't be expected to vet people from a state with a functioning government. Yet, they spent all of last year swearing that it could vet people from failed states.

    Fair point, but it doesn't diminish my point about reason's hypocrisy and dishonesty on this issue.

  • ||

    Reason is now admitting the government can't be expected to vet people from a state with a functioning government. Yet, they spent all of last year swearing that it could vet people from failed states

    True enough. Reason has been having a bit of a consistency problem the last couple of years.

  • Zeb||

    Well, assuming that consistency is what they are going for.

  • BYODB||

    I hope they aren't trying to be consistent with every author's opinions. If they were, what would I bitch about in the comments? It would just be an echo chamber and this is already a pretty small publication.

    Sure, I hate Dalmia's drivel but if not for her who would we have to hate on for being basically wrong about everything? I mean, other than some of our beloved commenters that is.

    Robby, I guess?

  • ||

    Well, assuming that consistency is what they are going for.

    But to John's point, I think Sullum himself was arguing last year that vetting could work. I would expect different authors to have different takes, and I'm not someone who thinks "Libertarianism" dictates some uniform set of conclusions as much as it does a particular set of principles whose application may be debatable.

    But the principles shouldn't be "whatever they need to be at the moment in order to say my opponent is wrong."

  • Zeb||

    Well, they are are paid writers. If the editor says "we need a column that says X", that's the job.

    Also, while I haven't gone back and read the piece from last year, I doubt he was saying that vetting could work to completely eliminate the chance of any Islam related terrorism. And this doesn't really contradict the notion that vetting could work to reduce it. I don't know if it can or not. Probably to some extent, but not enough to make people who already want to restrict Muslim immigration happy.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump and his administration had to start somewhere with 7 countries. That policy was immediately attacked, so the Executive spent resources fighting that instead of implementing more restrictions.

    Lawyers know how that works.

  • Curt||

    "Instead he ended up working as a truck driver, moved around a lot, and became increasingly embittered, alienated, and angry over the years."

    So, what you're saying is... life didn't work out the way he hoped it would and he was unhappy with reality. Sounds like a pretty common situation to me. Generally speaking, that kind of situation drives one to embrace being a proud boy, antifa, a union worker, a churchgoer, an NFL fan, a LARPer, a Reason commenter, or part of some other fantasy life.

    Hopefully people who are already Americans aren't ever subjected to extreme vetting.

  • John||

    Since the government is by the people, of the people, and for the people who live here and not for the people who don't, that won't happen.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    I leave this quote without comment.

    "Look, the point he was making is that he supports, or would support that, but he wasn't necessarily advocating for it,"

    -Sarah Huckabee Sanders

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    I feel like Trump often gives his two cents as if he were still a civilian, like giving his emotional response but with full consideration it doesn't mean he'd act on that with authority of his office. I don't really see a logical conflict in that.

    I can see how you find this totally without principle because that is how you see everything they do; your vision is clouded with hate. Which is why you rarely score points on your shots -- though that's a bit of an aside on your overall commentary.

  • BYODB||

    Honestly, that's how I read a lot of the shit Trump says. Frankly, I think that's a good thing. The major problem is that people expect the President to be perfect but all they're really saying is that they want to be lied to.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    They come with fire! They come with axes! Gnawing, biting, breaking, hacking, burning!! Destroyers and usurpers, CURSE THEM!!

  • John||

    Let's go to the wayback machine and see what Sullumn was saying last year.

    Given the rarity of deaths caused by terrorism, Nowrasteh shows, such costs cannot possibly be justified. Based on a value of $15 million per life, he puts "the combined human, property, business, and economic costs" of attacks by foreign-born terrorists during the 41-year period covered by his study at $5.3 billion annually, which is "far less than the minimum estimated yearly benefit of $229.1 billion from immigration and tourism."

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....-and-immig

    The deaths of those people in New York are in Sullumn's view the necessary price we must pay for the glories of having immigrants from places like Uzbekistan in the country. Those people died so that Muslims can be free. Say that today and say it to the families of the people who died up there or never say it again.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Yeah, it's kind of like those people who respond to every mass shooting by saying that being able to carry an automatic rifle around is the price of liberty. Are they just incapable of appreciating nuance?

  • John||

    In both cases, the logic is true. The question is, what is the value of being armed and what is the value of allowing Muslim immigration. I really don't give a fuck if Muslims immigrate to this country and see very little value of them doing so. I do, however, see the right to bear arms as essential to maintaining a free society.

    I am willing to put up with mass shootings once in a while as a price necessary to maintain a free sociey. I am not however, so keen on living with monthly or if it turns out like Europe weekly acts of terrorism for the glories of having Muslims immigrate to this country.

  • Kivlor||

    I think you're wrong in the analysis at the end of your post John. Those people didn't die so that Muslims can be free according to Sullum. They died so the US economy could have some extra tourism dollars and immigrant business this year.

  • John||

    Well, that makes it sound even better doesn't it?

  • ||

    Actually, those people died because a guy drove a truck into them.

    Are all the annual traffic deaths "the price we pay" for being allowed to drive cars? How are the rationalizations for that any less callous?

    Are all the murders and assaults that happen every year "the price we pay" for being allowed to roam freely and not be kept under lock and key by the government?

  • John||

    Are all the annual traffic deaths "the price we pay" for being allowed to drive cars?

    Yes they are. If you want cars, you have to take the traffic deaths that come with them. If you want Muslims in your society, you have to take the terrorism that comes with them. It is really that simple.

  • ||

    If you want Muslims in your society, you have to take the terrorism that comes with them. It is really that simple.

    Only if you accept the proposition that Muslim x = murderer because Muslim.

    I return to my point above. We will see, in the very near future, murders, rapes, and assaults committed by white, Christian men. Is that just the price we have to pay in order to have white, Christian men in our country, and is it worth it?

    The next murder by a white, Christian man is on you, John.

  • Fuck =><= sevo||

    "Is that just the price we have to pay in order to have white, Christian men in our country, and is it worth it?"

    Are they citizens or are we letting them in?

    Why do you think this retarded fucking point scores, so much so that you repeat it?

    You do know what IMMIGRATION IS don't you?

  • ||

    Are they citizens or are we letting them in?

    You really got me. Boy I feel dumb now.

  • Fuck =><= sevo||

    Because that wouldn't be a fundamental difference, and require FAR MORE intrusion, thus scuttling tje accuracy of your analogy.

    You should feel dumb, you fucking retard.

  • John||

    Only if you accept the proposition that Muslim x = murderer because Muslim.

    And that is undeniably true. This guy didn't do this because he is a Giants fan angry about Eli Manning. He didn't do it because he was a man or anything else. He did it because he is a Muslim and felt it was his duty to do so as a Muslim. With Muslims come terror. Do you hear about people doing this in Japan? It is what it is.

    To the extent people commit mass murder in the name of Christianity, other Christians have to answer for it to some degree. If people running over hudreds of people in the name of Christianity or flying into buildings, I am going to make it quite clear that isn't me or anything I believe in and if it continues to happen, I will stop being a Christian becuase I am not going to be associated with a religion that advocates and condons people flying planes into buildings.

  • ||

    To the extent people commit mass murder in the name of Christianity, other Christians have to answer for it to some degree.

    I disagree fundamentally. It's the same logic by which I, as a supporter of free market economics, don't feel I have to apologize for Pinochet.

    If some Giants fan did something destructive out of anger about Eli Manning, that is not an indictment of all Giants fans, it's the act of a crazy person, and disbanding the Giants wouldn't stop future crazy people from seizing on reasons to rationalize their crazy.

    When I used to live in Oakland, Raiders fans would riot regularly. But that's not the Raiders - it's Oakland. When the Raiders move to Vegas, Vegas won't get riots, the rioters will simply riot over the As or the Warriors instead.

    The violence coming out of Muslim countries in recent history is political violence, just like the conflict between the protestants and Catholics in Ireland is a political struggle.

    I don't even think it's terribly unreasonable to discuss banning people from Syria for the moment, or from Yemen. But to say "Muslims" is just indulging in collectivist thinking that is destructive to individual liberty.

  • BYODB||

    Well, there is at least some disagreement in terms of 'is religion itself political' since religion is merely a more primitive form of governance so...I'm not so sure.

    Personally, I think John's point is an apt one. That said, I also don't think that's a reason to necessarily prohibit all Muslim immigration. The reason why is a fairly simple one, in that I don't believe in guilt by association.

    If you could say 'all Muslim's will definitely bomb us' it would be one thing, but as it is it's a fraction of a fraction of Muslim's and while it's a statistically significant portion it's not a huge portion.

    So yes while it's not an emotionally satisfying answer, having some Muslim terrorism is the price we pay for a free society. Sometimes the correct and good answer isn't a comfortable one.

  • ||

    Well, there is at least some disagreement in terms of 'is religion itself political' since religion is merely a more primitive form of governance so...I'm not so sure.

    And Islam does arguably tread that line in a way that few, if any, other religions do.

    I've studied the history of India fairly extensively, and I don't think it's unfair (if it's maybe a little un-PC) to say that a fundamental problem in the "clash" between Islam and Hinduism is that they both believe that there is only one religion. However, the Hindu view is that everyone's religion comes from the same incomprehensible and unrepresentable Supreme Being, and thus that everyone's concept of the Supreme Being is basically equally legitimate. Islam, on the other hand, will tend to go more "the Supreme Being is incomprehensible and unrepresentable, therefore your images are falsehoods and must be erased."

    Luckily, the Muslim rulers figured out pretty quickly that there were too many Hindus to erase, and that they were going to have to figure out how to co-exist (which they did pretty well from the fifteenth through the seventeenth centuries).

  • Kivlor||

    The next murder by a white, Christian man is on you, John.

    I don't know about John, but I'll gladly accept some guilt the next time a Christian immigrant to the US goes on a murder spree explicitly in the name of Jesus, demanding that the nonbelievers convert. That's the big difference here. You are such a disingenuous twit, Square.

    But to say "Muslims" is just indulging in collectivist thinking that is destructive to individual liberty.

    This idea that it is wrong to collectively judge ideologies (and those that follow them) for their ideas is completely nonsense. It is perfectly fine to judge people for their values. Especially values that they wear openly for the public to see.

    Islam is a set of ideas, a creed, which demands all who don't accept it to either be put to the sword or be crushed, forced to kneel, and live in humiliation... Is that idea at its core even remotely compatible with our values?

  • ||

    I don't know about John, but I'll gladly accept some guilt the next time a Christian immigrant to the US goes on a murder spree explicitly in the name of Jesus, demanding that the nonbelievers convert.

    Yeah - my money says you won't, you disingenuous twit, but that probably feels so good to say.

    Islam is a set of ideas, a creed, which demands all who don't accept it to either be put to the sword or be crushed, forced to kneel, and live in humiliation... Is that idea at its core even remotely compatible with our values?

    It's painfully clear that you actually don't know anything about Islam. You've obviously never read the Koran, any Islamic philosophy or theology whatsoever, and you know next to nothing about the history of the world outside of Europe.

    Spare me your "definitions" of evil creeds you hate and want to exterminate because they're hateful and want to exterminate you.

  • Curmudgeon44||

    I have read the Koran, and about 10 books on the religion since 2001, and it DOES basically say every Muslim male must do jihad in his lifetime if he is able. Most Muslims interpret this as violence.

    The ones that don't, look like wusses who just don't want to do anything but passive-aggressive bad citizen things. Like littering, like being rude to unveiled women. I would not say they are good people because they do that.

  • chemjeff||

    "It is perfectly fine to judge people for their values."

    Okay, fine. Do you call yourself a Christian? Well, the Bible says Christians should stone the gays. So by your standard, it's okay to judge you according to your values of wanting to stone gays, right? Or are you going to allow yourself the defense of "but I'm not that kind of Christian"?

    Are you going to judge people by their actual values, or by the values that you presume that they have based on your interpretation of the label they apply to themselves?

  • ||

    Are you going to judge people by their actual values, or by the values that you presume that they have based on your interpretation of the label they apply to themselves?

    ^ Said more succinctly than I said it.

  • Kivlor||

    Okay, fine. Do you call yourself a Christian? Well, the Bible says Christians should stone the gays. So by your standard, it's okay to judge you according to your values of wanting to stone gays, right? Or are you going to allow yourself the defense of "but I'm not that kind of Christian"?

    I'm not a Christian. But not being one doesn't mean I think every stick is a stick to beat the Christians with. Why don't you tell me, what Christian Church preaches the stoning of gays? Which sect is actively engaged in that here in the US today? Answer: none.

    And that matters because unlike the Christians,the Muslims are teaching that they must indeed throw gays from the highest point. And they're doing it. Likewise, they are teaching that the unbelievers must be made to submit, or be killed. And acting on it.

    Why don't you take the time to study both of these faiths before you jump into something that's obviously over your head.

  • Kivlor||

    Yeah - my money says you won't, you disingenuous twit, but that probably feels so good to say.

    I'm betting you'll never find out, because it's not been happening. Can you name the last time some Christians went through the streets murdering non-believers for the crime of disbelief in the US?

    It's painfully clear that you actually don't know anything about Islam. You've obviously never read the Koran, any Islamic philosophy or theology whatsoever, and you know next to nothing about the history of the world outside of Europe.

    Oh I've read it. And I've actually spent some time studying Islamic interpretation, because interpretation means a lot. Maybe you should spend some time studying them too. Might help you to understand where other people come from.

    Spare me your "definitions" of evil creeds you hate and want to exterminate because they're hateful and want to exterminate you.

    Here, Square, we see your progressive colors come out. Accusing your opponents of what you are guilty of. The only person here talking about extermination is you. Everyone else has merely acknowledged reality, and said "maybe we shouldn't be bringing these people to live among us". If I were you, I'd be very concerned about myself and my state of mind, if the logical conclusion to the premises I made above is "extermination".

  • Adam330||

    You act like there's no benefit at all to americans from having immigrants in the country. Newsflash, but a vanishingly small number turn out to be terrorists. Lots of them start and own businesses, employ people, and contribute to their communities and the country. Many of best known tech companies were founded by immigrants: Google, SpaceX, Paypal, Tesla, Yahoo, eBay, etc. There are over 65k immigrants in the US military. But we probably should have kept all of them out on the off-chance that they could turn out to be terrorists, right?

  • John||

    You act like there's no benefit at all to americans from having immigrants in the country.

    No. I act like the benefits to the country of having Muslim immigrants is less than the cost of the terrorism that comes with them. I am not talking about all immigrants.

    Newsflash, but a vanishingly small number turn out to be terrorists.

    Newsflash, a vanishly small number of people can do enormous amounts of damage. So the pure numbers of them is not what matters. What matters is the cost that that number inflicts on the country.

    There are over 65k immigrants in the US military. But we probably should have kept all of them out on the off-chance that they could turn out to be terrorists, right?

    Stop conflating immigrants with Muslim immigrants. Considering that we are at war in various Islamic countries, do you think it is a good idea to have non native born Muslims in the military? I don't.

  • ||

    Considering that we are at war in various Islamic countries, do you think it is a good idea to have non native born Muslims in the military?

    You should probably make up your mind whether you're arguing for a total ban on all immigration in the name of preventing a few random murders (what you're arguing up-thread) or whether you're arguing that foreigners shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military during wartime.

    Because you're verging on pulling a motte-and-bailey here.

  • John||

    You are the one that brought the subject of the military up. If you don't want to talk about it, then don't bring it up. I don't have to make up my mind at all. You do.

    And yes, I am talking about banning Muslims from immigrating or getting residency in this country. We don't owe anyone entrance into this country. Why let Muslims into the country and run the risk of terrorism and all of the social conflicts that come with having a Muslim minority when you there are billions of other people waiting to get in who do not create such problems?

  • ||

    You are the one that brought the subject of the military up.

    Umm . . . no. I'm not.

    I am talking about banning Muslims from immigrating or getting residency in this country.

    Thank you for being honest about that. How do you propose going about achieving that in a way that is consistent with the Constitution and principles of individual liberty over which the American Revolution was waged?

  • John||

    How do you propose going about achieving that in a way that is consistent with the Constitution and principles of individual liberty over which the American Revolution was waged?

    Easy, there is nothing in the constitution that says it applies to anyone outside of the US who is not a citizen or in any way restricts the US government's ability to control immigration as it sees fit. The idea that the US can't ban people from entering the country based on religion is just wrong. It can.

  • ||

    I fully understand that the US government can write on a piece of paper "we don't want any bad foreigners to be here, and we don't want any of those damn Muslims."

    How do you enforce it? What do you do with Muslims already here? Are you proposing shutting down absolutely all immigration whatsoever? If not, how do propose preventing Muslims from, say, Britain or Germany from coming here? What if an Uzbek finds a way to get to India and goes from there to Canada - how are you going to stop them from crossing our border illegally?

    I would like to see some modicum of thought put into these questions before we have NSA troops start their spot checks of our citizenship papers.

  • John||

    Muslims who are citizens are still citizens. We can't change that. And can it be enforced totally? No. Someone can always lie. But, it can stop a whole lot of it.

    The question is this, do we want a significant Muslim minority in this country? And judging from the experience of Europe and pretty much every other country that has such a thing, the answer is no.

  • ||

    And judging from the experience of Europe and pretty much every other country that has such a thing, the answer is no.

    Europe has a very different relationship with Islam than the USA does. Historians have traditionally seen the "birth of Europe" as being Charlemagne's driving back the Jihad out of France and establishing the "Holy Roman Empire."

    For this reason, to this day a lot of Europeans don't consider Muslims to be European by definition, no matter how long their families may have been settled in Europe. Muslim populations in Europe tend to be confined to permanent ghettos, and a lot more anger and alienation among Muslim communities results.

    Europe has had terrorism problems going back many decades. The US only since the '90s, really.

    The USA was founded with the notion of specifically trying to do away with the religious tyranny of Europe by not defining what religions "We" want in what proportions.

    In CA we have a huge Muslim population. There are a couple in my office right now, and I am somehow still alive.

  • Rhywun||

    There are a couple in my office right now, and I am somehow still alive.

    The ones you should be worried about are in their basements wiring bombs, not hacking code in an office cubicle or whatever :)

  • ||

    The ones you should be worried about are in their basements wiring bombs, not hacking code in an office cubicle or whatever :)

    That's exactly right, and this is where I think a lot of people's views boil down to personal experience. Having grown up in suburban CA, I have known a lot of Muslims, going all the way back to Iranians and Pakistanis I knew as a kid back in the 70s.

    If I had to form a stereotype, I would say that your typical Muslim is a soft-spoken engineer who bends over backwards to be nice to people, but is a hard-headed pragmatist on money-matters.

    I did once know a Moroccan-Arab guy who fit the more common Muslim stereotype to a T - over-entitled, beat his wife, had a beady-eyed, bitter-faced mother who followed him around everywhere he went making sure people paid him the respect he deserved. But I've known native-born Christians who were like that, too (and Rumani - holy shit), and I suspect that the cultural cues he was acting on are more properly described as "Arab" rather than "Muslim."

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    more properly described as "Arab" rather than "Muslim."

    My wife is half Syrian and that's her take as well.

  • Rhywun||

    I live in what amounts to a "Little Egypt" and it's definitely not "soft-spoken engineers". But it is a quite safe neighborhood with lots of street activity even for NYC. But yeah I do wonder sometimes what goes on in those basements...

  • ||

    I have to admit that my limited experience with Arabs (which would include Egyptians) has been different from my significantly-less-limited experience with Iranians and South Asian Muslims.

    As Frank says just above, this seems to be a stereotype that is shared by the broader Muslim world (and in my experience, it seems that even Syrians and Lebanese will often distance themselves from the "Arab" label for this reason).

  • Kivlor||

    Europe has had terrorism problems going back many decades. The US only since the '90s, really.

    Wow, we only started having troubles with a specific demographic of people after we started letting a colony of them settle here...

    Of the ~3,300,000 Muslims in the US, ~1,200,000 immigrated since 2000. Another ~500,000 in the 1990's. Which means there were almost none here before that. Especially if we realize that 23% are converts... which takes the number down to less than 800,000. Except that doesn't include the children of Muslim immigrants. There were probably

  • Kivlor||

    *There were probably less than 500,000 Muslims in the US prior to the 1990's.

  • ||

    Wow, we only started having troubles with a specific demographic of people after we started letting a colony of them settle here.

    There was something else in there, too.

    Remind my why al-Qaeda started attacking the US in the early 90s? Osama bin Laden had said something about that . . . but . . .

    Fuck it. Your narrative feels so much better.

    FUCKIN MOOZIES@!! gOE HOME MURDERRRS!!!

  • Kivlor||

    Here Square. Tell me how it's all about the Gulf War. That's why This guy ran people over.

    Maybe you should study the people your nation is fighting. And what they say. Especially the ones that have successfully managed to kill people on our own soil in the last few years. They are laughing at you and your ridiculous apologetics. Your justification doesn't make the top 3 reasons for them. You are merely a useful tool for your own enemies.

  • chemjeff||

    Our nation is fighting ISIS. Not Islam. Not "Muslims" broadly. Not Uzbekistan.

    Demagogues on both sides want to turn it into a religious holy war. Why enable them?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You might not be fighting them but they are fighting YOU.

    People keep saying not all Muslims are fighting Americans and that is probably true but try and going on a leisurely walk outside the cities in Afghanistan and see what happens.

    Its not like being an American in Moscow and become the victim of some random robbery.

    There is a religious war taking place between Islam and everyone else whether you want to admit or not. If you are not Muslim, you are an infidel and deserve to be killed for the glory of Islam.

  • Adam330||

    I've seen you go on and on about immigrants from Mexico and South America too. News to me that you're exclusively against Muslims.

    And yes, I do think it's a good idea to have non-native Muslims in the military if for nothing else than their language skills. It's critical if we're going to keep fighting wars in Muslim countries that we have people that can speak their languages, and we don't produce anywhere close to the number that we need.

  • John||

    So native born Americans can't learn foreign languages? We can't hire translators on the ground? The only way to do this is to let immigrants from the countries we are at war with into our military? Really?

  • Adam330||

    Sure, they can, but they don't. The 9/11 report specifically cited the failure to have enough Arabic translators as a reason the government didn't stop the attacks.

  • John||

    And that was nothing but a bunch of ass covering. They translated just fine. They just didn't act on the information.

  • Adam330||

    Actually, they didn't. The facts are that there was a pile of communications that didn't get translated until after the attacks. But go ahead and make up your own facts.

  • John||

    Sure there were, but the ones they did translated gave more than enough information to stop the attacks. And there is no indication that the other communications would have made a difference.

    Beyond that, people can learn languages. They are just too cheap to teach it to them.

  • Adam330||

    The 9/11 commission disagreed.

  • BYODB||


    The 9/11 commission disagreed.


    Citing them isn't exactly citing a trustworthy source in the minds of a lot of people.

  • ||

    Citing them isn't exactly citing a trustworthy source in the minds of a lot of people.

    Yeah - my response to the 9/11 Commission Report was "what are you hiding that you're willing to admit that this happened because you're extremely ignorant and lazy and are doing military operations in countries that you just now admitted you don't understand at all?"

  • Fuck =><= sevo||

    "but a vanishingly small number turn out to be terrorists."

    Great, but let's not pretend that's the issue or that it matters. The questions are, do certain, identifiable groups pose a greater risk than others, and if so, do they deserve heightened scrituny, or potentially, banning. In addition, there is the question of the amount of government intrusion, and how that would negatively impact the country.

  • Adam330||

    Well young males commit nearly all the mass shootings in this country, so we should probably give them heightened scrutiny or maybe even ban them from having weapons, right?

  • Fuck =><= sevo||

    and if I said yes? and decided that i'm willing to take tjat risk, and adhere to the 2nd amendment, but not tje risk of immigrant violence?

    what then?

  • Adam330||

    Then you'd be picking and choosing what parts of the constitution you like.

  • Fuck =><= sevo||

    If that's what you call consictency, you be you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Young male US citizens? The Constitution protects their rights to privacy and search and seizure.

    With non-Americans outside the USA, they have no constitutional right to enter the USA. Screen them and prevent as many as cannot be properly vetted from coming into the USA for all I care.

  • Fuck =><= sevo||

    Oh yeah. Would have stopped it hard. So hard.

  • Magnitogorsk||

    We need to restrict immigration so fewer murderers get in. Next we should restrict childbirth so fewer murderers are born.

  • John||

    If you assume that people have the same right to immigrate here that the people here have to have children, sure. But, if you don't assume that and assume that people do not have a right to immigrate here, then not so much.

    Every immigration thread on here is about 50% transnationalists rejecting the entire concept of borders yelling at people who don't about how irrational they are.

  • Citytrekker||

    It is EASY to see how anyone could have predicted Sayfullo Saipov's seven-year journey from eager TO COMMIT JIHAD immigrant to DOMESTIC Islamic terrorist.

  • John||

    Who doesn't look at that picture and think "hey America, get ya some of that!!"?

  • chemjeff||

    Really John?

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Perhaps Trump's plan for extreme vetting wouldn't have kept this guy out, but Trump's proposal to scrap the Diversity-Visa program would.

  • Adam330||

    So would my proposal to ban rental trucks.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    How would your plan to ban rental trucks keep him out of the country? Pretty sure he got here on a plane.

  • Adam330||

    It would have prevented the attack.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    But my claim wasn't that ending the program would prevent the attack, my claim was that it would keep him out of the country.

  • Adam330||

    ok

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Ending the diversity lotto would be more effective.

    There would literally be zero terrorist actions by persons that might otherwise have been admitted entry under the lottery.

  • Eidde||

    "Would Extremer Vetting Have Stopped This Week's Attack in Manhattan?"

    Shouldn't we be looking at Trump's claim that the guy got admitted based on a Chuck Schumer-sponsored laws for "diversity" admissions?

    "But, but - that law simply included a provision on diversity visas copied off of Chuck Schumer bill, and George H. W. Bush, signed the law, and many years later Schumer was willing to drop his diversity visa law in exchange for more immigration...therefore it's unfair to pin this law on Schumer!" /sarc

  • alaskan15||

    Most crimes, and almost all mass crimes, are committed by men. If we simply stopped letting men in, we could reduce crime by immigrants by over 90%. We would just need to decide if it was worth it....

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    I will relent on my previous hard-line immigration stance, if we import mostly hot Eastern European model-types.

  • Zeb||

    I think you are onto something. Vet all immigrants based on hotness. As judged by me.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Muslim Women have the babies that grow up to be Muslim men.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Here's a way out in 2 steps:
    1. Keep electing God's Own Prohibitionists and Democrats and applauding as they export prohibitionism, bombings and making the rest of the world a slum even the rats would flee (and stir up more suicide berserker attacks in the bargain);
    2. Exploit the suicide berserker attacks to exclude ALL immigration, tourism, foreigners and blame "that other" religion.
    People fleeing the economies "we" destroyed would make a business of packing the Saracen berserkers off to Paradise with permanent visas in order to loosen US restrictions and finally emigrate from the slums Republicans made of their countries. Q.E.D.

  • Sigivald||

    The United States made Uzbekistan a slum? How? Mind-control over the old USSR?

    The idea that the US is the Prime Mover of the world and only it can "destroy" economies (did Uzbekistan have one? How about Afghanistan? How does this explain Saudis who fly planes into buildings?) is ludicrous and has been for decades.

    About as ludicrous as "religious terrorism is caused by poverty" (ref. above).

  • Hank Phillips||

    Except for oil flowing out of the ground (the Middle East) or chumps everywhere else sending in tithes (Vatican City), you show me a deeply religious government and Herbert Hoover and I will show you a slum.

  • Wearenotperfect||

    The answer is NO!

  • chemjeff||

    There is no practical way to "ban Muslims" that doesn't involve profiling based on national origin, race, and/or ethnicity. And the ones hurt the most are the ones who have the "wrong" race/ethnicity/national origin who AREN'T Muslims.

  • DRM||

    Hmmm? As long as you don't insist on absolute perfection, there are lots of "practical" ways to distinguish the Muslims from the non-Muslims.

    You ask them their religion; that screens out all the Muslims not willing to lie right there. If they come from one of the many countries (such as Egypt) where religious affiliation is marked on government-issued ID, you check that, too. You give the men physical exams, and if they're circumcised, you make the background checks deeper -- outside of the US, usually the only people who are circumcised are Jewish or Muslim. You can ask them questions about the non-Muslim religion they're claiming to be. You can check them for distinguishing marks, like the tattoos many Egyptian Coptics have. You can ask them to blaspheme Islam.

    Sure, you'll get some false positives and some false negatives. But that's true with any screening process.

    That's not to say that such screening procedures are a good idea. But pretending it can't be done is nonsense.

  • DRM||

    "More to the point, when Saipov immigrated to the United States in 2010, there was no reason to think he would one day murder eight innocent people in the name of Islam."

    Because he was a devout adherent to Russian Orthodoxy?

  • Careless||

    Wait, did this guy just accidentally write a post calling for the end of the diversity lottery?

  • David B.||

    Yes! How about consequences for those people he knows or have otherwise sponsored into the country? We don't have to let ANYBODY in.

  • AngelaM||

    OK so it was stupid and pointless but name one Trump tweet that isn't one or the other or sometimes both.

  • ||

    In fact,yes,vetting him would be easy. Even for an untrained one such as I,the beard would cause me to reject him,no matter what anything else implied.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Perhaps "extreme vetting" may not have prevented this attack, but shutting down the Diversity Visa, and closing the door to anyone who can't be verified as who they claim to be, certainly would help - Judge Watson's poorly informed opinions not withstanding.

  • tommhan||

    Does anyone with half a brain think we should give visas so people can be a driver? Or have anything to do with race?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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