It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Donald Trump refugee ban: 'arrivals from targeted countries stopped at US airports'

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: kaylaluv

Why can't they go to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Bahrain... ?

All Islamic nations with plenty of resources and more able to assimilate them into their culture. And more importantly NOT on the other side of the planet.

Would make it easier for them to return home after the conflict, give them the opportunity to more easily organize to oust the terrorists from their home countries...

Having them come to the US makes no sense at all.


Those countries refused to take them due to the massive security threat, which they are keenly aware of, being Islamic nations.




posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Trump is pandering to his conservative base who hate Muslims in general.

No one has answered my question as to how many refugees allowed into America under the current vetting process have committed terrorist acts in America?



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: savemebarry

Trump's administration is a week old.

Clinton had terrorist attacks, and has been accused of inaction regarding Bin Laden who had bombed US embassies during his in the nineties.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

According to this, since from 1975 - 2015, 24 terrorist attacks were caused by refugees.


This policy analysis identifies 154 foreign-born terrorists in the United States who killed 3,024 people in attacks from 1975 through the end of 2015. Ten of them were illegal immigrants, 54 were lawful permanent residents (LPR), 19 were students, 1 entered on a K-1 fiancé(e) visa, 20 were refugees, 4 were asylum seekers, 34 were tourists on various visas, and 3 were from Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries. The visas for 9 terrorists could not be determined. During that period, the chance of an American being murdered by a foreign-born terrorist was 1 in 3,609,709 a year. The chance of an American being killed in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee was 1 in 3.64 billion a year. The annual chance of being murdered by somebody other than a foreign-born terrorist was 252.9 times greater than the chance of dying in a terrorist attack committed by a foreign-born terrorist.


Terrorism and Immigration - A Risk Analysis.

1 in 3.64billion is quite long odds I'd say.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: twfau
The 9/11 and San Bernardino attackers came from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UAE, and Egypt.

But Trump has business interests in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Priorities.


You inspired me to research that. Look at what I found...


President Trump has signed an executive order that bans citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East from entering the United States for 90 days, according to the White House. His proposed list doesn’t include Muslim-majority countries where his Trump Organization has done business or pursued potential deals. Properties include golf courses in the United Arab Emirates and two luxury towers operating in Turkey.

Trump’s Immigration Ban Excludes Countries With Business Ties


"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." - Franklin D. Roosevelt



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: savemebarry

I don't know how many times I must say this.

We. have. an. existing. refugee. vetting. system. that. works.

How many refugees in America have committed terrorist attacks?

How many people in America have committed terrorist attacks (since 9/11) who were either born in America or who have become citizens?


The better question you may want to ask is "How many terrorist attacks has the government had to stop before they happened that the public never gets told about due to the intelligence agencies not wanting to reveal their monitoring practices?"
Terror attacks happen all the time in other countries... Do you disagree? The thing is, these are countries where the government can't stop them before they happen. That's the difference between somewhere like Iraq and the US... Radicals don't just magically no longer want to commit acts of terror just because they happen to live in the US. No, they exist. We just stop them before they can carry out their activities.
If you disagree, imagine if our intelligence agencies just stopped what they were doing. No vetting, no monitoring, nothing. We'd be attacked at the first opportunity, because there are alot of radical Muslims in the world who want to attack the US.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

How many refugees have committed terrorist acts in America?



Tashfeen Malik, Marriage and entry into United States

According to one of Farook's coworkers, Malik and her husband married about a month after he travelled to Saudi Arabia in early 2014; the two had met over the Internet. Malik joined Farook in California shortly after their wedding. A U.S. marriage certificate reported their marriage in Riverside on August 16, 2014.[44] At the time of her death, Malik and Farook had a six-month-old daughter. Malik entered the United States on a K-1 (fiancée) visa with a Pakistani passport. According to a State Department spokesman, all applicants for such visas are fully screened. Malik's application for permanent residency (a "green card") was completed by Farook on her behalf in September 2014, and she was granted a conditional green card in July 2015. Obtaining such a green card would have required the couple to prove that the marriage was legitimate. As is standard practice, as part of her visa application with the State Department and application for a green card, Malik submitted her fingerprints and underwent "three extensive national security and criminal background screenings" using Homeland Security and State Department databases. Malik also underwent two in-person interviews, the first with a consular officer in Pakistan and the second with an immigration officer in the U.S. after applying for a green card. No irregularities or signs of suspicion were found in the record of Malik's interview with the Pakistani consular officer. Malik reportedly had become very religious in the years before the attack, wearing both the niqab and burqa while urging others to do so as well. Pakistani media reported that Malik had ties to the radical Red Mosque in Islamabad, but a cleric and a spokesman from the mosque vehemently denied these claims, saying that they had never heard of Malik before the shooting. Malik's estranged relatives say that she had left the moderate Islam of her family and had become radicalized while living in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Interior Ministry spokesman Al-Turki rejected this claim, stating that Saudi officials received no indication that Malik was radicalized while living there. On December 16, 2015, FBI Director James Comey said, "We can see from our investigation that in late 2013, before there is a physical meeting of these two people [Farook and Malik] resulting in their engagement and then journey to the United States, they are communicating online, showing signs in that communication of their joint commitment to jihadism and to martyrdom. Those communications are direct, private messages."


Tashfeen Malik went through the screening process and even the green card process, and proceeded to then massacre innocent Americans.

The screening process failed, yet after the event communications were found that show radicalisation. Epic FAIL.
Hence your President wants to tighten things up.



edit on 28/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

And which one of those "poor Syrian families" have members who want to blow us up. Do you know? Can you tell just by looking?
Then they can stay out till they're properly vetted.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: kaylaluv

hey Kayla....wheres your bleeding heart for the 30,000 KIDS who die EVERY SINGLE DAY in Africa from lack of clean water???





We have a long history of delivering results:
Safeguarding the World's Water

Safeguarding the World's Water file icon(PDF - 3 MB)

As of 2015 more than 7.6 million people have received improved access to drinking water supply; more than 4.3 million people have received improved access to sanitation; and more than 3.1 million people have benefited from improved agricultural water management.

Since 2008, USAID has allocated more than $2.9 billion on WASH and has continually worked to increase the effectiveness and sustainability of these investments.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, the Agency invested more than $499 million towards water-related investments in 54 countries. More than 83 percent of these investments, $416.6 million went toward water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) programs to improve health and advance development.


www.usaid.gov...

I think we can handle more than one issue at the same time.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: trollz

And banning all Muslims refugees just prevents innocent people from sanctuary.

You do realize that banning Muslims won't stop the ones born here from getting radicalized?


Do you remember when there was that big Ebola outbreak? ... Like Trump wants to do.


This to me is a better analogy, more relative to how I see the ban.




posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

They were already being properly vetted.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: DAVID64

They were already being properly vetted.


You mean like Tashfeen Malik, who was 'properly vetted' and then massacred innocent Americans?



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

She was not allowed in under the refugee vetting process. She was not a refugee, thus does not even fall under the ban that Trump has now imposed against refugees.

Note: Her husband (a U.S. citizen) was radicalized before they met.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: DAVID64

They were already being properly vetted.


You mean like Tashfeen Malik, who was 'properly vetted' and then massacred innocent Americans?


And how would this ban have stopped her? She was not considered a refugee.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: DAVID64

They were already being properly vetted.


You mean like Tashfeen Malik, who was 'properly vetted' and then massacred innocent Americans?


And how would this ban have stopped her? She was not considered a refugee.


The EO also includes improvements to the current failed vetting process.
The ban is in place until that vetting process has been improved.
The vetting processes extends beyond refugees.

You can read the full text here:
www.theguardian.com...
edit on 28/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Yes apparently he has the power to force innocent Syrian families to continue to be blown up to bits while refusing to offer them any kind of sanctuary.

Sad.


Tell that to the other Islamic nations in the Middle East. They aren't interested. It makes no sense bringing them all the way over here. It's not sad, it's common sense. I realize that isn't so common anymore, but as someone else said on this board, it's prudent to turn off the faucet before pulling the plug on the drain (finding those who are being radicalized in the US). Tell me why other countries ( in which these refugees would more easily assimilate) Will not take on these families?

You are arguing about gun laws, but terrorists use any method available. Terrorists plow down people with their cars, and no one is banning cars. They'll use whatever they can get their hands on.

Anyone with a shred of common sense can look at what is happening in countries who accept floods of refugees and see this route isn't working for them either.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Trump is an absolute lunatic. No doubt about it. I am sure it still hasn't sunk in with Trumpeters though. It will take more. Well, more, I imagine you will receive.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

The refugee vetting process is the strictest of all the vetting procedures we have. And refugees are the most vulnerable victims of horrific treatment.

I repeat my argument that our current refugee vetting process works. Your example was not an example of a refugee.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ValentineWiggin

I don't know what those other countries' vetting process is. I know ours is very strict. We don't just accept "floods of refugees".



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Profusion

Trump is an absolute lunatic. No doubt about it. I am sure it still hasn't sunk in with Trumpeters though. It will take more. Well, more, I imagine you will receive.



Liberals are lunatics, accepting the risk of terrorists entering the country and shooting them, blowing them up, or driving trucks over them. I am sure it has not sunk in though. It will take more. Fortunately, you now have a President attempting to ensure you don't find out what 'more' means.




top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join