“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

[Maxperson]

How about tourist?

Not so much. They get searched coming in and don't typically stay long enough to plot and plan. It's also not feasible to do in depth searches of tourists since there are so many more of them. That said, I have no problem with them doing so for people coming from countries with terror ties. The number of tourists from those countries is fairly minimal and the risks greater.

In this particular case, it may have made a difference. Of course, you'd have to get Facebook to agree to let the government do it. That would probably lead to the government getting to do the same to people here in the U.S., including citizens. I'm not sure you'd like that idea.

Nah. Searching the posts and messages of potential immigrants/refugees is not anywhere close to the same as searching through American posts and messages. One does not equal the other.

In any case, as I was saying, it may have helped in this particular case, but doing so for every single person coming into the U.S. would result in a big price tag.

To save lives? It would be cheap.

Well that's just incorrect.

No it isn't. American privacy laws do not apply to people from other countries wanting to enter America.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Not so much.

How about people coming in on a work visa? Or how about those coming in on a investor visa?

They get searched coming in and don't typically stay long enough to plot and plan.

Everybody gets searched coming in. Some better than others. Tourists can stay for a good amount of time. They could also plan things ahead of time.

It's also not feasible to do in depth searches of tourists since there are so many more of them.

That said, I have no problem with them doing so for people coming from countries with terror ties. The number of tourists from those countries is fairly minimal and the risks greater.

You'd be missing all the ones that became citizens of other countries that don't have "terror ties" and come over to the U.S. Or how about the ones born in countries with no "terror ties" and became radicalized. I mean, there have been several people in the U.S. that were radicalized that have fortunately been caught before they were able to do anything. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that in some non-terror country there are some people becoming radicalized and plotting to attack the U.S. Just think of all the scary people that could be coming into the U.S. pretending to be tourist when in fact they are just terrorist waiting to take your job and blow stuff up.

Nah. Searching the posts and messages of potential immigrants/refugees is not anywhere close to the same as searching through American posts and messages. One does not equal the other.

Didn't say one equals the other. One, however, can lead to the other.

To save lives? It would be cheap.

You're not from the U.S., are you? What commie terrorist country are you from?

No it isn't. American privacy laws do not apply to people from other countries wanting to enter America.

Fortunately for people, the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on laws.

 

[Maxperson]

How about people coming in on a work visa? Or how about those coming in on a investor visa?

Yep. Any long term visit should involve vetting or you don't get in.

You'd be missing all the ones that became citizens of other countries that don't have "terror ties" and come over to the U.S. Or how about the ones born in countries with no "terror ties" and became radicalized. I mean, there have been several people in the U.S. that were radicalized that have fortunately been caught before they were able to do anything. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that in some non-terror country there are some people becoming radicalized and plotting to attack the U.S. Just think of all the scary people that could be coming into the U.S. pretending to be tourist when in fact they are just terrorist waiting to take your job and blow stuff up.
Didn't say one equals the other. One, however, can lead to the other.

You can't be perfect, but that doesn't mean you let the easy crap get by you like searching the internet and social media.

Fortunately for people, the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on laws.

Fortunately for the U.S., we control who gets in. Can't vet them because of host country laws, sucks to be you. You don't get in.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Yep. Any long term visit should involve vetting or you don't get in.

So then I take it that you agree that Marco Rubio is a hell of a hypocrite, even for a republican?

You can't be perfect, but that doesn't mean you let the easy crap get by you like searching the internet and social media.

So because vetting tourists takes a bit more effort, you're willing to ignore the giant hole where terrorist can get in?

Fortunately for the U.S., we control who gets in. Can't vet them because of host country laws, sucks to be you. You don't get in.

And yet, they still get in. They've gotten in for a log time. Even before Obama was President, but I'm sure you'll agree, it's still his fault that they got in before he was President.

 

[Kramodlog]

What's the first thing the new U.S. President must do after taking office? Stop the Syrian invasion!

You have to give the GOP candidates credit. They are all on the same page when it comes to justifying not taking in those in need.

With 25,000 Syrians coming to Canada and the porous boarder between the US and Canada, the US really needs to veet everyone that comes from the North at any moment.

On a more serious note, I'm all for taking in refugees, but we should be aware that a terrorist might slip by all the checks. It shouldn't deter nations from accepting refugees. It's just time to accept that terrorism happens. At least as long as we keep interferring in the Middle East. If 71 percent of Americans can believe that shootings are now a part of American life, it is time that the far less deadly acts of terrorism be accepted as part of everyday life.

 

[Maxperson]

So then I take it that you agree that Marco Rubio is a hell of a hypocrite, even for a republican?

I'm not paying much attention to the Republicans until they're down to a field of 5. What did he say?

So because vetting tourists takes a bit more effort, you're willing to ignore the giant hole where terrorist can get in?

Eh, no. Because it's utterly impossible to vet all tourists, we should concentrate on vetting those who come from the countries with the greatest ties to terror, including those from those countries who go to say England to come that way.

And yet, they still get in. They've gotten in for a log time. Even before Obama was President, but I'm sure you'll agree, it's still his fault that they got in before he was President.

Not many hispanic terrorists, and those are like 90% of the illegals who get in.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

I'm not paying much attention to the Republicans until they're down to a field of 5. What did he say?

It's in the article I linked which you replied to.

Eh, no. Because it's utterly impossible to vet all tourists,

Something being impossible hasn't stopped conservatives from demanding it be done.

we should concentrate on vetting those who come from the countries with the greatest ties to terror, including those from those countries who go to say England to come that way.

Not many hispanic terrorists, and those are like 90% of the illegals who get in.

But that's still 10% that are terrorists. I thought you were all for safety regardless of cost? It's already happening. The southern border is the attack route for those dastardly terrorists. You should be afraid of that 10% that gets in. Very afraid.

 

[Ryujin]

With 25,000 Syrians coming to Canada and the porous boarder between the US and Canada, the US really needs to veet everyone that comes from the North at any moment.

On a more serious note, I'm all for taking in refugees, but we should be aware that a terrorist might slip by all the checks. It shouldn't deter nations from accepting refugees. It's just time to accept that terrorism happens. At least as long as we keep interferring in the Middle East. If 71 percent of Americans can believe that shootings are now a part of American life, it is time that the far less deadly acts of terrorism be accepted as part of everyday life.

Based on events since 9/11 there seems to be far more danger from both the radicalization of domestically born people and the fact that many, many people from foreign countries visit on a daily basis. Home grown terrorism is the biggest danger, of the two.

 

[Maxperson]

Something being impossible hasn't stopped conservatives from demanding it be done.

Correction. It hasn't stopped some Republicans. You're over generalizing and you shouldn't do that.

But that's still 10% that are terrorists. I thought you were all for safety regardless of cost? It's already happening. The southern border is the attack route for those dastardly terrorists. You should be afraid of that 10% that gets in. Very afraid.

C'mon man. 90ish% of illegals are hispanic, so the other 10% are terrorists? And you bring in FOX news instead of a reputable news source? If you aren't going to debate in good faith, you should at least try to disguise the bad faith stuff better.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Correction. It hasn't stopped some Republicans. You're over generalizing and you shouldn't do that.

Not at all. There are republicans that know building a wall, fence, or whatever you want, is impossible. Conservatives, on the other hand, are pushing for a wall, fence, or whatever to completely block passage across the border. Republicans tend to be a bit more realistic. Unfortunately, they've been pandering to conservatives, who are making the republican party look crazy as hell.

C'mon man. 90ish% of illegals are hispanic, so the other 10% are terrorists?

You're the one that came up with the 90% tatistic. You tell me. Are the other 10% terrorist?

And you bring in FOX news instead of a reputable news source? If you aren't going to debate in good faith, you should at least try to disguise the bad faith stuff better.

In other words, you can't argue against the point I presented, so you attack the source. And you accuse me or not debating in good faith? That's rich.