If you actually read the page you posted as a neutral source, it lists exactly what I stated a refugee has to go through, minus the UN screening process because the U.S. State Department has no say on what the UN does. That being said, it still mentions that they still have to be referred to the U.S. by the UN for the process to start, so it's still following the timeline. So congratulations, you're posting a source that just reaffirmed my statement.

Second, there's a reason why the vetting process takes two years. It's a layered process that's extremely strict. If there's even a reason to doubt that the refugee is a threat, the visa is denied. This threat can range from actual information that identifies them as a threat, conflicting information which throws doubt on their security, or a lack of information to verify their identity.

Any one of the layers individually are weak, it's the fact that you have to go through all of them that makes the process strong. A fingerprint scan is only a base check to confirm that somebody on a watch list is not performing identity fraud. Multiple scans are performed to confirm validity. Interviews are performed multiple times, not so the refugee can sell themselves to the agency, but to tell the agency their background. Any information provided during the interview is followed up on through an investigation by the agency to confirm the truth of the interview. An interview is conducted multiple times to make sure that the story of the refugee does not change. Further security checks and background checks are performed prior to arrival to make sure. It's a solid system. Which leads to the following point.

Third, nice to see you ignored the second link. Despite all of these supposed "flaws" you're pointing out in the vetting process, there is still 0 deaths from a terrorist attack perpetuated by a refugee on the U.S. in the past 30 years. And that's not even from a liberal source. That's from a libertarian institute funded by the Koch brothers. The majority of successful terrorist attacks are performed by domestic terrorists, followed by foreign nationals who have a permanent residence visa. The vast majority of viable threats to the nation do not come from the outside world, they come from inside the country.

I'm pretty sure it's you who's flipping out. I've backed up my claims and avoided personal attacks or strawmen, and your refutations have been either reinforcing my point by citing a source that supports my claim, ignoring them to tackle what you think is low hanging fruit, or performing strawmen.


Let's be clear about something. There is literally nothing more Trump can propose for the vetting process that isn't already being done to screen incoming refugees. No amount of time secured by a travel ban will let him or his administration come up with some magical new procedure to screen a refugee. If they propose anything new, it will literally compose of the exact same procedures. The quantity of which are performed will be the only difference. The travel ban was almost certainly a political move to try to show his supporters that he's getting stuff done. It's all smoke and no fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror..._United_States
I'm seeing a whole lot of Muslims in this list in the past 30 years.

Flow, notice how Oracle is making the distinction of Islamic refugees (and further specifying it by stating terrorist attacks that cause death). He isn't claiming that there's been no terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims. He's claiming that there's been no terrorist attacks perpetrated by refugees causing death (this doesn't include Muslims who hold green cards or have been granted permanent residence status, and obviously doesn't include Islamic US citizens).

Everyone should take the time to fully understand what the other person is saying before they respond to their argument. Otherwise the discussion will just devolve into a bunch of strawmen arguments and constant re-clarification of positions.

Also Parrot, I'll say to you what I said to Oniworm before, don't get wrapped up in thinking along ideological party lines. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a 'liberal'. That's an immature way of thinking.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...u-s-come-from/
Most refugees weren't from the middle east until the 2000s.

And your point is...?

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/revie...n-emancipation
The point is that a lot of terrorism comes from the children of immigrants and refugees, who cannot by definition be refugees. Your claims are pointing at the wrong group.

My claim was that you didn't understand Oracle's point . His points referred to refugees exclusively. You countered his point by saying 'Nah, look, plenty of muslims are terrorists'. That doesn't work as a counter-argument since it's beside the point.

You can make an argument that it's the 2nd generation Islamic citizens that are doing harm, and there's definitely some truth in that, but that's a separate issue and beside the point that Oracle was talking about. Your response didn't invalidate his claim... That was my point.

I pointed out the link between refugees and terrorism. Just because it doesn't fit into the narrow framework you set up purposely to deny any and all evidence to the contrary doesn't mean you're right.

OK, let's run with what you're claiming then, because it's accurate. A lot of the successful Muslim terrorists are often second generation immigrants. So let's see the possible answers to this problem.

One, we just stop all Muslim immigrants/refugees. Sure, there is now no longer a possibility of second generation immigrants becoming terrorists because there are no longer any immigrants. However, you now create an equally dangerous probability that these immigrants and their children that you are denying entry will now be stuck in war zones or under IS control. And they will see their circumstances, and a lot of them will look for reasons for their misfortune. As much as the U.S. wants to avoid this, they have been, and are, one of the major destabilizing powers in the region. It would not be far fetched to claim that they could easily radicalize in such an environment against the U.S. And these conflicts that create these refugees will not end nicely. Even if they resolve in our favor, it is highly improbable that radical forces or ideology will disappear with them. These radicalized people will disappear into the population. So do we keep blocking immigration from these countries? When, if ever, will we allow immigration from these countries? What stops these radicalized individuals from getting citizenship in another country then applying for a tourism visa in these less scrutinized countries?

As it should be becoming clear, mass immigration bans to prevent a terror attack caused by immigrants or offspring of immigrants is not a long-term, or even necessarily a short-term, solution. It makes the population available for indoctrination or radicalization grow and fails to stop a dedicated individual from getting into the country through other legal means. If anything, it can cause more harm than good in the long-term with little to no benefit in the short-term.

Which leads to another problem. If second generation immigrants are the main people who become radicalized, then implementing a travel ban will not stop any radicalization of people who are already in the country. If anything, it will provide fuel for radicalization, because the travel bans are very easy to construe as discrimination. So it stands to reason that a travel ban not only hurts in the long-term in preventing radicalization, but also may provide fuel in the short-term for radicalization.

Which I know will lead to people saying to just deport these people, but that's illegal. They are natural-born citizens of the U.S., and deporting somebody based on their religion is a violation of the Constitution. Deportation is only possible if you can prove that they have violated a law in some way, and guilt by association is not applicable under the court of law.

I could go on, but it should be abundantly clear by now that a travel ban does not effectively protect this nation from Islamic terrorism.


If second generation immigrants are the primary population who become terrorists, then it would stand to reason that the better solution is to target the demographic with social services. Radicalization does not happen often in a person who is well adjusted to their environment. Radical views form in the face of discrimination, perceived or real, lack of opportunity, and other isolating events. And Islamophobic attitudes in the country only perpetuate this isolation. People are born normal, it's through being rejected and isolated by their country and community that they become disheartened and susceptible to radicalization. Rather than try to remove these people from the country, it would be more effective to reach out to these people to prevent them from becoming radicalized in the first place. And it would certainly be more effective than confirming their beliefs on being unwanted or rejected by society by imposing a travel ban on the basis of location or religion.


Also, correlation doesn't mean causation. The vast majority of second generation immigrants do not become radicalized, the vast majority of refugees are not terrorists. After all, if correlation was all that mattered, then I could rightfully say that all terrorists have been humans, therefore all humans should be banned from living in the U.S. Obviously, that's a stupid conclusion, but it illustrates that correlation can be a trap when reaching a logical conclusion. If the correlation is too general, then it will likely not contribute anything to a logical conclusion. Immigration being correlated to terrorism is, likewise, too general, in addition to the correlation being rather weak. The vast majority of immigrants and their families do not become radicalized, and the majority of radicalized people are not immigrants. Domestic terrorism is still alive and well.

That is only an avoidable situation if ALL refugees are taken, which is a worse problem. Taking out a large number of the non radicalized members of a population leaves a higher ratio of radicals, leading to more conversion.

Why is it infeasible to stop immigration from countries with known terrorist connections until those terrorist groups are no longer a threat? Nothing will or ever has been able to stop them from coming through other countries, one hole in the wall doesn't mean you tear the whole thing down.

Again, if there are enough non-radicals in a country, they can help better their country rather than abandoning it to the terrorists.

If a person is as delicate as to be convinced to murder people because they feel (incorrectly) that they are being discriminated against, they will find any reason they can to feel discriminated against. Look at how feminism has moved from suffrage to man spreading. (Before you say that's only the extremists, that's the point.)

Letting them in is a worse solution, look at Europe.

Of course there should be support in place for second generation immigrants, that doesn't mean we should make more of them.

When 0.5% of the population commits almost half of the terrorist acts in a country, it's probably not random coincidence.