Fox News

Strongly disagree.
My impression is that since then the terror attacks by Islamic terrorists in the US declined.

 

Here's a list of all the Islamist terrorist attacks in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

There's just under a dozen listed there since 2001 here in the USA. Point to some prior to this program being put in place that would have been prevented if the program had been in place since 2001. My guess is that there are zero. I really don't think people immigrate to the USA to commit terrorist attacks. But show me one and prove me wrong and your position correct. Even if there happened to be a decline that would be statistically insignificant with so few cases to work with.

 

I'm not rulling out that there were other reasons.
Such as the Islamization of the US?
Islam one if not the most growing religion in the world.
I can speculate many things as organizations like Muslim Brotherhood and others including missionary, charitable and advocacy organizations as well as political parties in many countries promote islamization just like missionaries evangelize and promote Christianity.
I can see the bible belt not exactly welcoming changes.
And Left getting additional voters because its obvious which way majority of Muslims vote.

 

Because this is an education-related board, I'm going to pick a nit here.

"Statistically (in)significant" refers to sampling. We say that a difference between two sample means is "statistically significant" if their means are so far apart (and also considering the sample sizes and the standard deviations of each) that we can safely assume they represent a real difference in the two populations, that the difference isn't due to sampling (random) error. (This level of assurance is normally reported as a percentage: 90, 95, or even 99 percent sure.)

Sampling is used because taking a census of many populations is impossible or impractical. If we could, we wouldn't need inferential statistics to measure the differences. We could just report it.

And that's what you're referring to here: a difference in two populations, not samples. There is no reason for statistical tests; you can just report the differences. Whether or not they are significant in other ways is a non-mathematical, judgment call.

No lecturing here. Just thought I'd take an opportunistic chance to throw out a point relevant to any of our readers interested in quantitative measurements and inferential statistics. (I know, I know, everybody, right?)

 

Thank you for the correction.

What I was trying to say is that with less than a dozen cases since 2001, even if they have declined in occurrence since the Trump administration enacted the ban on immigration from those Moslem countries it wouldn't really prove Lerner's point.

Even though he said he strongly disagrees with Steve, it seems he didn't want to really defend his position instead he just deflected.

 

With ISIS an other terror organizations ability to infiltrate here among refugees sleeper groups, I think the issue is much worse then the look at the statistic. When refugees are fleeing state terrorism, its easy to implant slipper cells.
Not only terrorism can cause refugee flows and internal displacement but also
counter-terrorist operations can cause large displacements of people.
Migration control for the control of terrorism is a widely used instrument. Unfortunately it can hurt innocent migrants.
While U.S. homeland security officials are pushing back against claims that known and suspected terrorists are trying to sneak into the country from Mexico, calling such incidents "very uncommon."
there are attempts to infiltrate within refugee migrants and those are not a known or suspected terrorists those are sleeper cells.
Another thing that opponents fear is state within the state as the ideologies are very different.
Per Sec Mayorkas - "Individuals who match that profile have tried to cross the border, the land border, have tried to travel by air into the United States, not only this year, but last year"
"US multi-layered security apparatus, the architecture that we have built since the commencement of the Dept of Homeland Security, that we are in fact able to identify & apprehend them & ensure that they do not remain in the United States"
The issue is that the terrorists are adjusting and building covert teams and recruiting locally (not a new issue). Indoctrinating and slowly converting people to become operatives as terrorists don’t have to be foreign, dark skinned or from a different religion, the only requirement is that they’re filled with hate and have been sufficiently brain washed.

BTW
A federal judge late Friday ordered the Biden administration to revive a Trump-era policy requiring immigrants seeking asylum at the southern border to wait in Mexico while their applications are pending.

 

If a terrorist wanted to come into the country to commit some terrorist act, why wouldn't they come in the easiest way? That is just come in after getting a short visit visa? Why would they go to all the trouble of immigrating?
I went back and counted how many Islamic terrorist attacks there has been in the USA since 9/11/2001. Including 9/11 there have been EIGHT Islamist terrorist attacks in the past 20 years. You seem to have watched too much scare talk about bogeymen immigration Islamic terrorist on right wing biased news sources. Or perhaps the FBI has busted dozens of terrorist sleeper cells but I just didn't see it on the news or any of that other stuff you claim?

 

There are multiple reasons for that. Indeed some may come here this way.
Others may want to be here for the log run, to setup a small army for when the time is right.
September 11 was if I'm not mistaken by terrorists who overstayed visas? I don't remember.
But it was a major terrorist attack and we are still handling the consequences.

One of the most important jobs of our government--in fact, State and Federal and local as well--is to make sure that our people are safe.
Remember Paris CA and San Bernardino terror attacks? they showed us, ISIS and ISIS-inspired attacks remain a major threat in this
country.

The reason that it was only 8 on our soil is thanks to our agencies and military that are working hard to prevent such events and keep us safe.
When you admitting people to your country you expect them to become loyal residents, citizens of the country.

Under Trump administration our forces and allies dealt a serious blow to ISIS.
Before Trump presidency during Obama administration despite the heavy losses inflicted on ISIS by coalition forces, the number of ISIS fighters on the ground in
Iraq and Syria remained pretty much the same thanks to a stream of new recruits that was flowing into the region on a regular basis.
ISIS appeared to have a significant online army that grew daily.
They waged an aggressive social media campaign that called on people to do the group's bidding from thousands of miles away.
For the US this battle was not against a religion it was against ISIS, while ISIS made it look like US is fighting Islam as religion.

Why I'm posting this info , because it connected to the issue of the safety here domestically.
Paris CA and Sanbernardino Isis inspired terrorist attacks if ISIS wasn't going to be defeated and other actions of our government and it agencies and military prevented many future occurrences just in time.

When we talk about Islam and the 1.5+ billion Muslims around the world who practice their religion peacefully.
They live in our states. They live in our neighborhoods, and they believe as fervently as we do: to treat other people the way that
we want to be treated.

"While the vast majority of American Muslims clearly reject, as we heard, the Islamic State's narrative and tactics, the
number of arrests and open investigations that were throughout the country tell us that the mobilization of
Americans attracted to the Islamic State was unprecedented in size. It is also astonishingly diverse. It included men and
women, teenagers and men in their 40s, university students and petty criminals, people born into Islam and converts, and
people born in America and recent immigrants. "
The ideology
unquestionably remains, is that of living in a perfect Islamic society under the world's only
authentic Islamic government.
We don't know how Taliban and other militant regimes will use US forces leaving Afghanistan, they already trying to depict as US loss and US is fleeing.
There was last-minute decision to send 3,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan to help partially evacuate the U.S. Embassy.
US is bringing in refugees from Afghanistan as people are running for their lives, its heart breaking what is happening.

 

I don't dispute the fact that 9/11 was very bad. That wasn't the point of discussion. As a reminder the point of discussion was preventing immigration of Islamic terrorists . The fact remains that I don't know of any Islamist terrorists that immigrated to this country as terrorists. I believe that 9/11 was carried out by terrorist that entered the country with visas as you mention and the other 7 were carried out by people that were radicalized to do what they did by reading propaganda on the Internet while living in the USA. Your fear of Islamic terrorists immigrating into the country seems a bit overblown. It hasn't happened as far as we know.

 

The prevention was temporary following ISIS inspired terrorist attacks in the USA.

 

I think it was the right thing todo at the time.

 

Of course you do. Because you get your news from news sources that have an accuracy rating of "very low", "low" and "mixed" accuracy at best. The right biased media in that range of inaccuracy love to fear monger about immigration.

 

There is no restriction of individual liberties when it comes to Immigrating to another country.
The host country sets the rules and has an obligation to protect the safety of the citizens, residents and guests.

 

The work involves making sure that members of the cult you support do not get to be anyone's elected officials.

I'll be doing multi-part response to this post. I take deep issue with one thing you said in particular, so let me address other stuff and then get back to it and rant away.

 

No amount of ideology supersedes basic logic. If you understand, at all, what refugee program is supposed to be, you would not defend the genius idea of refusing refugees from countries where "some perform terrorist acts". I mean, by God, man, what do you think "refugee" even mean? Moreover, as you've been told, there's no actual evidence immigrants from any of these countries committed acts of terror. Unlike, er, Russia (Boston marathon bombers).

 

Once again, you demonstrate preference for Dem-style policies along with allegiance with modern GOP politics. The only explanation is, you are one of the people their politics is designed to attract.