We have to have vetting-don't Democrats get it?

[Suburbia]

I'm a centrist. Both parties are crazy. What Mr. Trump wants is to ban those nations with terrorist ties. Don't Democrats get it? We need to have vetting.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Honestly we do have vetting in place. This is more about limiting who gets through. No one serious just opposes vetting in general.

[Devout Centrist]

I'm a centrist. Both parties are crazy. What Mr. Trump wants is to ban those nations with terrorist ties. Don't Democrats get it? We need to have vetting.

I'm glad you're nowhere close to public policy.

[Dr. Arch]

Except that whole tidbit where he's banning from countries that whose involvement hasn't resulted in terrorist attacks in the US, while he's ignoring those that have been involved. Want to guess in which of these two sets of countries Trump has business interests involved?

[JA]

Since when have we not had a very thorough vetting process? Do you know how difficult our vetting process really is? Someone doesn't just show up somewhere and say they want to come to America and an official hands them a plane ticket. It can take years of extensive research into a person's background, documentation that may have been lost in conflict, thorough investigations, and interviews. The only way to speed up the process is to have a relative in America sponsor them.

No one is opposed to vetting asylum seekers and refugees except nonexistent figures in the paranoid right wing media. What people are opposed to is discriminating against people, especially those highly vulnerable people in Syria, because of their religious background. Tourists, immigrants, and refugees from those countries that have been blocked are extraordinarily unlikely to pose any threat to anyone. To ban them in this manner makes as much sense as banning African Americans from owning guns because they commit a disproportionate amount of firearms related crime. Why wouldn't we do that? Because it's racist and unfairly treats all African Americans as guilty for what a very small minority within their communities do.

Perhaps White people should be locked away from all other people on earth because we're disproportionately more likely to dehumanize others, start world wars, and commit genocide. Would that be acceptable to you?

[pbrower2a]

We can vet against persons with criminal records and people with membership in known terrorist organizations. Thus we can keep a Canadian citizen who is a member of the Aryan Nations, a Japanese citizen who is a member of Aum Shinrikyo or the Japanese Red Army Faction, or an Israeli citizen of Kach and Kahane Chai out.

...Guess what that does to Islamic terrorist groups!

We can also reasonably vet against members of organized crime  syndicates.      

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Perhaps White people should be locked away from all other people on earth because we're disproportionately more likely to dehumanize others, start world wars, and commit genocide. Would that be acceptable to you?

-More #AlternativeFacts. Noone who can writes this has any real understanding of the history of Africa or Asia.

Yes, the current refugee vetting process is pretty thorough. But people change and children often do not grow up to be like their parents. So risk remains, even with vetting.

[Blue3]

I'm a centrist. Both parties are crazy. What Mr. Trump wants is to ban those nations with terrorist ties. Don't Democrats get it? We need to have vetting.

We do have vetting.

Trump just banned them.


And he didn't include Saudi Arabia or Pakistan on the list.

[Ebowed]

Yes, the current refugee vetting process is pretty thorough. But people change and children often do not grow up to be like their parents. So risk remains, even with vetting.

...So it should be illegal to reproduce?

[Xing]

Perhaps White people should be locked away from all other people on earth because we're disproportionately more likely to dehumanize others, start world wars, and commit genocide. Would that be acceptable to you?

-More #AlternativeFacts. Noone who can writes this has any real understanding of the history of Africa or Asia.

Yes, the current refugee vetting process is pretty thorough. But people change and children often do not grow up to be like their parents. So risk remains, even with vetting.

He's right about the world war part, though it is certainly true that many countries in Asia and Africa have enormous problems with political corruption.

And yes, there will always technically be a bit of risk, but I don't think that justifies doing away with one of the founding principles of this country.

[Pandaguineapig]

The vetting the United States has is much better than that of Germany,Sweden, or other countries that have had problems with refugees. A better solution if there is a legitimate terror threat is to process potential refugees through territories such as guam

[Ebowed]

A better solution if there is a legitimate terror threat is to process potential refugees through territories such as guam

You can't just shuffle people around like cattle.  If you expect these people to integrate into the American community, detaining them in Guam is not going to be helpful.

[Pandaguineapig]

A better solution if there is a legitimate terror threat is to process potential refugees through territories such as guam

You can't just shuffle people around like cattle.  If you expect these people to integrate into the American community, detaining them in Guam is not going to be helpful.

Refugees by definition intend to go back to their country of origin once the conflict is over, they are not immigrants. We can protect and take care of refugees while still keeping track of them

[Crumpets]

This isn't vetting anymore than kicking a wing of patients out of a hospital is a diagnosis.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The 9/11 hijackers were all from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are Wahhabists who fund lots of crazy jihadists. But none of those 3 countries are on this pointless list of 7 countries.

[publicunofficial]

A better solution if there is a legitimate terror threat is to process potential refugees through territories such as guam

You can't just shuffle people around like cattle.  If you expect these people to integrate into the American community, detaining them in Guam is not going to be helpful.

Refugees by definition intend to go back to their country of origin once the conflict is over, they are not immigrants. We can protect and take care of refugees while still keeping track of them

What happens when the refugees enjoy living in a 1st world country and don't want to go back to a war zone?

[Ebowed]

A better solution if there is a legitimate terror threat is to process potential refugees through territories such as guam

You can't just shuffle people around like cattle.  If you expect these people to integrate into the American community, detaining them in Guam is not going to be helpful.

Refugees by definition intend to go back to their country of origin once the conflict is over, they are not immigrants.

That is not a definition of refugee that I am familiar with.

Refugees largely do intend to stay in their country of settlement.

[AtorBoltox]

I'm a centrist. Both parties are crazy. What Mr. Trump wants is to ban those nations with terrorist ties. Don't Democrats get it? We need to have vetting.

You are absolutely not a centrist. Weren't you saying the other day that motorists ramming their car through crowds of protesters would be 'understandable' and acceptable?

[Middle-aged Europe]

I'm a centrist.

No, you ain't.

[mencken]

This whole idea of temporarily restricting processing of refugees from certain countries is a racist idea stolen from that white nationalist figure Barack H. Obama:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Silent Hunter]

Refugees largely do intend to stay in their country of settlement.

Indeed. In fact, I suspect at least one Atlas member is descended from a refugee who chose not to go back, even after the threat was gone, because there was basically nothing to return to.

[ApatheticAustrian]

I'm a centrist. Both parties are crazy. What Mr. Trump wants is to ban those nations with terrorist ties. Don't Democrats get it? We need to have vetting.

then mister trump ist stoopid.....since the most dangerous countries are not on the list.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

We already have vetting.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

We already have vetting.

[publicunofficial]

This whole idea of temporarily restricting processing of refugees from certain countries is a racist idea stolen from that white nationalist figure Barack H. Obama:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was a flaw in the vetting process, it was fixed, the Iraqi ban was overturned. Not remotely the same.