Political Roundtable Part XIII

[sfam]

That was our country at one time. So was slavery. So was the massacre of the Indians.

Certainly we have made a lot of progress since then but a lot of people were needlessly killed along the way. I am not seeing similar progress in Muslim countries. They have far less diversity and far more ethnic conflicts.

If they can't get along peacefully with each other I see no reason why I should expect them to assimilate peacefully here. I have no problem with more vetting in regards to Muslim immigration, although Trump's handling of the issue certainly leaves something to be desired.

He is a bit nuts himself with a laundry list of character flaws, but that doesn't mean he is wrong about everything.

You keep bypassing the essential point - Muslims have been here since before the Revolutionary War. They are already ingrained fabric of Americana.

We could say the same thing about all Latin Americans - its been "Big Men" rule there for generations. I see no reason that those Christians, who clearly can't get along peacefully with each other should assimilate peacefully here.

This is like blaming White Vans for the DC Sniper attacks. You're sort of blaming the wrong thing. Muslims are integrating fine in the US. The only problem with integration - Muslims or otherwise - is alienation. By overtly supporting policies to alienate and ostracize them, you actually create the violent extremists you are concerned of. This is what the research shows quite clearly.

And its strange - not too long ago Republicans talked of American exceptionalism. Trump regularly bashes the US. "We've made progress since then" is a really far fall from the shining city on the hill. We've made more than progress - our values and way of living have been a beacon for the world specifically because of our notions of meritocracy - meaning even a Muslim potentially could come here and become successful.

Lol Muslims are 1 percent of the population. They are such a small minority that they can't start making demands.

But if we had truly open borders how long would it be before that changed? Judging by what I am seeing overseas it wouldn't take long, not to mention the murders they have committed here.

Who exactly is advocating open borders? Do you ever put forward something other than a strawman argument to knock down? I would ask about "murders committed here", but again, I'm not expecting statistics to drive answers here.

Christian Americans commit murders in the thousands - enough that you would question whether Christians can lead a nonviolent life if we gathered our facts from random news reports...

[dckingsfan]

Apparently my delusion is spreading

Read on Twitter

Who could've guessed that Trump was creating a policy without an actual intelligence basis? I'm Shocked! Shocked! to find out the intelligence community thinks this is a horrible idea!

What is not so shocking is that the Trump administration has tried to axe the actual intelligence assessment.

"I already told you the answer! Now give me intelligence to meet the fake facts!"

Someone certainly is delusional here, but it appears the intelligence community is slowly getting them aware of reality, leak by leak....

EDIT: Actual document here

What is most puzzling is the sheer lack of understanding of how to accomplish what they want. I guess that is often the case with new Administrations but...

[sfam]

Apparently my delusion is spreading

Read on Twitter

Who could've guessed that Trump was creating a policy without an actual intelligence basis? I'm Shocked! Shocked! to find out the intelligence community thinks this is a horrible idea!

What is not so shocking is that the Trump administration has tried to axe the actual intelligence assessment.

"I already told you the answer! Now give me intelligence to meet the fake facts!"

Someone certainly is delusional here, but it appears the intelligence community is slowly getting them aware of reality, leak by leak....

EDIT: Actual document here

What is most puzzling is the sheer lack of understanding of how to accomplish what they want. I guess that is often the case with new Administrations but...

Its pretty clear what happened - Trump said he was going to fulfill his campaign promise for a Travel Ban. That's all well and good, until he wanted to actually state that his policy actually made us safer. As pretty much everyone not crazy has told him for a year, this is a bad idea. But if you were going to choose the magic number "7" for countries to ban, er, um restrict for some random period of time for unspecified security reasons, the list of 7 chosen are sort of loony. Those just aren't the ones you would choose.

[dckingsfan]

...Who exactly is advocating open borders?...

That is the problem - Trump really doesn't have a position. So arguing against a non-position? Tough.

What really seems to be the case is that they don't have a strategy and are trying to come up with one on the fly.

They want a 3% growth rate but are running head on into a labor shortage (both total and qualified). Their immigration strategy is slamming right into their growth strategy. And they need a growth strategy because they promised middle class jobs - manufacturing jobs at that. And those are slamming head first into automation. But those automation jobs require more high-tech workers. Back to the lack of immigration strategy.

It will be interesting to see how they squirm out of the mess they have so quickly created.

[dckingsfan]

Apparently my delusion is spreading

Read on Twitter

Who could've guessed that Trump was creating a policy without an actual intelligence basis? I'm Shocked! Shocked! to find out the intelligence community thinks this is a horrible idea!

What is not so shocking is that the Trump administration has tried to axe the actual intelligence assessment.

"I already told you the answer! Now give me intelligence to meet the fake facts!"

Someone certainly is delusional here, but it appears the intelligence community is slowly getting them aware of reality, leak by leak....

EDIT: Actual document here

What is most puzzling is the sheer lack of understanding of how to accomplish what they want. I guess that is often the case with new Administrations but...

Its pretty clear what happened - Trump said he was going to fulfill his campaign promise for a Travel Ban. That's all well and good, until he wanted to actually state that his policy actually made us safer. As pretty much everyone not crazy has told him for a year, this is a bad idea. But if you were going to choose the magic number "7" for countries to ban, er, um restrict for some random period of time for unspecified security reasons, the list of 7 chosen are sort of loony. Those just aren't the ones you would choose.

Yup. Another one of those same loops. Sigh...

[Induveca]

Apparently my delusion is spreading

Read on Twitter

Who could've guessed that Trump was creating a policy without an actual intelligence basis? I'm Shocked! Shocked! to find out the intelligence community thinks this is a horrible idea!

What is not so shocking is that the Trump administration has tried to axe the actual intelligence assessment.

"I already told you the answer! Now give me intelligence to meet the fake facts!" Delusional indeed.

Someone certainly is delusional here, but it appears the intelligence community is slowly getting them aware of reality, leak by leak....

EDIT: Actual document here

Yet visas were essentially locked down last February from most of those countries, and requires biographical information and electronic passports to be considered. The DHS report states each nation is deeply embedded with terror *groups* who have all launched attacks within the US or against US forces or installations.

You may not agree with the approach, and that's completely fine. But it's the exact same approach used by the majority of our middle eastern allies. Trump just shouldn't have made it so public, and been his typical loudmouth self. Instead just quietly implement a stoppage of new visas and renewals, via overwhelming documentation and excessively long reviews (like our allies).

I apologize for the delusional comment, I had a few too many at the time. I actually greatly respect your work, as we have similar backgrounds in data analysis in that region (different purposes, but I even use GDelt a bunch). I'll happily agree to disagree, hope there are no hard feelings.

< s >But I'm right. < /s >

[tontoz]

Muslims make up only 1% of the population here yet they account for the largest mass shooting in US history (Orlando) and the biggest terrorist attack in US history (WTC).

Other notable Muslim attacks just within the last couple of years where multiple people were killed:

FT Lauderdale 5 killed at the airport.
San Bernardino, CA 14 dead
Chattanooga TN 5 killed

That is a lot of mass murder for 1% of the population and of course isnt even taking into account individual murders.

I am not interested in becoming like France. Look at what has happened there just within the last 2 years. Not surprising that the biggest terrorist attack in French history was committed by Muslims in Paris (130 dead). Last summer there was the Bastille Day suicide attack that left 86 dead. In Jan 2015 Muslims killed 17 in a mass shooting.

Muslims are roughly 5% of the population in France.

[dckingsfan]

tontoz, are you for any immigration?

If you are for any immigration should we ask the question of religion?

My third question is, what do you feel should be done about the muslim population that is already in our country?

[tontoz]

tontoz, are you for any immigration?

If you are for any immigration should we ask the question of religion?

My third question is, what do you feel should be done about the muslim population that is already in our country?

I am fine with immigration in general but when it comes to Muslims i think we have to be more thorough in our vetting process before letting them in.

Muslims that are already citizens and not causing trouble are not the issue. I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA is already monitoring a lot of them to see if they have any extremist ties.

[dckingsfan]

tontoz, are you for any immigration?

If you are for any immigration should we ask the question of religion?

My third question is, what do you feel should be done about the muslim population that is already in our country?

I am fine with immigration in general but when it comes to Muslims i think we have to be more thorough in our vetting process before letting them in.

Muslims that are already citizens and not causing trouble are not the issue. I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA is already monitoring a lot of them to see if they have any extremist ties.

So, immigration - yes in general.

Would we need to ask if someone is muslim and then vet more thoroughly or vet all potential immigrants more thoroughly?

And you are good with keeping our current muslims (which is approximately 1% of the population). Are you good continuing to keep that same ratio?

[tontoz]

tontoz, are you for any immigration?

If you are for any immigration should we ask the question of religion?

My third question is, what do you feel should be done about the muslim population that is already in our country?

I am fine with immigration in general but when it comes to Muslims i think we have to be more thorough in our vetting process before letting them in.

Muslims that are already citizens and not causing trouble are not the issue. I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA is already monitoring a lot of them to see if they have any extremist ties.

So, immigration - yes in general.

Would we need to ask if someone is muslim and then vet more thoroughly or vet all potential immigrants more thoroughly?

And you are good with keeping our current muslims (which is approximately 1% of the population). Are you good continuing to keep that same ratio?

Yes we should ask the question of religion. If someone Muslim then we should be more cautious with them than if they were Hindu or Buddhist, who have no track record of violence against us.

The ratio is obviously subject to change due to birth rates. The area we need to focus on is new Muslims coming in.

[dckingsfan]

I am fine with immigration in general but when it comes to Muslims i think we have to be more thorough in our vetting process before letting them in.

Muslims that are already citizens and not causing trouble are not the issue. I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA is already monitoring a lot of them to see if they have any extremist ties.

So, immigration - yes in general.

Would we need to ask if someone is muslim and then vet more thoroughly or vet all potential immigrants more thoroughly?

And you are good with keeping our current muslims (which is approximately 1% of the population). Are you good continuing to keep that same ratio?

Yes we should ask the question of religion. If someone Muslim then we should be more cautious with them than if they were Hindu or Buddhist, who have no track record of violence against us.

The ratio is obviously subject to change due to birth rates. The area we need to focus on is new Muslims coming in.

Do you think that honest muslims would answer honestly but those coming to do harm would identify themselves as a different religion?

[DCZards]

Yes we should ask the question of religion. If someone Muslim then we should be more cautious with them than if they were Hindu or Buddhist, who have no track record of violence against us.

The ratio is obviously subject to change due to birth rates. The area we need to focus on is new Muslims coming in.

No...we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of one's religion, which is essentially the reason that the courts shot down Trump's travel ban.

[dckingsfan]

Yes we should ask the question of religion. If someone Muslim then we should be more cautious with them than if they were Hindu or Buddhist, who have no track record of violence against us.

The ratio is obviously subject to change due to birth rates. The area we need to focus on is new Muslims coming in.

No...we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of one's religion, which is essentially the reason that the courts shot down Trump's travel ban.

I understand your opinion - I was just trying to understand tontoz' perspective.

Also, I believe that the opinion by the 9th Circuit was due to not allowing green-card holders back in... but I am not sure of that...

[tontoz]

So, immigration - yes in general.

Would we need to ask if someone is muslim and then vet more thoroughly or vet all potential immigrants more thoroughly?

And you are good with keeping our current muslims (which is approximately 1% of the population). Are you good continuing to keep that same ratio?

Yes we should ask the question of religion. If someone Muslim then we should be more cautious with them than if they were Hindu or Buddhist, who have no track record of violence against us.

The ratio is obviously subject to change due to birth rates. The area we need to focus on is new Muslims coming in.

Do you think that honest muslims would answer honestly but those coming to do harm would identify themselves as a different religion?

If they lied and got in then that would give us cause to deport them at a later date if we found out they lied. Of course if they are coming from a majority Muslim country then we would have cause for further investigation if they say they aren't Muslim.

[tontoz]

Yes we should ask the question of religion. If someone Muslim then we should be more cautious with them than if they were Hindu or Buddhist, who have no track record of violence against us.

The ratio is obviously subject to change due to birth rates. The area we need to focus on is new Muslims coming in.

No...we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of one's religion, which is essentially the reason that the courts shot down Trump's travel ban.

We absolutely should discriminate based on religion. There is only one religion that we are having a problem with and that is Islam. Foreigners have no rights here. We can legally discriminate against anyone we want.

Trumps travel ban is a separate issue and was very poorly handled. It affected not just newcomers but also people with valid visas and green cards. It also ordered a complete halt of anyone coming from 7 countries, as opposed to simply having additional investigations on people from those countries. Trump didn't bother to consult the Justice Dept or Homeland security about the ban.

Trump's handling of the issue has been completely unprofessional, which isn't exactly a surprise.

[verbal8]

Read on Twitter

Shouldn't a president want a secretary of state working quietly with countries behind the scenes to advance American interests? In some ways I think it was the perfect office for Clinton.

However it seems with this administration the emphasis is on profile vs. performance. What other explanation is there for putting someone against public education in charge of that agency?

[verbal8]

So, immigration - yes in general.

Would we need to ask if someone is muslim and then vet more thoroughly or vet all potential immigrants more thoroughly?

And you are good with keeping our current muslims (which is approximately 1% of the population). Are you good continuing to keep that same ratio?

Yes we should ask the question of religion. If someone Muslim then we should be more cautious with them than if they were Hindu or Buddhist, who have no track record of violence against us.

The ratio is obviously subject to change due to birth rates. The area we need to focus on is new Muslims coming in.

Do you think that honest muslims would answer honestly but those coming to do harm would identify themselves as a different religion?

Good point. IIRC the 9/11 hijackers acted "Western" to avoid appearing as religious extremists.

[Kanyewest]

Yes we should ask the question of religion. If someone Muslim then we should be more cautious with them than if they were Hindu or Buddhist, who have no track record of violence against us.

The ratio is obviously subject to change due to birth rates. The area we need to focus on is new Muslims coming in.

Do you think that honest muslims would answer honestly but those coming to do harm would identify themselves as a different religion?

Good point. IIRC the 9/11 hijackers acted "Western" to avoid appearing as religious extremists.

Yup, IIRC they all were clean shaven on the day of the attack.

[sfam]

Yet visas were essentially locked down last February from most of those countries, and requires biographical information and electronic passports to be considered. The DHS report states each nation is deeply embedded with terror *groups* who have all launched attacks within the US or against US forces or installations.

You may not agree with the approach, and that's completely fine. But it's the exact same approach used by the majority of our middle eastern allies. Trump just shouldn't have made it so public, and been his typical loudmouth self. Instead just quietly implement a stoppage of new visas and renewals, via overwhelming documentation and excessively long reviews (like our allies).

I apologize for the delusional comment, I had a few too many at the time. I actually greatly respect your work, as we have similar backgrounds in data analysis in that region (different purposes, but I even use GDelt a bunch). I'll happily agree to disagree, hope there are no hard feelings.

< s >But I'm right. < /s >

What's delusional is thinking Trump can create a policy without input that is in fact the "right" policy. That really is delusional in the extreme.

We have clear evidence this is exactly what happened. Moreso we have clear evidence that the Intelligence community has real disagreements on the approach and countries selected.

Why on earth would we want to pursue a strategy in absence of actual evidence?

I get supporting your guy and all, but wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. He's right, regardless of whether his approach makes sense or even works I suppose. OK then.

EDIT: Appreciate the apology.