Are you sure about that? It might be true for some definitions of “mass-shooter” (and I’d be interested if you have a cite to support that claim), but I don’t think it’s true for “the vast majority of terrorists”:
Newsweek - DHS REPORT: 73 PERCENT OF TERRORISTS CONVICTED BY U.S. ARE FOREIGN-BORN
So, out of the over 1 million immigrants (or, if you want to limit it just the ME over 100k) each year, 1 decided to go on a shooting spree…and you think this points to the vetting process being insufficient?? :dubious:
OK. I’m warming up to your proposal.
Well, if she had been the only one who wound up being a terrorist, I probably wouldn’t make an issue of it. Is your impression that she’s been the only one “out of the over 1 million immigrants” who wound up being a terrorist?
No, not at all. There have been, what? 10 in the last few years? Not counting those involved in the 9/11 attacks which would take us to a bit over 20. In a decade. Think about those numbers for a moment. Even if you doubled them…hell, even if it was an order of magnitude more and we were talking about 200 or 400…well, consider that against the numbers of folks coming into the US each year.
Perhaps it’s phrased poorly. From your own cite:
Now, some other points:
-This includes people convicted for their roles in 9/11, an important detail since our immigration policy has changed substantially since those attacks.
-This includes people who engaged in, or intended to engage in, terrorism in other countries.
-This includes people who gave money to organizations designated as terrorist organizations abroad.
-This includes “fraud, immigration, firearms, drugs, false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice, as well as general conspiracy charges.”
One more point:
-This is a report demanded by Trump, and announced by Kirstjen “What? There are white people in Norway? Who knew?” Nielsen. I advise a bit more skepticism before citing their research in the future :).
From the link.
Exactly what were the crimes the terrorists were actually convicted of?
Look at the post above. The devil’s in the footnotes on page 2 of the actual report :).
I haven’t seen the report yet. I was going by the article as linked.
ETA: I hadn’t read your post,either. It’s been a hectic morning.
No worries–I just wanted to make sure you didn’t miss that, as the jump from "Bob immigrated here from Thailand and lied to the police about something " to “TERRORIST IMMIGRANT” is a pretty humongous leap.
Which isn’t to minimize lying to police, especially about something involving, say, a donation to Hamas. That’s bad. But it’s not exactly what people think of when they say “terrorist,” nor is it evidence of hundreds of more San Bernadino shooters.
If we’re looking at numbers of “terrorists”, then we really need an objective definition of terrorism, because in practice, the definition mostly seems to be “violence committed by foreigners we don’t like”. If that’s your definition, then of course terrorists will be disproportionately foreign… but that’s not a very useful definition. Were the Branch Davidians terrorists? Cliven Bundy and his gang? The Sutherland Springs church shooter? The couple who was just discovered abusing their 13 kids? In each case, why or why not?
Seriously, though, look at what they’re including. If you send money to Hamas, or if you lie to the FBI in an interview about a neighbor whom they suspect is a terrorist, or if you have some drug-related charge that can get tied to terrorism, they’re including you in their definition. It’s insanely broad.
I agree that there’s probably a narrower definition out there that would be more appropriate. OTOH (one might say, the “Left Hand”), you quoted the portion of the article that said, “According to a 2016 report from the Cato Institute, more than three times as many people were killed in terrorist attacks by native-born Americans than foreign-born individuals between 2001 and 2015.” I don’t think being a terrorist requires killing people. If the authorities intercept someone preparing an attack, but before they actually kill anyone, and convict them of ‘conspiracy to blow up Times Square’ or whatever, I think it’s fair to label that person a terrorist, even though their body count was (thankfully) 0 and they wouldn’t impact your “people killed in terrorist attacks” stat.
The FBI offers these definitions:
Are those a reasonable starting point?
For fun, I’ll give my answers to your examples:
No. AFAIK they were basically minding their own business, and planning to continue on that course, until the ATF showed up to raid them.
No. The charges against them were dismissed.
Yes, I think, but we don’t appear to have much information about the motive here, at least AFAIK.
No, child abuse is wrong, but it wasn’t done to accomplish some larger political or ideological goal, at least, AFAIK.
Sorry LHoD, I didn’t mean to hijack your thread with a discussion about terrorism. My point was that we want to be careful who we let into this country. We don’t want terrorists coming here. When someone comes here, and ends up either committing terrorist acts, or gets caught and convicted before they can act on their terrorist plans, that represents a failure of our vetting of immigrants. Ideally, we would have caught that that person was a bad seed and not let them into the country.
ETA: Bob from Thailand who misspoke in his FBI interview should not be counted as a terrorist immigrant. Someone who gets busted in a sting operation trying to buy explosives for the truck bomb they’re building to detonate outside the Super Bowl, to offer a hypothetical example, should be.
As long as we understand that:
In other words, to the extent that the US is endangered by terrorism consisting of US citizens getting murdered in the US by folks intending to advance political aims, that cite is not at all helpful.
I don’t think that showing relative numbers of terrorists born here or overseas is directly relevant to the conversation. My point is that we should engage in scrutiny of folks coming to the United States, possibly even making things stricter along ideological/background lines; but that we should loosen things up dramatically based on total numbers and on country of origin. Our immigration policy should be geared toward the individual immigrant, and should allow all individuals to come in unless we have a good reason not to.
I agree with all of this. We do want to be careful who we let in, and we want to vet anyone who comes in.
But we shouldn’t turn someone away because they’re Mexican. If there are two million Mexicans that want to come to the United States, and we can vet all of them, and 1,995,000 of them have no criminal record, link to terrorist organizations, etc., we should admit 1,995,000 of them.
I agree–but AFAICT, that report you cited earlier counts Bob as a terrorist. (Unless your version of “misspoke” doesn’t include a deliberate obstruction of justice, in which case, that’s not what I or the report is talking about).
I think we’re largely on the same page on vetting for criminal (or potential criminal) misdeeds. Here’s another area of concern:
Under your proposal, do we do anything to prevent immigrants who are very likely to not be productive members of society? To give a couple of extreme examples, let’s say Bob from Thailand is undoubtedly a nice man with no criminal record and we’re confident that he’s not going to commit crimes or acts of terror, but Bob is 85, and is bed-ridden with advanced cancer, and broke. Should we let Bob come in, even though we’re reasonably certain that we’re just going to spend the rest of his life subsidizing some very expensive medical treatment?
Same question for Anja Johansen from Norway, also not a terrorist, but never graduated high school, hasn’t worked in the last 5 years, doesn’t know English, is penniless, and has three young children from three separate fathers. Should we welcome her in?
My default answer is “yes” to both, but I could be persuaded to add additional criteria based on the person, not on a quota or on a nation of origin.