Seriously? If you are frightened of this minuscule level of risk, you’d better stay in bed all day with the sheets pulled over your head.
Really.
Absolutely correct,davidm. In fact, terrorists have in the past hoped and prayed that we in the west would treat Muslims terribly. They have promoted this. They have wanted “The West to eventually turn against its Muslim citizens” so that they could enlist more people to their cause. The same would be true if the west treated refugees terribly, just because they were Muslim.
Trump and his supporters are doing the work of ISIS for them.
That would have the added advantage of fitting on a Post-It note.
I’m not particularly frightened of it, just looking at the numbers for what they are. Refugees are the highest-terrorist-per-immigrant category from what I can see. Do you see it differently? Given the choice between welcoming another 162,626 into the country or not, I’d personally vote for not, since our “extreme vetting” isn’t quite weeding out all the Boston Marathon bombers and Minnesota mall stabbers in the bunch.
But you’re acting like there’s no benefit. We let people in the country because we need the numbers and need to be seen as good world actors not just because we’re softies. Even if the refugee portion is slightly more risk, it’s still pretty insignificant. No one but weirdos wants to get rid of cars despite their rather high death count.
Those pre-teen kids are a bitch to interrogate. They just don’t know what they are planning 10-15 years in the future.
You’re in more danger from bees. Or brain-eating amoebas. Or toddlers with guns.
That’s fine, but I can’t find the anti-bee-sting candidate this year. Remind me which one is running on the no-more-brain-eating-amoeba platform.
The risk posed by terrorist refugees, I’ll grant you is small, just like almost all fatal risks (I’m likely to die of a heart attack or cancer in a few decades, pretty much anything else would just be very bad luck), but it is 100X more risk than letting in another tourist, and 800X more risk than letting in someone from a VWP country (disclaimer: it’s late, my math may be off). And it seems to be completely unnecessary. What’s wrong with building them a nice refugee camp on the border of Jordan or Turkey and hiring some UN peacekeepers to keep them safe? Not good enough for our poor downtrodden Syrian brethren?
That’s right. It’s not good enough. They’re human beings. Everyone thinks about the danger to Americans (which is miniscule) while ignoring the much greater dangers to the refugees. It’s almost as if we see them as subhuman; as something that doesn’t figure into the “danger to people” calculations.
I’m all for protecting them from danger. Do you think we can’t adequately do that in Jordan or Turkey?
There is a candidate who is running on a logical, fact based platform that respects science and knowledge, and who is on the whole more likely to have policies that lead to better public health and more likely on the whole to make foreign policy decisions that keep us safer.
I think looking at the big picture, rather than minuscule risks from scary “other” people is sensible.
Presuming you drive a car or walk city streets, it far more likely that a car will kill you. Yes, I know, there is no anti- car candidate, but face it, you wouldn’t vote for him anyway. You want to keep your car (and the benefits vehicles bring your society).
Just apply similar risk-benefit analysis to the refugee situation. (BTW the benefits include a more stable world AND opportunities for greater cultural hegemony. )
The one foreign policy decision we’re discussing right now would make us less safe. It’s only marginally so, but I think we all agree it’s definitely in the direction of less safe. Just curious, which other foreign policy positions does this candidate have that you think would keep us safer?
No. LPR is the most-terroristy category of immigrants studied
From that paper: Refugees were not very successful at killing Americans in terrorist attacks. …The three refugee terrorists [who actually killed anyone] were Cubans who committed their attacks in the 1970s
So, one K-1 visa holder killed more people than all refugee terrorists combined? And refugees are the problem?
Bringing them here and having the Boston Marathon get blown up, or people enjoying a nice day at the mall get stabbed, doesn’t seem like a more stable world. The usual goal in these situations is to get the refugees back to their land (isn’t that what the Palestinians have been pissing and moaning about for decades now?), not bring them to ours. At least that was the goal the last time a Clinton started a war (Bill, not Hillary):
Would rejecting Syrian refugees (or Muslims in general) really make us safer? I strongly suspect that it makes us less safe.
Al Qaeda wants the US to mistreat Muslims. Presumably so does ISIS. By specifically targeting Muslims we aid the recruiting efforts of such groups, who can then say “the Americans hate us” why should we have any concern for them?
Table 2, Page 8, says that for every 644,990 LPR, we get 1 terrorist. For “refugees”, that number is 162,625. What numbers are you looking at?
Your risk analysis is flawed. Badly flawed.
The risk is minuscule. Tiny. Not measurable above background. Clinton will give us less risk merely by NOT shooting her mouth off via twitter at any little perceived insult.
The RNC is glowering at the 2016 presidential candidates who haven’t yet checked into their staterooms on the Trumptanic: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/20/politics/republican-reince-priebus-john-kasich/index.html
Well, now I know what Dan Brown’s next book will be about…
I was looking at total number of terrorists, 54, for LPR.
Hey, you should address the point that no refugee terrorist has murdered anyone since the 1970’s, "before the Refugee Act of 1980 created the modern rigorous refugee-screening procedures currently in place. "