If you are thinking of Omar Mateen, he was not an immigrant; his father was. It is probably not possible to go back and prevent him from immigrating, although, Trump might propose that any any time, now.
Bob
here’s my piece; given views that are rather common among Muslims in the Muslim world, where its common place to be for the prison and death penalty for homosexuality and conversion, amputation for certain crimes, forcing hijabs, etc., both in number (the poll results) and intensity (by the viture that a massively higher percentage of Muslim majority countries/societies have this stuff codified into law on a far greater scale than non-Muslim countries), that anti-Semitic attitudes are extremely common and virulent, I say hell yes, lower Muslim immigration. What happened in Orlando has been happening to Jews in Europefor years at the hands of Muslim immigrants.
While it would be nice if the Muslim world thought well of us, our people’s physical must always be first.
It would best be done about lowering immigration where Islamic terrorism and Islamism are popular. The ones who do come should be screened not just if they’ve been associated with terror groups, but also their past political affiliations and social media.
You don’t fight bigotry–even the most extreme kind as shown here–with further bigotry. Hostility towards Muslims is why ISIS is as strong as it is. Their entire game plan is to create enough hostility that we have an Armageddon-like war against Islam.
It’s feeding the trolls on the national stage to do the thing that ISIS is trying to get us to do.
But we can stop future Omar Mateens from being born here by not allowing their parents to immigrate.
Just the opposite. We are lying down and rolling over for them. If we actually stood up to them, they would respect us more.
ETA: Was it “bigotry” for Charles Martel to fight back against the Islamic invaders at the Battle of Tours in 732 AD?
How would that stop “future Omar Mateens” from being born in the US? Are you under the impression that only the children of immigrants perpetrate mass killings? On the contrary, we know that the US is quite capable of producing home-grown mass killers. Unless you’re going to make the case that Matteen did what he did because he was the child of an immigrant, there seems to be no rational connection whatsoever between your policy objective (“stopping future Omar Mateens being born in the US”) and the measure you propose (immigration restrictions).
If Omar Mateen’s parents hadn’t been allowed to immigrate here, he wouldn’t have been here. It’s not rocket science.
If Muslims were not allowed to come here, we would have no Islamic terrorism in America. Sure, we would still have other killings, but no Islamic terrorism.
That’s certainly impossible to refute.
If we deported all the Hispanics, we’d have no crime committed by Hispanics. If we deported all the women, we’d have no crime committed by women.
Of course, if we got rid of all the white men, we’d have an *awful *lot fewer mass shootings and serial killers. But, yanno, gotta stay focused on the Muslims.
And if people of European descent weren’t allowed to come to America, you’d have no Adam Lanza, no George Hennard. If people of East Asian descent weren’t allowed into America, you’d have no Seung-Hui Cho.
The problem isn’t where these people’s ancestors came from, Arcite. The problem is the country they’re in now. The US, with 5% of the world’s population, has 31% of its mass shooting victims. I think if you’re looking for cultural factors to account for mass shootings, it may be American culture that you need to look at.
More crimes committed in America by Christians than by Muslims. So I say we need to stop Christians from entering the country. And maybe we should start thinking about deporting the Christians that are already here. Send 'em back to where they came from.
Good one. 
Since a LOT of people (aka, all of the women and quite a few men) have really good reasons for not wanting to live in areas controlled by religious fanatics, I think blocking immigration from Muslim-controlled areas creates some serious human rights issues.
Blocking immigration on the basis of religion is clearly unconstitutional.
If they have anything useful skill-wise to offer or are seeking asylum, let em in. If they do bad things, we deal with that later. Innocent until proven guilty.
You can’t fight bigotry with bigotry. You have to take the higher ground and bigotry will eventually crumble.
I’m not starting with a problem, mass shootings, and working backwards to find a solution. I’m starting by looking at a phenomenon that’s now occurring, Muslim immigration, and saying that it causes problems and should be stopped.
But it’s Western civilization that I’m trying to preserve, and Christianity is part of that. I oppose Islamic immigration because Islam is inimical to Western civ, not because it’s bigoted or homophobic or whatever.
It’s not clearly unconstitutional. The US Constitution does not apply to foreign nationals who have never even been to America.
I’m not trying to fight “bigotry.” Plenty of things people like you consider bigotry, like pretty much the entirety of traditional Western civilization, I consider good. I’m trying to fight things that will weaken or destroy Western civ. My opposition to Islam isn’t based on its conflict with modern, liberal, secular values. It’s based on its conflict with traditional, white, Western, Christian values.
That’s obvious, you enjoy every minute of it.
You must be one of those Super Patriots. You love this country while hating most of the people in it.
um, have you done a point to point comparison between Muslim values and traditional white male Christian values? They kind of match up almost perfectly.
I’m querying your assumption that it causes problems. Why did Mateen become a mass murderer? I’m saying the evidence suggests that this has less to do with the culture of the society that his ancestors came from, and more do do with the culture of the society that he was born and raised in. It suits you to assume that his actions represent a problem caused by Muslim immigration; I’m saying that assumption is wrong.
So these future Omar Mateens are born somewhere else, radicalized somewhere else, and start influencing the government somewhere else. How is that in our interest?
Consider, for example, that at least one Muslim-majority nation already has nuclear weapons, and another may soon do so. These aren’t all subsistence farmers and shepherds; some of these countries are sophisticated nations. We got through the Cold War because of the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction: both sides believed that they could not expect to survive a nuclear exchange as a functioning state. What happens, though, if the guy on the other side with his finger on the trigger believes that mutual destruction means he gets seventy-two virgins and eternal paradise?
Escalating the conflict between the West and Islam, permitting the Islamic State and other strands of radicalism to cast the conflict in apocalyptic terms, IS rolling over for them, allowing them to set the terms, and that won’t end well for us. What we need is de-escalation, to allow the moderate elements of Islam (which used to be ascendant in much of the Islamic world) to regain that ascendancy.
The Battle of Tours was pitted the Frankish army against the army of Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, governor of al-Andalus. Note use of the term ‘army’–that means soldiers, cavalry and infantry, organization and leadership, united in a common goal. What organization do you see in Muslim immigrants from different countries and classes, with different goals and aspirations?
Banning a person because of their religion is a very dangerous path to travel. I prefer the EDL idea that all religious meetings should be held in public and in the language of the host country (English) that all scripture and literature should be in (English). It would also help if clerics had a working knowledge and experience of western life so that their advice would be of a more practical nature.
Because you are a bigot?
Which is actually text book bigotry.
I don’t know about that. You’re standing up for yourself here and I don’t think people respect you any more than they have…or ever will.
Why do Conservatives think that all they have to do is punch, shoot or bomb anyone who disagrees with them and those people will “respect them” and fall in line?
2007 called, they want their current affairs back.
The problem here is that the left are the greatest supporters of Islam and their rights BUT Islam is against many of the ideals of the Left. Islam is very much towards the right and sadly fits your description of conservatives.
That “idea” does not merit the term “idea”.