Funny vid: MSNBC anchors "not sure" on Trump's temp Muslim ban

[Bowfinger]

Except the Pakistani/Saudi bitch who just shot up San Bernardino didn't fake her passport, so you're full of it.

/facepalm

Were such passport restrictions in place when she entered the U.S.? No? Then it's YOU who is full of it. Try thinking before you jerk your knee.

 

[SP33Demon]

/facepalm

Were such passport restrictions in place when she entered the U.S.? No? Then it's YOU who is full of it. Try thinking before you jerk your knee.

Yes they were. She was "fully vetted", remember?

The only thing that will fully vet someone is to temp ban them from coming here at all. Period.

 

[flexy]

*) Teenagers shooting up kids in schools in the US for ages already, no-one banned teenagers.
*) Right wing radicals killing people "for the babies" - no one banned right wingers.
*) Movie shooters and mall shooters galore

NO ONE BANS GUNS

*) ISIS sympathizers shoot 14 people in one of the VERY FEW Islamist attacks on US soil:
"OMGZ Let's ban the ENTIRE Middle E...oh wait...let's just ban ALL MUSLIMS from entering the country!!!!111

 

[Bowfinger]

Yes they were. She was "fully vetted", remember?

The only thing that will fully vet someone is to temp ban them from coming here at all. Period.

You're spouting nonsense.

This isn't complicated, so pop a Ritalin and try to keep up:

1. Pass law to prohibit entry to people with passports from Islamic countries.
2. Honest people from Islamic countries have real passports and cannot enter.
3. Terrorists from Islamic countries get forged passports from non-Islamic country; enter U.S.

Since 1. was not true when she entered the U.S., she had no need for a forged passport. See how that works now?

 

[SP33Demon]

*) Teenagers shooting up kids in schools in the US for ages already, no-one banned teenagers.
*) Right wing radicals killing people "for the babies" - no one banned right wingers.
*) Movie shooters and mall shooters galore

NO ONE BANS GUNS

*) ISIS sympathizers shoot 14 people in one of the VERY FEW Islamist attacks on US soil:
"OMGZ Let's ban the ENTIRE Middle E...oh wait...let's just ban ALL MUSLIMS from entering the country!!!!111

More libtardary. Move to England if you want guns banned. Why are you still here? It must be for a reason (we're better).

Until you can prove that we can accurately vet killers like the SB bitch, then a temp ban is the only way to be fully sure. It's not a hard concept to understand. For example, if chewing tobacco is causing mouth cancer, do you still put it in your mouth? No. F No. You remove it until the cancer is gone and then switch to something that doesn't cause cancer like nicorette.

 

[Jaskalas]

I assume you're familiar with the idea that more gun limits are pointless since criminals just ignore the law? Substitute "passport" for "gun" and see if you can figure out why passport restrictions won't work. Incoming terrorists won't be deterred by such laws; they'll just get forged passports. It's only those who intend no wrongdoing who will be stopped from visiting.

Pakistani with a UK passport.
*calls the UK
Checkmate.

You guys aren't even trying.

 

[Bowfinger]

Pakistani with a UK passport.
*calls the UK
Checkmate.

You guys aren't even trying.

What? Are you suggesting terrorists cannot obtain passable forged passports? Seriously? If so, my friend, it is you who isn't even trying.

 

[SP33Demon]

You're spouting nonsense.

This isn't complicated, so pop a Ritalin and try to keep up:

1. Pass law to prohibit entry to people with passports from Islamic countries.
2. Honest people from Islamic countries have real passports and cannot enter.
3. Terrorists from Islamic countries get forged passports from non-Islamic country; enter U.S.

Since 1. was not true when she entered the U.S., she had no need for a forged passport. See how that works now?

She entered under the fiance visa program. That has nothing to do with the rigamarole that you considered a post regarding "passports" and "forged passports".
http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2015/12/08/3729169/k1-fiance-visa/
Do you really think we wouldn't ban visas from those countries as well? Are you fucking stupid? "Try to keep up, asshole".

 

[Bowfinger]

She entered under the fiance visa program. That has nothing to do with the rigamarole that you considered a post regarding "passports" and "forged passports".
http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2015/12/08/3729169/k1-fiance-visa/
Do you really think we wouldn't ban visas from those countries as well? Are you fucking stupid? "Try to keep up, asshole".

Listen up, twit for brains. If you're going to butt into someone else's discussion, you need to understand what they're discussing first, so you don't look like a flaming moron. Pop another Ritalin and try harder to follow along:

So being a radical Islamic terrorist with funding, what's to stop me from travelling to a non Muslim country before travelling to the USA?

Your passport likely has a country of origin.
This introduces a delay in the process of becoming a citizen of the new country, instead of jumping straight into ours.

I assume you're familiar with the idea that more gun limits are pointless since criminals just ignore the law? Substitute "passport" for "gun" and see if you can figure out why passport restrictions won't work. Incoming terrorists won't be deterred by such laws; they'll just get forged passports. It's only those who intend no wrongdoing who will be stopped from visiting.

Of course Trump's original idea -- ban all Muslims from entering the U.S. -- was even more ridiculous for the same reason. Does he really think an incoming terrorist is going to be honest about his religion if it's going to keep him out of the country? That's the problem with most of Trump's bombast: great sound bites but wholly unrealistic.

See how the topic was a proposal to use passports to identify and block people from Islamic countries? I pointed out why such a program would be ineffective, because terrorists could get forged passports from unrestricted countries. Your little duhversion about Malik has nothing to do with this proposed scenario, "asshole".

 

[SP33Demon]

Listen up, twit for brains. If you're going to butt into someone else's discussion, you need to understand what they're discussing first, so you don't look like a flaming moron. Pop another Ritalin and try harder to follow along:


See how the topic was a proposal to use passports to identify and block people from Islamic countries? I pointed out why such a program would be ineffective, because terrorists could get forged passports from unrestricted country. Your little duhversion about Malik has nothing to do with this proposed scenario, "asshole".

Faking passports is your answer? That's old news, and technology will solve that in the next 5 years. 3 step biometrics are already being implemented to add another layer of security.
https://fcw.com/Articles/2015/12/03/lyngaas-border-tech-passports.aspx

The visa-waiver countries have passports with built-in chips carrying biometric data, but according to a summary of the new bill released by one of its sponsors, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), some countries are allowed to phase in this requirement, since older passports that lack the chip remain valid. The legislation's remedy for this apparent inconsistency is to require all visa-waiver program travelers to have electronic passports within 90 days of the law's enactment. (Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced in August that DHS and the State Department would "begin introducing a number of additional or revised security criteria for all participants in the Visa Waiver Program," including required use of e-passports, but no timeline was publicly declared.)

Efforts to bolster passport security can be broken into two categories: making greater use of biometrics for identity verification, and boosting reporting on lost or stolen passports via organizations such as Interpol.

Facial imagery is the primary biometric used by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a UN agency that works with member countries to set aviation security standards, while fingerprints and iris scans can be supplemental biometrics, according to Michael Holly. He is a senior adviser for international affairs at the State Department's Passport Services Directorate.

Don't want to participate in our biometric (i.e. facial scan, fingerprints, and iris) chip program? Then don't expect your citizens to travel here anytime soon. Is it foolproof? No, nothing is 100% foolproof but good luck faking a passport biometric chip with encryption. If ISIS can get to that level of tech then they will be unstoppable. Luckily for us, their most advanced tech is using the internet and driving our stolen iraqi humvees/tanks.

 

[Bowfinger]

Faking passports is your answer? That's old news, and technology will solve that in the next 5 years. 3 step biometrics are already being implemented to add another layer of security.
https://fcw.com/Articles/2015/12/03/lyngaas-border-tech-passports.aspx


Don't want to participate in our biometric (i.e. facial scan, fingerprints, and iris) chip program? Then don't expect your citizens to travel here anytime soon. Is it foolproof? No, nothing is 100% foolproof but good luck faking a passport biometric chip with encryption. If ISIS can get to that level of tech then they will be unstoppable. Luckily for us, their most advanced tech is using the internet and driving our stolen iraqi humvees/tanks.

That might be swell in five years, but it has nothing to do with today. It also glosses over the fact that such enhancements won't happen overnight and passports are valid for ten years (at least in the U.S.). Further, those with money will buy authentic "forged" passports from corrupt government workers in many countries. In short, for the foreseeable future, keeping out terrorists by profiling passports is a pipe dream.

 

[SP33Demon]

That might be swell in five years, but it has nothing to do with today. It also glosses over the fact that such enhancements won't happen overnight and passports are valid for ten years (at least in the U.S.). Further, those with money will buy authentic "forged" passports from corrupt government workers in many countries. In short, for the foreseeable future, keeping out terrorists by profiling passports is a pipe dream.

It's already being phased in, did you read it?

The visa-waiver countries have passports with built-in chips carrying biometric data, but according to a summary of the new bill released by one of its sponsors, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), some countries are allowed to phase in this requirement, since older passports that lack the chip remain valid. The legislation's remedy for this apparent inconsistency is to require all visa-waiver program travelers to have electronic passports within 90 days of the law's enactment. (Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced in August that DHS and the State Department would "begin introducing a number of additional or revised security criteria for all participants in the Visa Waiver Program," including required use of e-passports, but no timeline was publicly declared.)

As we approach 5 years, the risk becomes less and less - of course you aren't going to have a foolproof method NOW. All passports will have them except the ones that are valid for ten years OR we can simply require everyone to renew before they travel outside of their country. This isn't rocket science.

Combined with a temp ban on immigration from islamic countries until the system is in place, and you've reduced the risk to a very very small number. Outside of state supported and bankrolled fraud, noone from ISIS will be able to thwart a triple biometric check without major political help.

 

[WelshBloke]

Your passport likely has a country of origin.
This introduces a delay in the process of becoming a citizen of the new country, instead of jumping straight into ours.

It's really, really easy to get a passport in whatever country you want if you've got the funds.

 

[Bowfinger]

It's already being phased in, did you read it? ...

Yes, I did. Did you? That only applies to visa waiver countries, a small subset of all countries that issue passports. And again, you ignore the fact that a well-funded terrorist organization like ISIS could pay corrupt government workers for authentic forgeries.

Combined with a temp ban on immigration from islamic countries until the system is in place ...

You're talking in circles. How do we know whether someone comes from an Islamic country? Check his or her passport? The passports we've already established can be forged? Oops. The bottom line is it's yet another simple-minded, feel-good idea that won't work in the real world, par for Trump's course.

 

[Jaskalas]

What? Are you suggesting terrorists cannot obtain passable forged passports? Seriously? If so, my friend, it is you who isn't even trying.

How's a fake UK passport going to verify from the UK government?
It's not like the 1800s, we have instant global communication. There's no need to trust the document. Instead use it as a reference to ask the host nation and then trust that government. Hold that government responsible if they fail or produce a terrorist.

 

[Bitek]

*) Teenagers shooting up kids in schools in the US for ages already, no-one banned teenagers.
*) Right wing radicals killing people "for the babies" - no one banned right wingers.
*) Movie shooters and mall shooters galore

NO ONE BANS GUNS

*) ISIS sympathizers shoot 14 people in one of the VERY FEW Islamist attacks on US soil:
"OMGZ Let's ban the ENTIRE Middle E...oh wait...let's just ban ALL MUSLIMS from entering the country!!!!111

" oh wait, Farook is from Chicago "
"Oh wait, the Chattanooga shooter moved to the US as a first grader"
"Oh wait, the Paris shooters were largely Belgians and French"
"Oh wait, the shoe bomber was British."
"Oh wait, the underwear bomber was Nigerian"
"Oh wait, the times square bomber was living in the US for over a decade and had American children"
"Oh wait, the Oklahoma city bomber was an white American"
"Oh wait, the Sandy hook shooter was an white American"
"Oh wait, the Westroads Mall shooter was an white Brit. (9 dead there, anyone remember or even care? Killed more than in San Bernardino on a deaths per shooter basis.
"Oh wait, the Columbine shooters were white Americans (as most school shooters)"
"Oh wait, the Aurora theater shooter was an white American"
"Oh wait, the Virginia tech shooter was an Christian Korean"

- ha-ha, those last ones dont count because it's not Muslims or brown ppl involved.


Trumps stupid idea does nothing than prove we have no real ideas, and don't really care to do anything about it.

Border guard: "hey..are you Muslim?"
Jihadi Infiltrator: "Um,... No. Just here to visit sweet American rollercoasters"
Border guard: " Are you sure? You have quite the beard... "
Jihadi Infiltrator: " Um... No. No no no. Nope. Definitely not. I'm just a douchebag hipster. Hoping to hit some Brooklyn coffee houses before I head home to London. "
Border guard: " carry on then. Enjoy your stay. "

 

[Aegeon]

It's not like the 1800s, we have instant global communication. There's no need to trust the document. Instead use it as a reference to ask the host nation and then trust that government. Hold that government responsible if they fail or produce a terrorist.

How is this actually remotely practical if you extend it much beyond the UK and the like?

There are about 196 countries around the world most of which can't be defined as Islamic countries. (One question is which countries do you even target, and you still end up with a situation like India's where there are around 172 million Muslims even though its clearly not a Muslim majority country.) Are you really going to invade a nation or something just because a single low level corrupt official apparently participated in forging a passport?

Even a "temporary" ban to the extent you are apparently talking about would actually clearly compromise the U.S's national security interests. It would have a very major impact on tourism to the US and also seriously complicate things for various businesses who rely on executives and key skilled employees being able to temporarily go to their US offices when needed. (Some companies would likely decide they can't operate in a country where this can occur and would relocate headquarters to the UK and the like.) The economic damage would seriously complicate our budget situation and our ability to actually deal with threats including terrorism. (Plus we just seriously alienated the governments of most of the rest of the world complicating our foreign policy objectives.)

On top of this, we just helped further radicalize Muslims in the US as well as countries such as Belgium and France (where the Paris attackers at least mostly all came from), so the remotely realistic effect of the proposed policy would actually be to make the US less safe. (Especially because the rule probably didn't cover countries such as Nigeria and India in the first place with allot of Muslims, and if it did it will have an even greater negative economic impact and make a greater portion of the world population angry at the US.) Its just a plainly dumb proposal all around.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

https://youtu.be/LIeIx2HJUAs

Everyone knows the Donald is right on the temporary ban, including liberal anchors who are at a loss for words in this video.

But... "I'm not sure if Donald Trump's concept is good for our country, but..."

but... yes, our visa program sucks balls and what is your solution to weed out radical fucks from immigrating here? /crickets

The looks on their faces are priceless. It's like Donald dropped the mic and he wasn't even in the room. He doesn't have to, the SB shooters did that already.

This, my friends is why Trump is dominating the polls. He's introducing topics that, while "radical" to liberals is actually a practical solution. Let them in, continue to be killed. Temp ban them, continue to live. In the meantime, figure out a way to weed out the radicals from the moderates.

When our way of life is threatened, everyone is the same - even liberal MSNBC anchors. Fear is bipartisan.

From a guy who watched Morning Joe when this was said the video is taking a small snip from a long discussion and framing it out of proportion.

 

[Strk]

" oh wait, Farook is from Chicago "
"Oh wait, the Chattanooga shooter moved to the US as a first grader"
"Oh wait, the Paris shooters were largely Belgians and French"
"Oh wait, the shoe bomber was British."
"Oh wait, the underwear bomber was Nigerian"
"Oh wait, the times square bomber was living in the US for over a decade and had American children"
"Oh wait, the Oklahoma city bomber was an white American"
"Oh wait, the Sandy hook shooter was an white American"
"Oh wait, the Westroads Mall shooter was an white Brit. (9 dead there, anyone remember or even care? Killed more than in San Bernardino on a deaths per shooter basis.
"Oh wait, the Columbine shooters were white Americans (as most school shooters)"
"Oh wait, the Aurora theater shooter was an white American"
"Oh wait, the Virginia tech shooter was an Christian Korean"

- ha-ha, those last ones dont count because it's not Muslims or brown ppl involved.


Trumps stupid idea does nothing than prove we have no real ideas, and don't really care to do anything about it.

Border guard: "hey..are you Muslim?"
Jihadi Infiltrator: "Um,... No. Just here to visit sweet American rollercoasters"
Border guard: " Are you sure? You have quite the beard... "
Jihadi Infiltrator: " Um... No. No no no. Nope. Definitely not. I'm just a douchebag hipster. Hoping to hit some Brooklyn coffee houses before I head home to London. "
Border guard: " carry on then. Enjoy your stay. "

Wouldn't be hard for them to lie. Let's face it, the 9/11 hijackers didn't spend their last days in prayer. They went to titty bars and got drunk.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Being about 50% serious I thought build fewer schools and more strip clubs plus every guy aged 15 to 65 gets a premium youporn account. The money would be better spent that way.

 

[WelshBloke]

How's a fake UK passport going to verify from the UK government?
It's not like the 1800s, we have instant global communication. There's no need to trust the document. Instead use it as a reference to ask the host nation and then trust that government. Hold that government responsible if they fail or produce a terrorist.

You're suggesting that you phone up the UK for every Muslim entering the US and get the UK to do a full background search on them?

Not going to happen.

It works the other way around and unless they are on a list they aren't going to get pulled up. And it's easy to find fresh meat with no security history.

 

[jonks]

The vetting process is nothing more than a cursory search at most to make sure the individual is not on any terrorist watch list. Everyone knows this. It doesn't work at our leisure with an intact and supposedly allied government, so now the Dems want to bring in 100,000 Syrians. Just imagine how well the process will work at an emergency pace from a nation which is barely even extant - whose dictator not only wants terrorists out of his nation but also has every reason to hate our current regime.

Er...wut? From a colleague of mine:

Scott Hicks
November 19 ·
Most of my friends know I practice Immigration law. As such, I have worked with the refugee community for over two decades. This post is long, but if you want actual information about the process, keep reading.

I can not tell you how frustrating it is to see the misinformation and outright lies that are being perpetuated about the refugee process and the Syrian refugees. So, here is a bit of information from the real world of someone who actually works and deals with this issue.

The refugee screening process is multi-layered and is very difficult to get through. Most people languish in temporary camps for months to years while their story is evaluated and checked.

First, you do not get to choose what country you might be resettled into. If you already have family (legal) in a country, that makes it more likely that you will go there to be with family, but other than that it is random. So, you can not simply walk into a refugee camp, show a document, and say, I want to go to America. Instead, the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees) works with the local authorities to try to take care of basic needs. Once the person/family is registered to receive basic necessities, they can be processed for resettlement. Many people are not interested in resettlement as they hope to return to their country and are hoping that the turmoil they fled will be resolved soon. In fact, most refugees in refugee events never resettle to a third country. Those that do want to resettle have to go through an extensive process.

Resettlement in the U.S. is a long process and takes many steps. The Refugee Admissions Program is jointly administered by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) in the Department of State, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and offices within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) within DHS conducts refugee interviews and determines individual eligibility for refugee status in the United States.

We evaluate refugees on a tiered system with three levels of priority.

First Priority are people who have suffered compelling persecution or for whom no other durable solution exists. These individuals are referred to the United States by UNHCR, or they are identified by the U.S. embassy or a non-governmental organization (NGO).

Second priority are groups of “special concern” to the United States. The Department of State determines these groups, with input from USCIS, UNHCR, and designated NGOs. At present, we prioritize certain persons from the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Iran, Burma, and Bhutan.

Third priority are relatives of refugees (parents, spouses, and unmarried children under 21) who are already settled in the United States may be admitted as refugees. The U.S.-based relative must file an Affidavit of Relationship (AOR) and must be processed by DHS.

Before being allowed to come to the United States, each refugee must undergo an extensive interviewing, screening, and security clearance process conducted by Regional Refugee Coordinators and overseas Resettlement Support Centers (RSCs). Individuals generally must not already be firmly resettled (a legal term of art that would be a separate article). Just because one falls into the three priorities above does not guarantee admission to the United States.

The Immigration laws require that the individuals prove that they have a “well-founded fear,” (another legal term which would be a book.) This fear must be proved regardless of the person’s country, circumstance, or classification in a priority category. There are multiple interviews and people are challenged on discrepancies. I had a client who was not telling the truth on her age and the agency challenged her on it. Refugees are not simply admitted because they have a well founded fear. They still must show that they are not subject to exclusion under Section 212(a) of the INA. These grounds include serious health matters, moral or criminal matters, as well as security issues. In addition, they can be excluded for such things as polygamy, misrepresentation of facts on visa applications, smuggling, or previous deportations. Under some circumstances, the person may be eligible to have the ground waived.

At this point, a refugee can be conditionally accepted for resettlement. Then, the RSC sends a request for assurance of placement to the United States, and the Refugee Processing Center (RPC) works with private voluntary agencies (VOLAG) to determine where the refugee will live. If the refugee does have family in the U.S., efforts will be made to resettle close to that family.

Every person accepted as a refugee for planned admission to the United States is conditional upon passing a medical examination and passing all security checks. Frankly, there is more screening of refugees than ever happens to get on an airplane. Of course, yes, no system can be 100% foolproof. But if that is your standard, then you better shut down the entire airline industry, close the borders, and stop all international commerce and shipping. Every one of those has been the source of entry of people and are much easier ways to gain access to the U.S. Only upon passing all of these checks (which involve basically every agency of the government involved in terrorist identification) can the person actually be approved to travel.

Before departing, refugees sign a promissory note to repay the United States for their travel costs. This travel loan is an interest-free loan that refugees begin to pay back six months after arriving in the country.

Once the VOLAG is notified of the travel plans, it must arrange for the reception of refugees at the airport and transportation to their housing at their final destination.
This process from start to finish averages 18 to 24 months, but I have seen it take years.

The reality is that about half of the refugees are children, another quarter are elderly. Almost all of the adults are either moms or couples coming with children. Each year the President, in consultation with Congress, determines the numerical ceiling for refugee admissions. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, the proposed ceiling is 85,000. We have been averaging about 70,000 a year for the last number of years. (Source: Refugee Processing Center)

Over one-third of all refugee arrivals (35.1 percent, or 24,579) in FY 2015 came from the Near East/South Asia—a region that includes Iraq, Iran, Bhutan, and Afghanistan.
Another third of all refugee arrivals (32.1 percent, or 22,472) in FY 2015 came from Africa.
Over a quarter of all refugee arrivals (26.4 percent, or 18,469) in FY 2015 came from East Asia — a region that includes China, Vietnam, and Indonesia. (Source: Refugee Processing Center)

Finally, the process in Europe is different. I would be much more concerned that terrorists are infiltrating the European system because they are not nearly so extensive and thorough in their process.

 

[desy]

Her husband was an Amercian through and through and the Paris terrorists were Parisians.
You won't screen jack, those intent on doing harm will find a way
Any human could have the potential and you can't screen for that considering 88 gun murders a day it isn't even close to a miniscule odds of it being terrorism
When did the land of the brave turn into the land of the afraid?

 

[HomerJS]

https://youtu.be/LIeIx2HJUAs

Everyone knows the Donald is right on the temporary ban, including liberal anchors who are at a loss for words in this video.

But... "I'm not sure if Donald Trump's concept is good for our country, but..."

but... yes, our visa program sucks balls and what is your solution to weed out radical fucks from immigrating here? /crickets

The looks on their faces are priceless. It's like Donald dropped the mic and he wasn't even in the room. He doesn't have to, the SB shooters did that already.

This, my friends is why Trump is dominating the polls. He's introducing topics that, while "radical" to liberals is actually a practical solution. Let them in, continue to be killed. Temp ban them, continue to live. In the meantime, figure out a way to weed out the radicals from the moderates.

When our way of life is threatened, everyone is the same - even liberal MSNBC anchors. Fear is bipartisan.

What about the radical fucks already living here? Ever heard of Dylan Roof?

 

[shady28]

What about the radical fucks already living here? Ever heard of Dylan Roof?

So because we already have internal dissent and mal-adjusted teenagers, we should just go ahead and let people likely to cause more mayhem in? That's a nice little insight into the lefty mindset.

The US has had over the past 40 years an influx of immigrants unlike any other country and unlike anything we have had in the past.

And Obama is mashing on the immigrant accelerator. I wonder if it has occurred to anyone that this may be the reason real wages have stagnated for the past 40 years? Interesting coincidence, that.