FBI Arresting More Americans For Targeting Muslims, Than Muslims For Targeting Americans

from the lock-'em-up dept

We’ve been pretty damn clear that we think the Trump administration’s targeting of people from a few countries by banning them from entering the US is both inhumane and misguided. We were proud to sign on to an amicus brief opposing it and happy that the 9th Circuit agreed — though the case is far from over. As I’ve noted repeatedly, to me it’s an issue of basic humanity and decency, but some have insisted on making arguments about how certain people are somehow out to get us and we need to protect ourselves from them. I know that, these days, it’s considered silly to rely on things like facts for an argument, but it seemed worthwhile to actually explore some facts on this particular topic.

We’ll start with a post at Lawfare, by Nora Ellingsen. And we should start out by noting that Techdirt and Lawfare have a pretty long history of… well… not agreeing on much. The site is generally supportive of the intelligence community and supportive of actions taken to protect “national security.” We tend to be more skeptical. Ellingsen worked in the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division for five years, specifically working on international terrorism investigations inside the US. Since leaving the FBI to go to law school, she’s been tracking counterterrorism cases in the US, using DOJ data. And she’s gone through that data to try to determine if there’s any truth to the idea that people from those countries represent a big ongoing threat. And the answer is that it’s just not true. In fact, the real “terrorism” threat in America appears to be… from Americans.:

The Program on Extremism at George Washington University has routinely published statistics indicating that the ?vast majority? of individuals charged in the U.S. with offenses related to ISIL are U.S. citizens. When considering all terrorism offenses, that claim holds up?80 of the 97 suspects arrested in the past two years, or more than 82 percent, are American citizens.

Most of those, notably, are not naturalized citizens. Of the U.S. citizens, only six were naturalized. In other words, more than 76 percent of individuals arrested by the FBI over the past two years for terrorism-related offenses were U.S. citizens as a result of having been born in the United States.

The post goes through all of the individuals who were not born in the US and looks at what each was charged with (often just making false statements to the FBI) and how many of them (not many) actually came from the list of banned countries.

And, then, of course, the fact that the FBI these days tends to be arresting a lot more people for plotting violent attacks on Muslims, than Muslims plotting violent attacks on the US:

Since January 2015, the FBI has also arrested more anti-immigrant American citizens plotting violent attacks on Muslims within the U.S. than it has refugees, or former refugees, from any banned country. As we wrote about here, here and here, in October 2016, three white men from Kansas were charged with conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction. According to the graphic complaint, the anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant men planned to attack a mosque in the area. The men progressed quickly with their plot, amassing firearms and explosives. The targets were people from Somalia, who ironically, would now be covered by Trump?s order.

Similarly, the post notes that there were more US citizens arrested en route to join ISIS in Syria than those arrested trying to plan attacks here.

Since we?re already on the topic, let?s talk about Americans traveling to join ISIL. Over the past two years, the FBI has arrested 34 Americans who aspired to leave, attempted to leave or actually left the United States to join a terrorist group overseas. In other words, although two refugees came into the U.S. and were charged with material support,

Seventeen times that number of U.S. citizens tried to leave the U.S. to conduct attacks and fight overseas. More Americans have snuck into Syria to join ISIL, than ISIL members have snuck into the United States. In September 2015, a congressional report indicated that 250 Americans have gone to Syria and Iraq to fight with ISIL. By comparison, as of December 2015, only 71 individuals in the United States had been charged with ISIL-related activities?the vast majority of whom were also U.S. citizens, according to George Washington University.

Meanwhile, over at Slate, William Saletan has pointed out that if the President really wants to ban travellers from regions that import multiple people aiming to harm Americans… it ought to ban travel from North & South Carolina. He goes through story after story of extremists who left North Carolina to conduct terrorist attacks elsewhere. The list is long, but here are just a few:

It began with Eric Rudolph, a Holocaust denier who grew up in the Christian Identity movement. In 1996, Rudolph traveled from North Carolina to Atlanta, where he detonated a bomb at the Olympics, killing one person and injuring more than 100 others. A year later, Rudolph bombed a lesbian bar in Atlanta, wounding five people. In 1998, he bombed a reproductive health clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, killing a security guard and injuring a nurse. The ?Army of God,? which hosts Rudolph?s writings, claimed credit for his attacks.

In 2001, Steve Anderson, another Christian Identity follower, was pulled over for a broken tail light on his way home from a white supremacist meeting in North Carolina. He pumped 20 bullets into the officer?s car and fled. Police found weapons, ammunition, and explosives in his truck and home. A year later, he was captured in the western part of the state.

In 2010, Justin Moose, an extremist from Concord, North Carolina, was arrested for plotting to blow up a Planned Parenthood clinic. Moose, who claimed to represent the Army of God, also opposed the construction of a mosque near ground zero in New York. He called himself the ?Christian counterpart of Osama Bin Laden.? Eventually, Moose pleaded guilty to disseminating information on how to make and use explosive devices.

Obviously, the Slate piece is tongue-in-cheek in arguing that the Carolinas are the real threat, but the larger point is completely valid. There seems to be no credible evidence for why people from the countries listed in the original executive order should be banned from the US other than outright bigotry. And, somewhat unfortunately, that same kind of ignorant bigotry (which the executive order is only helping to encourage and spread) is resulting in actual violent attacks from Americans who misguidedly think they’re stopping “evil.”

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “FBI Arresting More Americans For Targeting Muslims, Than Muslims For Targeting Americans”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
138 Comments
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Banning Evil...just make it stop...so ordered...job done

I am awaiting the EO that bans the devil. Just to make sure there is no discrimination, the EO will spell out how the devil is defined by the top 100 religions in the world. There will be some acrimony as various religions argue whether they should be in that top 100…or not.

Anonymous Coward says:

basic humanity and decency

Everyone has a different opinion about what that is.

The one thing that is true, is that I do see other nations like France and Germany falling to pieces over this problem and we are calling people inhuman for not wanting the same to occur in their countries.

Sorry, but it looks to me like this is just more politics as usual. Go ahead, keep calling people inhuman… great way to attract those flies. Hypocrisy is nothing but a friend!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 basic humanity and decency

I am more than aware that a lot of things are made up. But there are multiple sources of news on TV, the Internet, and Newspaper over the past few years about Europe in general and migration crisis.

I know a lot of you have very short memories about shit but damn…

There have been false reports of police shooting minorities as well… should we now ignore the true reports as well, because of a few false ones?

Additionally, false reports tend to arrive when there is something to play off of as well which helps make them more believable than they normally would.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 basic humanity and decency

But there are multiple sources of news on TV, the Internet, and Newspaper over the past few years about Europe in general and migration crisis.

While almost every country in the western hemisphere has birthright citizenship, until recently European countries did not. France brought in a lot of workers from it’s holdings in Africa as workers. Soon they had kids, and then grand-kids. None of whom had citizenship. They weren’t allowed to assimilate. They grew up knowing that they weren’t even second class citizens. So ghettos formed and riots started.

We don’t have that problem in North America. The kids born here automatically become citizens. They’re allowed to assimilate. Even keeping their language and culture, they’re first-class citizens.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 basic humanity and decency

I don’t think you are correct about French nationality law.
See :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_nationality_law
It seems pretty clear to me that there has never been a significant impediment to a person born in France to residents of France acquiring French Nationality. There seems to have been aminor impediment for a short while a few years ago but not enough to justify your conclusions.

Anyone born in Britian to a resident (as opposed to a tourist or other short term visitor) is British by default and there are still problems with non-assimilation here.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Tech?

And this has to do with tech in what way?

 

I really wish people would quit asking this, like it’s some sort of "gotcha" moment. Techdirt writes about a lot of things, most of them related to tech, but not always. If it’s a problem for you, find something else to read.

Seriously, do you people post comments at PopeHat.com and ask them what their articles have to do with the Catholic leader’s headgear too?

Richard (profile) says:

Missing the problem

When you are so US centric youdo of course miss the problem that exists on a global scale.

The US is only 1% Muslim – so on its face you would expect that only 1 in 100 terror attacks that take place would be by Muslims – but yet if you look at actual attacks where multiple “stranger” lives were lost (where there is a single victim known to the attacker then it may well be just one of those I really like you murders) you will find that it is far more than 1 in 100 over recent years.

Of course the US has stupidly lax laws about guns and explosives and a law enforcement arm that is more interested in creating plots than solving them (not to mention a recent president who had an agenda of defending islam and smearing Christianity een though he officially professed it).

BUT the real issue here isn’t about what happens in the West. It is about what happens in places where Islam rules.

See https://medium.com/@najwa.najib/donald-trump-is-good-for-middle-eastern-christians-350f049bed62#.djw5dayw8

Now Trump’s banwas stupid – and off target tactically – but at least he doesn’t look at Islam through rose tinted spectacles to the same extent you seem to.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Missing the problem

I have noticed plenty of acts of terrorism by non White/Christians get swept under it as well. I have also noticed not too long ago where a bunch of black kids tortured a white person and everyone was saying it was just kids being kids… instead of you know… being charged for a hate crime.

There is no doubt at all there there are lots of bias in law enforcement but stop pretending that it only works one way, when it in facts works in wacky ways and as the “prosecution desires” all over the fucking place.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Missing the problem

You’re citing as a source, a blog post by a user whose only post on medium is the post you’re citing?

Who starts off the post by insulting celebrities, then moves on to complain about “Social Justice Warriors and Wankers,” which is really a tirade against uppity black people?

And, who continues with prejudicial overgeneralizations like this: “Most Muslims, though, live in the Middle East or in places like Indonesia and Malaysia and Pakistan, where they treat non-Muslims with the same hate and violence and psychopathic homicidal delight that Middle Eastern Muslims reserve for my [Middle Eastern Christian] people.”

Yeah, not convincing.

I absolutely agree that there is persecution of other religions in majority-Muslim countries, and that this is wrong, and that we in the West should do what we can to stop it.

But I do not see anything that Trump has done as helping that cause. And I certainly don’t think this article helps anything, either.

Anonymous Coward says:

Though he stated that reason were terrorism, that’s actually not true. What he really wanted was to limit the influx of radical Islam into America. Which is a cause we should all believe in.
Islam, as an ideology, is incompatible with American values and ideals. People like that should not be let in to a country where cultures will clash violently.

Eldakka (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If the volume of those calls are greater than normal background noise in that area at that time of day (construction work, trucks driving past, kids playing, crowds at sports events, aircraft flying overhead. etc) then make a noise complaint to the appropriate authorities.

If it isn’t any greater than other same time-of-day noise, then what does it matter?

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Which is a cause we should all believe in.
Islam, as an ideology, is incompatible with American values and ideals.

 

Please explain. I always thought that one’s right to worship as they choose to be a fundamental right that the United States was founded upon. It’s even enshrined in our Bill of Rights:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

If you are referring to radical Islam, then I would somewhat agree, but then I would also say that "radical Christianity" and "radical Atheism" are also incompatible with any civilized society.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

If you are referring to radical Islam, then I would somewhat agree, but then I would also say that "radical Christianity" and "radical Atheism" are also incompatible with any civilized society.

Careful.

Firstly as Erdogan said- there is no "radical Islam there is only Islam"

Secondly, if by radical you mean "strongly adhering to the tenets of the religion then Christianity says

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s

and

So long as it lies with you live at peace with all

whereas ISlam says

And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. (8:38)

and few other things to be found here

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/loyalty-to-non-muslim-government.aspx

Whereas a radical atheist well one who believed in dialectical materialism maybe…

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

There’s no shortage of similar "our god over all else" quotes in the Bible.

Well – .if there is a god then that is exactly what you would expect so duhhh.

However the key point is whether there are specific instructions valid for all time to enforce this by violence in this world.

It also matters whether these are the most recent texts or whether they are old historical events.

We still have the occasional problem with radical Christians

Show me an example where the "problem" come from someone who prioritises the messages in the sermon on the mount.

I don’t understand how anyone whose behaviour blatantly contradicts those messages could be called a Christian at all – let alone a radical one.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

However the key point is whether there are specific instructions valid for all time

Those similar Biblical directives also don’t come with an expiry date.

come from someone who prioritises the messages in the sermon on the mount.

One can cherry-pick non-xenophobic passages from the Koran just like you do from the Bible. The problem with BOTH religions is the many cherry-pick differently.

Even the Nazis had military chaplains to assure the troops that they were doing the right thing and could be proud of their work. Nazi soldiers had the words "Gott mit uns" (God with us) on their belt buckles.

I don’t understand how anyone whose behaviour blatantly contradicts those messages could be called a Christian at all – let alone a radical one.

Likewise many Islamic scholars say the same thing about the same behavior among those who call themselves Muslim.

Christian Science Monitor: The myth of Muslim support for terror

Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.

The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland’s prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."

Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world’s most-populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.

Eldakka (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Just going on the quotes you’ve posted, but:

"bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified,"

and

agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified";

are not the same thing.

At the time the following actions were done, they were not regarded as terror attacks, but as militarily justifiable:

  • nuclear bombing of Hiroshima
  • nuclear bombing of Nagasaki
  • fire-bombing of Tokyo
  • fire-bombing of Dresden
  • carpet bombing of various European cities during WWII

Therefore depending on how the question is phrased, some might and some might not regard the above as terror attacks, therefore influencing their answer.

Were the semantics of the questions asked of each of those groups the same? e.g. Were the questions couched in terms of the local languages, attitudes, definitions, understandings of the words? I mean, the quote you provided doesn’t give the results in a common semantic framework.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Firstly as Erdogan said- there is no "radical Islam there is only Islam"

 

Yes, I realize that there is some controversy surrounding the term "radical Islam". I was using it in the colloquial sense of "extremism", not necessarily in the sense of "fundamentalism".

Personally, I am the product of a Catholic father and a Methodist mother and was raised as neither, but was encouraged to explore any and all religions on my own. Having done so in my younger days, I realized that my personal belief system has absolutely nothing to do with groups of people, ornate buildings or ancient texts, but is internal and private. The teachings of Buddha come the closest to my personal beliefs.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

whereas ISlam says

And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. (8:38)

 

A little bit of cherry-picking there. The keyword is "persecution".

The Prophet Muhammad also taught and followed up with actions (ie: the Saheefah) that tolerance for other religions is needed for a society to function correctly:

https://www.islamreligion.com/articles/207/viewall/tolerance-of-prophet-towards-other-religions/

KumKoom says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I’m assuming you’re talking about mass protest against Jakarta gov (your link won’t open for me). As an Indonesian, I can say to you that you need to know context. The real problem is not Islam has a problem with non-Islam leader, but it’s the old guards using religion (Islam) as well as the race card (Chinese decent) as the basis of smear campaign for political / financial gain.

>… mainstream Islam in supposedly moderate Indonesia…

Sadly, I must agree with you on this, grass root Indonesian muslim are moving away from being moderate. This is a relatively new development, which by my observation started after the fall of Soeharto. If you speak Indonesian, and see the comments from Indonesian muslim netizen about the horrors men do on youtube, you’ll be horrified.

disclaimer: I’m also a muslim, born and raised in muslim family. The Islam now growing in Indonesia is not the Islam I know & studied growing up.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Islam, as an ideology, is incompatible with American values and ideals. People like that

Don’t make the mistake of jumping from "an ideology" to "people".

Almost all muslims are born into the faith, and held there by vicious anti-apostasy laws (in Muslim countries) or social pressure (often with a veiled threat of violence) elsewhere.

Muslims are the greatest victims of the ideology and the best thing we can do is to provide routes of escape for them.

See
http://www.exmna.org/

Anonymous Coward says:

Careful with Statistics

First off, FBI arrests do not paint the full picture. Those arrests only include those who were “active participants” in the execution of the crimes. Keep in mind, the bigger issue is the indoctrination, brainwashing and targeting of individuals who may feel disenfranchised whp are are easily converted to the ISIL / Al Qaeda narrative. It’s those who are doing the recruiting, and converting of Americans (naturalized or not) with propaganda that resonates with them. Telling these individuals that all of America sucks and therefore we need kill innocent people to make a point. Where are the statistics for those that are here doing the recruiting, training or indoctrinating folks.

Just because they’re not getting busted as active participants I wouldn’t be so quick to sweep under the rug that they’re not here and don’t represent a huge problem.

That’s the problem with statistics depending on what data you actually have and how you look at it, you could lull yourself into a false sense of security with one group while being a little too eager to blame another. This is a complex problem and no-one is walking around with a sign on their back stating “Future Terrorist in Training”.

Black Bellamy (profile) says:

>There seems to be no credible evidence for why people from the countries listed in the original executive order should be banned from the US other than outright bigotry.

Really? You can’t conceive of any other reason? Im astounded.

6 of those 7 countries have NO FUNCTIONING GOVERNMENT or at least one that isn’t riddled with Islamists or other hostile actors. Our entire vetting process is predicated on the local government to vet the traveller first. Countries like Saudi Arabia aren’t on the list because they have a highly functioning police state. Meanwhile what the fuck is going on in Libya or Yemen, no one knows. Iran is on that list not because we hate Muslims, but because fuck those guys. Fuck that whole nation. You would trust an Iranian government guy to say yeah this guy is cool, we vetted him here?

But no, let’s not let reason win over your personal feelz.

orbitalinsertion (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Fuck all those people who get imprisoned, tortured, and killed standing against their government. Fuck all of them.

Lol, as if we count on their governments to do the vetting. It is to laugh. Never mind the ones who were extremely vetted by our military, and who helped us at the risk to themselves and their families. Fuck them too.

Saudi Arabia is a fully functioning police state that is pretty much the prime exported of Islamic extremism. Their state form of Islam is 100% extreme. But whatever.

NeghVar (profile) says:

Culture clash

One potentially serious problem is the culture clash. Many of these refugees follow the ways of Sharia Law. Some of them still actively enforce it despite being in a different country. Sharia Law is above the law and men are above women. A lot of news has been coming out of Germany for the past few years about these culture clashes. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12087780/Cologne-assault-Cultural-difference-is-no-excuse-for-rape.html

And from this there is the emergence of vigilante gangs who vow to protect woman.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3390042/The-fightback-begins-German-vigilante-group-vows-protect-women-migrant-attackers-three-Syrians-arrested-gang-raping-two-teenage-girls.html

Do we want this in the US?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Culture clash

Do we want this in the US?

“We are clearly called, in the Bible, to adhere to our civil authorities, but that conflicts with also a requirement to adhere to God’s rules. When those two come in conflict, God’s rules always win. In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin, violate God’s law and sin, if we’re ordered to stop preaching the gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that. We cannot abide by that because government is compelling us to sin.” – Marco Rubio

We already have it.

The real problem as I see it, is the Christian fucktards feel threatened by Muslim fucktards.

In reality, you’re both fucking retarded. And more so by failing to see the hypocrisy in the bullshit you’re saying.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Culture clash

When those two come in conflict, God’s rules always win. In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin

Not very subtle are you.

The word "personally violate" are key here. This is not talking about people imposing their views on others it is about people having others’ views imposed on them.

If you are a vegan then I would not expect you to try to stop other people eating meat but I would equally not expect you to submit if the state ordered you to eat meat.

There is a HUGE difference. I am surprised that you don’t see it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Culture clash

I see – so as far as Marco Rubio is concerned, what am I missing about the "personally violate" context?

if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it

In this context, it would mean as a justice of the peace deliberately not following the law because he personally feels it’s wrong. Or some clerk, fresh on marriage #4 deciding same-sex marriage is wrong, deciding not to issue a license.

There is no bigly, yuge difference – you want to pick and choose based on what your imaginary man of choice tells you in your head.

If I decided not to pay taxes because my money funds war, I’m guessing that wouldn’t fly. So fuck my beliefs as far as that goes.

But goddammit – same-sex marriages are such a degree more terrible than that. You persecuted "christians" need protection.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Culture clash

In this context, it would mean as a justice of the peace deliberately not following the law because he personally feels it’s wrong. Or some clerk, fresh on marriage #4 deciding same-sex marriage is wrong, deciding not to issue a license.

It does not mean that – you are setting up a straw man here.

I wouldn’t expect a vegan to apply for a job in an abbatoir but if a vegan sets up his own restaurant I wouldn’t expect the state to force him to sell meat.

If I decided not to pay taxes because my money funds war, I’m guessing that wouldn’t fly.

It wouldn’t fly if you expected the state to just let you do it.

If you believe something strongly you need to be prepared to suffer for it and many Christians in the past have done so.

http://blog.livesofthefirstworldwar.org/conscientious-objectors-in-the-first-world-war/

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Culture clash

In this context, it would mean as a justice of the peace deliberately not following the law because he personally feels it’s wrong. Or some clerk, fresh on marriage #4 deciding same-sex marriage is wrong, deciding not to issue a license.

Or maybe an Imam refusing to solemnize a same sex marriage?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Culture clash

Or maybe an Imam refusing to solemnize a same sex marriage?

Is the Iman working as a clerk? In a legal capacity? For the state, perhaps?

Because if he is, then he needs to fuck off and do his job. If the details of the job offend him, he’s free to follow his heart and find another line of work.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Culture clash

That culture clash also happens with Christians immigrating from old world countries. The ones from the cities tend to be modern, and the ones from out in the country tend to put Biblical law above the legal system and men above women. You get this problem with every wave of immigrants regardless of their religion. And it’s always only a small subset of them.

Here in Canada a small group of Muslims called for sharia courts for their own people. They were shouted down – marches even held to protest them – by a much, MUCH larger group of Muslims who had had enough of that crap in the old world and wanted no part of it here.

Christian or Muslim or Jewish, you’ll always find some who want a theocracy. (Consider Mike Huckabee rallying to the cause of a woman who insisted on using her government position to dictate her sect’s religious beliefs to others. Or Haredi Jews putting up signs on public streets banishing women to one side of the street.) You treat them the same way, and don’t let them get away with it.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Culture clash

Here in Canada a small group of Muslims called for sharia courts for their own people. They were shouted down – marches even held to protest them – by a much, MUCH larger group of Muslims who had had enough of that crap in the old world and wanted no part of it here.

In Canada maybe – but look at Muslim opinion around the world

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Anonymous Coward says:

Internal borders

ought to ban travel from North & South Carolina

US states are about as big as individual countries in other parts of the world. It does seem strange that strange that some Americans are so obsessed with strong borders and completely ignore this. Of course, they’re still more likely to be killed by furniture than even a Carolinian terrorist.

John Cressman (profile) says:

Misguided

“We’ve been pretty damn clear that we think the Trump administration’s targeting of people from a few countries by banning them from entering the US is both inhumane and misguided.”

Mike, I love you, but you are both misguided and inhumane, and most likely a hypocrite.

First, you are misguided because it’s a temporary ban and it was to improve the vetting process so we can differentiate the people who DO want to do us harm from those who don’t. That’s something we exercise ourselves in our own lives each day, trying to say that the country doesn’t have the right to do that to protect their citizens is… misguided.

Second, unless you have a house full of immigrants, YOU are inhumane! At least, by your reasoning. The fact is, NO ONE outside this country has a RIGHT to be here. It’s a privilege and one that’s been abused and continues to be abused. I suspect many immigrants and refugees want to start a new life, but that should never be done at the expense of the citizens living here. Just like you would most likely never give up your own house (where would you sleep?!) and give it to a group of people from another country that you didn’t know and had no way of knowing their real motivations or loyalties, it’s not inhumane for our country to do the same.

And, you are most likely a hypocrite because you have doors and windows on your house, probably an alarm on your car. Why? Because you don’t want just anyone walking into your house and because you probably don’t want just anyone going into or stealing your car. It’s the same thing, but on a larger scale. We don’t want just anyone coming into our country.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Misguided

Second, unless you have a house full of immigrants, YOU are inhumane!

Next, you will claim that everyone has to grow their own food.

In modern societies, different people and organizations take on different roles, where we use money and barter to balance things out. There is nothing “inhumane” about donating to charities that help refugees while not housing a refugee yourself.

> but that should never be done at the expense of the citizens living here

Native Americans would like to have a word with you.

> We don’t want just anyone coming into our country.

Perhaps you would be better off emigrating to a country that shares your values, such as North Korea.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Misguided

Second, unless you have a house full of immigrants, YOU are inhumane!

Change that phrase to : Second, unless you have a house full of unwanted children, YOU are inhumane!

I suspect many immigrants and refugees want to start a new life, but that should never be done at the expense of the citizens living here.

Change that to: I suspect many unwanted children want to start a new life, but that should never be done at the expense of the citizens living here.

Reason for the exercise is that most of the folks on the side of Trump and his ban/not-a-ban/could-be-a-ban-if-you-want wouldn’t even fucking dare to take this side of the argument regarding abortion.

Yet when it comes to something that threatens to expose the size of their god’s dick, they lose their shit.

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Misguided

“First, you are misguided because it’s a temporary ban…”

If you think the intention was for this to actually be temporary, you were probably also gullible enough to believe all of Trump’s other promises and vote for him. The next four years are going to be disappointing for you…

“…and it was to improve the vetting process so we can differentiate the people who DO want to do us harm from those who don’t.”

More proof of your gullibility. The current vetting process has been shown to be very thorough and very effective. What exactly do you think needs to be improved? Where’s your evidence of significant failure? You have no idea, you’re just parroting Trump talking points.

“…trying to say that the country doesn’t have the right to do that to protect their citizens is… misguided.”

Trying to suggest that the EO would have actually increased protection to US citizens is also misguided. And stupid.

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Misguided

"First, you are misguided because it’s a temporary ban…"

If you think the intention was for this to actually be temporary, you were probably also gullible enough to believe all of Trump’s other promises and vote for him. The next four years are going to be disappointing for you…

"…and it was to improve the vetting process so we can differentiate the people who DO want to do us harm from those who don’t."

More proof of your gullibility. The current vetting process has been shown to be very thorough and very effective. What exactly do you think needs to be improved? Where’s your evidence of significant failure? You have no idea, you’re just parroting Trump talking points.

"…trying to say that the country doesn’t have the right to do that to protect their citizens is… misguided."

Trying to suggest that the EO would have actually increased protection to US citizens is also misguided. And stupid.

Anonymous Coward says:

Let's look at some examples

Perhaps we should look into countries with a good number of Muslims in it, like, say The Philippines.

Its Muslim population, supports the establishment of a separatist government, supports terrorists, and is very anti-Philippine government.

Not to mention they also attack innocent bystanders for the sin of window shopping. Or stealing other people’s money.

What? A third world country is irrelevant? How bigoted of you.

So let’s take a look at France instead and, oh, riots and trucks of peace. Germany? Annual New Year rapes.

So yeah, if you like these to happen to America, go ahead. Let them all in and start arming them with beer trucks to kill white people right? That’s the progressive way! 🙂

Anonymous Coward says:

Here is a fact that people seem to ignore. There are Catholics that are pretty much only Catholic in name. Jews that are Jewish, but not really. Of course, there will be Muslims that don’t really follow the religion. A true believer will of course not like Jews, gays or women much, but if we worry about that, we shouldn’t let people from India into the US because their views of women suck also.

Here is one fact through, and you can’t get around it. On November 28th a Somali refugee here in the country legally ran his car into people at Ohio State University then exited his car and began attacking people around him with knives. 13 people were hospitalized, one with a fractured skull.

This person didn’t have to be here and those 13 people didn’t have to go to the hospital.

On Feb. 11th a native of Guinea here legally entered the Nazereth Restaurant in Ohio and attacked customers with a machete, injuring 4. This person didn’t have to be here and those people wouldn’t have been hacked with a machete.

On September 17th, a Somali (here legally) walked into the Crossroads Center shopping mall and began stabbing patrons, he stabbed 10 people, sending 3 to the hospital. This person didn’t have to be here, and those people wouldn’t have been stabbed.

Wolfie0827 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

And none of these were tied to terrorism.(or only loosely as in the perp claimed they were doing it for Islam/religious reasons.) None of the people involved actually had any terrorist ties. If I remember correctly the OSU one is the only one that even had any evidence that the perp had even seen ISIS/Extremist info in the form of visiting an extremist Islamic website.

restless94110 (profile) says:

Pretty Damn Unclear

We’ve been pretty damn clear that we think the Trump administration’s targeting of people from a few countries by banning them from entering the US is both inhumane and misguided.

You are pretty damn unclear: A 90-day temporary ban is something that has been done by President Obama and other Presidents before. It’s not inhumane, it’s not misguided, it’s temporary.

Your first paragraph fails to mention that it is temporary and it has been done many times before, thus giving a false impression. Is it ignorance on your part? How could it be? You’ve been corrected several times. That leaves prejudice and malice.

Or simple insanity. Which is it, bud? My conclusion is malice and insanity with a heavy does of totally irrational prejudice.

Keep on siding with the the tech companies driving down wages with phoney H1-B visa laws. It make you look more lame every single day.

Anonymous Expert says:

Missing the forest for the trees

This thread has devolved into people who have studied Islam getting yelled at by people who haven’t, so let’s get back to the topic. There is a reason there are so few Islamist attacks: the Muslim extremists in the United States are under a stand-down order. The “lone wolf” attacks are acting against the wishes of the serious threats, the ones with training and foreign backing, who are following a strategy of nonviolence while infiltrating civic organizations to build up a larger public support base. Some of them are getting government funding to do this. The feds are focused so closely on stopping terrorism that they stopped caring about spies.

There has been a shitload of small-scale street violence by organizations linked to al-Qaeda: broken windows, arson, beating people up. The attackers are usually white college students who were recruited by an Islamist front organization on campus or over the internet. This is never registered as terrorism no matter how politically motivated it is.

David says:

Promises, promises

There seems to be no credible evidence for why people from the countries listed in the original executive order should be banned from the US other than outright bigotry.

And why should there be? If I would have had the choice, I’d have preferred Obama sticking to his election promises and campaign platform rather than Trump.

But Trump promised outright bigotry, and he delivers.

bullhookey says:

bullshit

This is hilarious.. lets take the whole terrorisst thing.. throw it out the window – it doesn’t exist. it’s a figment of your imagination, and better yet – it’s you .. not them.
after you all are done inviting the islamic terrorists over for tea and cookies.. and after he kills you. i can promise i’ll be the one still standing …..over the terrorists body with a bullet hole in his skull because you all were too stupid to see the writing on the wall.

David says:

Re: Re: bullshit

There is a reason “Bigotry 101” is a prerequisite for “Applied Religion”. If you let some rebellious hippy Jesus define what Christianity is all about, you’ll end up with something indistinguishable from Judaism.

Christianity stands in the tradition of Paul, not Jesus. Until you let go of your misguided theoretical preconceptions, you’ll never make it to casting your first stone.

frank87 (profile) says:

you don't travel much

Traveling over borders has been a pain since WWII at least (before that the number of travelers was probably too small for governments to bother). This very site is filled with TSA-abuse, and it could be worse(you don’t have to bribe anyone).
Governments bothering travelers is the rule. Is this stupid rule really that much worse than the others.

Anonymous Coward says:

Actually, according to the law, we can ban people from coming into our country if they won’t accept them back if we choose to deport them. There is a list of 22 countries on that list. This isn’t something that has to be enabled, in fact, it is the law, one that just doesn’t get used very often. Our government seems to enforce laws when it is convenient for them to do so, but the law says that those folks shouldn’t be coming here in the first place.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...