Data on Domestic Terrorism

by "GhostZ" (GhostZ)
Published 01/31/2017 at 09:28

No Tags
STARS: 13

Politics after the Jump.

I was curious about the data behind domestic terrorism, so I did some research.

Turns out, not a single individual in a western country has died or been injured as a result of a terror attack perpetrated by an immigrant from any of the countries that President Trump has called for an immigration ban at.

America:
15: Saudi Arabia (9/11)
2: United Arab Emirates (9/11)
1: Lebanon (9/11)
1: Egypt (9/11)

France:
2: France (Charlie Hebdo)
1: France (Montrouge)
1: Tunisia (Nice Truck Attack)

Belgium:
??: Brussels Terrorist Cell (Belgian-born leadership , attack claimed by French National)

Germany:
1: Tunuisia (Berlin Attack)

Canada:
1: Canada (Parliament Hill)
1: Canada (Saint Jean Sur Richeliu)

Many of them were using long-term work visas were were nationally born within the country.

So while the argument “It’s a pre-emptive measure” doesn’t hold (previous ISIS attacks would not be covered under the ban anyway, even if all countries adopted it) the data would support that it would be better to arrest domestic civilians rather than ban immigrants.

Of course, if you wanted to save lives... fighting Obesity, Gun Violence, Drunk Driving, Tobacco and Malnutrition are far higher causes of preventable death.

EDIT: To clarify, San Bernadino, Pulse Nightclub, and Boston Marathon attacks were not terrorist attacks and had no direct ties to ISIS, and none of them were committed by immigrants or refugees.

Replies (95)

"for Michigan" (formichigan)
01/31/2017 at 09:32, STARS: 1

What about the Boston Marathon and the Pulse Nightclub attacks?

ETA: Boston Marathon bombing was by brothers from Kyrgyzstan with US citizenship.

ETA: Pulse shooting was by a man from New York.

"FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com" (alphaass)
01/31/2017 at 09:35, STARS: 5

Boston - Chechnya (Kyrgyzstan) , not on list

Orlando - Home grown, born in NYC.

"ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)" (adabofoppo)
01/31/2017 at 09:36, STARS: 10

But those issues don’t give people liscense to be racist. *45's Muslim ban is only about appeasing the white supremacist base. The people being denied entry to the US are amazing, wonderful individuals who would be doing what his campaign slogan was all about; except they’re brown so we can’t have that.

"Ash78, voting early and often" (ash78)
01/31/2017 at 09:37, STARS: 4

1: Tunisia (Nice Truck Attack)

So it was like an F-150 King Ranch? /sry

"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
01/31/2017 at 09:38, STARS: 1

Boston Marathon wasn’t categorized as a terrorist attack and has no ties to ISIS. One was born in the USSR, the other in Krgyzstan. They were “inspired” by Islamic terror attacks, but were not members of ISIS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzhokhar_Tsarnaev

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamerlan_Tsarnaev

The Pulse Nightclub shooter, similarly, was not classified as a terrorist attack (it is a mass shooting) and has no ties to ISIS. It was committed by an American citizen from New York.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Mateen

"OPPOsaurus WRX" (opposaurus)
01/31/2017 at 09:39, STARS: 1

from what i’ve seen, Obama also had bans on these countries at one point. I think it has more to do with a hostile government than terrorist origin. I could be wrong, politics isn’t my thing.

"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
01/31/2017 at 09:42, STARS: 10

Making bathtubs illegal would likely save more lives.

And as far as the refugee ban is concerned, isn’t the vetting for refugees already rediculously thorough? I remember a piece John Oliver did on the more than dozen government agencies that vet each refugee application.

"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
01/31/2017 at 09:42, STARS: 1

I would say it’s less about appealing to his base, and more about increasing partisanship so that he has a stronger plurality in congress. The more people who resign and the more republicans and democrats fight, the more pressure (and power) the Trump-supporting congresspersons have.

The extremely high partisanship is also how he won the election. By splitting up the vote between democrats and republicans, a small group of undecided voters were all that was required to appeal toward (particularly blue-collar workers in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, in sectors with high unemployment due to a lack of post-career education after the 2008 crisis, which gave him the ~60k votes he needed to win).

It’s analogous to stealing a cookie out of the cookie jar while your parents are fighting about the mortgage.

"ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)" (adabofoppo)
01/31/2017 at 09:48, STARS: 3

That’s assuming he has a master plan and isn’t just a baffoon with a petty vendetta against people he doesn’t like.

Although I suspect someone in his inner circle has a plan and it looks an awful lot like one we’ve seen before.

And never discount racism with this lot.

"Rust and Dust - Oppositelock Forever" (rustanddust)
01/31/2017 at 09:49, STARS: 4

Not really. From Politifact:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/71aba471-f5be-41f8-8669-90f24336c22c

"yamahog" (yamahog)
01/31/2017 at 09:49, STARS: 5

Not to mention that this type of thing is also just going to make shit worse: http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/trump-muslim-refugee-ban-disaster-national-security

My skeptical side wouldn’t be surprised if this was intended to deteriorate relations even more, and give them something to rationalize even more extreme measures, especially with Bannon now on the NSC and Trump firing anyone who disagrees with him.

"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
01/31/2017 at 09:49, STARS: 3

From what I can find, the Obama administration did delay (but not ban) immigration from Iraq in 2011, which prompted immigration reform shortly thereafter. It was a response to a specific threat (2 attempted immigrants were found to be related to roadside bombings in Iraq). Additionally, after the San Bernadino shooting (which was not the result of immigrants either, but US citizens, including army veterans) he amended the Visa Waiver Program ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program ) to require individuals from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria to obtain visas before traveling to the US, for any purpose. At no time were immigrants banned from entering the country.

Trump’s order is wide-sweeping and a complete ban (not a delay or visa requirement) and is not a response to an isolated incident and not supported by data. The main concern is that serves as evidence of a religion-specific discrimination, which is against the US constitution.

"Justin Hughes" (justinhughes54)
01/31/2017 at 09:51, STARS: 0

Here’s another fun fact.

This is an aerial photo of Sunday’s anti-immigration order protest in Boston. The Marathon bombing happened on the sidewalk in front of the black building in the upper right of the picture. There was a memorial for this attack, perpetrated by a pair of Muslim immigrants (American citizens), in the very same park where this protest of an anti-Muslim executive order took place. I visited the memorial and the protest myself.

"ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)" (adabofoppo)
01/31/2017 at 09:52, STARS: 6

Yes it is.

But he and his base still think it’s as easy as buying a plane ticket and waltzing through our front door. But only because they’ve either never travelled abroad, needed a travel visa, or had empathy toward people who don’t look like them.

"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
01/31/2017 at 09:52, STARS: 2

While I don’t think he has a master plan, I do think if there are obvious ways to obtain more power he will continue to do them in the short term. This is one of those obvious ways, and does not require any master plan for him to execute.

There are similarities between Nazi Germany’s plurality and the alt-right, though it took them many years of building party representation within government before major changes could occur, and they lacked some of the checks and balances.

"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
01/31/2017 at 09:53, STARS: 1

It is very thorough. I can understand why people would want higher vetting that’s a political policy supported by many. However, this is a complete ban and largely serves no purpose but to waste money and time.

"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
01/31/2017 at 09:54, STARS: 7

My biggest concern is that the policy is simply ill-formed. It’s unclear, undefined, not supported by data, and not being executed effectively at all. A negligent government causes more harm than an effective, but disagreeing, one.

"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
01/31/2017 at 09:57, STARS: 1

Sure even higher vetting, it may or may not help. But with the vetting already in place, this ban makes no sense and as you said it’s wasting money and time. The president of the university I went to made a good point. His international students, some of them can’t go home for family emergencies, or simply to see their family as they won’t be able to come back to complete their studies.

"DasWauto" (DasWauto)
01/31/2017 at 10:03, STARS: 1

From what I’ve read, the Obama administration made the list of those 7 countries that identified refugees/visa applicants from there as having a high risk of being radicalized. Said people trying to come into America were screened more thoroughly as a result but the previous administration didn’t outright ban their entry into the country for a period of time.

The Trump administration went even further than that by including people with valid visas, resident status and/or multiple citizenships (eg US and one of the 7 countries).

The vetting process was already very thorough on those coming in from the 7 majority Muslim countries, what Trump has done is go to the extreme measure of exclusion. The upset that has resulted was surely expected and possibly intended to further divide the American public. To what end, I don’t know but they were elected and now have the power they sought. As an outside observer, I can only hope it doesn’t fuck up too much for the rest of us.

"RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht" (ramblininexile)
01/31/2017 at 10:13, STARS: 2

Worth note: Jeff Sessions (WHARGARBL EVIL RACIST WHARGL) published a list last year of twenty names. 19 refugees, one Special Immigration Visa, all of whom have been involved in terror recently here or abroad. 5 Iraqi, 1 Uzbek, 5 Somali, 1 Kenyan, 7(!) Bosnian... and I mixed up my count somewhere, ‘cause there’s one unaccounted for. It’s foolhardy to claim that no refugee vector exists, and supposedly well-vetted mass refugee sources (Somalia, Bosnia) have in time borne bitter fruit - see also the Tsarnaevs (Chechnya), not included in that list. The list of countries was generated by DHS in the previous administration as sources of high risk refugees - and the movement of refugees is the primary focus - groups undergoing mass processing and inherently less scrutiny.

Saudi being off the list - well, they weren’t on the list from the previous administration and they’re not sending us refugees in large numbers, are they? Anyway, a lot of the claims made regarding the action are simply not true.

"LOREM IPSUM" (lorem---ipsum)
01/31/2017 at 10:19, STARS: 0

Frankly, I think they should have added Mexico to the list as well.

Between the narco cartels, the corrupt complacent government, the criminals repeatedly deported only to reappear and reoffend time and again; Mexico is a bigger threat to our safety and well being than all of the middle east combined. Extreme vetting before entry wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.

Maybe after the wall goes up.

"Spridget" (dustbustervans)
01/31/2017 at 10:20, STARS: 1

Only 17%, or 12 or the 53 terror attacks/attempts on American soil after 9/11 have been perpetrated by Muslims or people from Muslim countries.

"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
01/31/2017 at 10:27, STARS: 2

I would like to find some hard data on that, though an immigration ban on Mexico would likely cause far more harm than good. A wall, no matter how big, would have little impact on illegal immigration. A majority of them are the result of overstaying work visas and the rest are by Air.

If we deported all illegal immigrants we would lose ~5% of the tax-paying workforce, also, of which only half are mexican. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/  

Assisting the mexican government in fighting the cartels directly would be the best benefit to reduce deaths.

But the cost of building a wall, deporting immigrants, replacing (and educating) workers for the lost workforce, subsidizing US-based businesses to avoid losing further jobs, the loss of trade as a result of tariffs, and more would result in a US depression, without question. The waste for that is measured in Trillions, not millions.

We can either be culturally isolationist, or have a successful economy. It is not possible to do both.

"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
01/31/2017 at 10:29, STARS: 3

Where is the list /source of terrorist attacks you are using for this statistic?

There is some confusion over what constitutes “terror” vs just murder, though I believe the distinction on the listing in wikipedia is whether or not it is related to a terrorist organization (such as ISIS), not counting lone agents.

"LOREM IPSUM" (lorem---ipsum)
01/31/2017 at 10:36, STARS: 0

I do wonder how situations like the following occur:

http://m.ctpost.com/local/article/Deported-12-times-Norwalk-man-to-stay-in-U-S-10896167.php

This is just one individual case, but if someone is deported how do they manage to re-enter? Are they just flying/driving/walking through Customs unchecked, are they running the border, etc?

12 times for one person, and it’s not particularly unusual. Makes me wonder how it’s possible and why more hasn’t been done to stop it.

"Svart Smart, traded in his Smart" (svartsmart)
01/31/2017 at 10:41, STARS: 4

The immigration ban may just be the ‘shock event’ to divide and distract the public while something bigger and more sinister is in the works.

https://www.facebook.com/heather.richardson.986/posts/654265404770041

"Grindintosecond" (Grindintosecond)
01/31/2017 at 10:47, STARS: 4

I’d like to thank everyone here for having calm logical discussions on these subjects, for looking for source material and extra data to confirm positions, for thinking about all angles to all stories to draw from to create informed decisions and concepts. Once again, proving that car guys are more sane than any other demographic; a fact proven because I say so.

"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
01/31/2017 at 10:50, STARS: 6

It’s very easy to enter a country illegally. Though I can’t find any information on Alberto Silvia-Garcia outside of the article you linked, which doesn’t provide sources. Without sources (it doesn’t even source the comment by the Attorney) there’s no way of knowing if he actually existed.

The problems with deportation is why the Obama administration pushed for Amnesty. The constant deportation process just causes more waste, it is more cost effective to arrest and incarcerate criminals nationally than to deport them and have them return unpunished.

If your goal is to stop deaths, illegal immigration isn’t a target. If your goal is to help the economy, illegal immigration isn’t a target. If your goal is to stop immigration, a wall would have a negligible effect. Passing legislation that eliminates work visas for mexican-born citizens and punishes businesses that hire illegal immigrants would make a major impact, though it would also cause a national recession.

"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
01/31/2017 at 10:52, STARS: 2

Peer reviewed fact-checked sourced data is still powerful for setting expectations, even in a ‘post truth’ political climate.

"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
01/31/2017 at 10:54, STARS: 1

I mentioned this in another article, but increasing partisanship by dividing republicans and democrats more is the main methods of obtaining political power over the vote that Trump’s plurality has.

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 10:54, STARS: 0

Is this satire? The cartels are perfectly happy to enter stay in Mexico where they have clout, and if the war on drugs has taught us anything it’s that people will find a way to get drugs to where the customers are.

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 10:57, STARS: 0

Because the only people who are affected by travel bans are the ones willing to listen to the rules. A criminal has no such qualms and will find a way to cross the border.

"ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)" (adabofoppo)
01/31/2017 at 11:04, STARS: 1

For now.

We have yet to hear his pick for SC.

Sessions would follow his lead as AG willingly.

If he gets those two he could probably get away with almost anything.

I am hopeful McCain finds his principles again and gets some of the timid Rs to follow against *45. If they join the Dems we might be able to bandage this wound long enough to keep the US from bleeding out on the table.

"Rainbow" (rainbeaux)
01/31/2017 at 11:11, STARS: 2

I want to add that it’s pathetic that this kind of discussion is even considered political in nature. It’s like the people on Jalopnik’s Facebook page complaining about everything being biased and opinionated. While I agree fully that Jalopnik should stick to cars, it’s terrifying to see so many people look at plain facts and dismiss them as “liberal propaganda.”

"Rainbow" (rainbeaux)
01/31/2017 at 11:11, STARS: 2

I want to add that it’s pathetic that this kind of discussion is even considered political in nature. It’s like the people on Jalopnik’s Facebook page complaining about everything being biased and opinionated. While I agree fully that Jalopnik should stick to cars, it’s terrifying to see so many people look at plain facts and dismiss them as “liberal propaganda.”

"Rykilla303" (rykilla303)
01/31/2017 at 11:15, STARS: 0

Even people here that I disagreed with, I appreciated and felt like we could find compromise. It’s nice.

"LOREM IPSUM" (lorem---ipsum)
01/31/2017 at 11:35, STARS: 0

The cartels have reach in every major metropolitan area in North America. Soldiers on the street, so to speak.

"Grindintosecond" (Grindintosecond)
01/31/2017 at 11:35, STARS: 0

How’s your Z running? I’m starting work on the mini shell this spring/summer. Hopefully, I can have it on the road by fall. Look for an all red one somewhere outside boulder.

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 11:40, STARS: 0

Isn’t crime already illegal? We would be better served hitting them where they live, not just trying to stop everyone from mexico. As I said before, travel bans only affect people who follow the rules. Criminals are going to get across the border somehow, it would be better to behave like a sanctuary city and focus on real criminals, not just someone who doesn’t have their papers.

"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
01/31/2017 at 11:41, STARS: 1

If we deported all illegal immigrants we would lose ~5% of the tax-paying workforce, also, of which only half are mexican.

Late to this party, but I’d like to ask for clarification on one thing you said in the above quote (with emphasis mine). One of the problems I see with illegal immigration is that those illegals both do not pay into our system and are not protected by it. When you wrote “tax-paying”, I assume you meant income and social security taxes, not just run of the mill sales taxes. I read briefly through your cited article in which illegals are tallied as 5% of the work force, but it says nothing about them paying taxes, unless I missed something in my reading. This to me is an important part of the discussion as a main reason to control immigration.

"Mercedes Streeter" (smart)
01/31/2017 at 11:41, STARS: 1

Here, take the star, and I’ll see you in Hell.

Also, your last screen name “anti-Musli n ” (a type of fabric) was pretty clever. Did you ever get any crap for it?

"yamahog" (yamahog)
01/31/2017 at 11:48, STARS: 2

The 11:11 double post! Make a wish!

"Ash78, voting early and often" (ash78)
01/31/2017 at 11:48, STARS: 1

A couple random stabs, but mostly compliments and double-takes.

"BigBlock440" (440-4bbl)
01/31/2017 at 11:51, STARS: 1

Criminals don’t follow laws, so why have any laws? Murder should be legal and complete anarchy, right?

"BigBlock440" (440-4bbl)
01/31/2017 at 11:52, STARS: 1

If we deported all illegal immigrants we would lose ~5% of the tax-paying workforce,

Interestingly enough, that’s also the unemployment rate.

"BigBlock440" (440-4bbl)
01/31/2017 at 11:53, STARS: 1

Orlando - Home grown, born in NYC.

to refugee parents...

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 12:01, STARS: 0

Criminals don’t follow laws, so don’t make laws that hurt normal people and won’t affect criminals.

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 12:03, STARS: 1

Immigrants do the jobs americans feel are beneath themselves, if you removed immigrants from the work force you wouldn’t suddenly have americans clamoring for those positions.

"LOREM IPSUM" (lorem---ipsum)
01/31/2017 at 12:23, STARS: 1

The problem here, as you pointed out, is that it is apparently quite easy to enter the country illegally. Even worse is the cities that refuse to honor deportation requests when they locate these people.

If we were to compare the 5% they’re supposedly putting in to the economy versus the amount taken back out by way of moneys spent on things such as repeated deportation, investigation, arrest, incarceration, social services, accidents involving uninsured motorists, lost tax revenue, etc, I’d imagine that the balance sheet would be deep into the red. Also, illegals don’t pay taxes other than sales tax on items they happpen to purchase. Cash is king to those without a SSN.

Most legitimate businesses don’t employ illegal aliens, unless they can hide the cash going out somehow, because then the company would be responsible for the taxable income.

In the end, the illegal community is either stuck doing hard menial work for presumably substandard wages, or they’re entrenched in illegal activity to earn a living. The city jails and prisons are well stocked with these folks. Look to Chicago, Detroit, NY, etc for reference.

Even worse, is that some of these people who partake in criminal activity and are caught for their acts are then given sanctuary from the feds deportation requests. Criminals sitting on Rikers island for serious crimes, and ICE isn’t allowed into the building. When the people have served their sentence, out the door you go and back into the community to reoffend.

For the record, I don’t begrudge anyone wanting to come and partake of the American/Canadian experience. Just do it the right way. Get your documents. Get your ducks in a row. Get a job and support yourself and your family. Be a good citizen. The country will probably be a better place because of it.

With that said, however, I find it difficult to see hundreds of thousands of people leaving their homeland because of the issues in their own country. I get it, Syria and the rest of the middle east is a mess. Mexico is wholly corrupt, and the people are poor with little visible opportunity. The biggest problem with droves of presumably good people fleeing their motherland, is that who will be left to fix things if no one stays to fight the good fight?

The sheer number of Syrians fleeing the country by any means necessary tells me that had they banded together and fought their oppressors, they would have had the numbers to make a difference. Yes, many would perish, but they would at least have a chance of saving their home country from those who are making it uninhabitable.

Instead of hundreds of thousands of Mexican folks migrating north of the border, presumably for a better life, why not protest their own corrupt government? Why not protest the companies moving there and offering slave wages? Why not work to make a better Mexico instead of coming to America and insisting that Mexico is great?

In other words, fix your own damn problems instead of relocating the problem somewhere else.

"LOREM IPSUM" (lorem---ipsum)
01/31/2017 at 12:27, STARS: 0

Thus, a wall.

Preferably with armed ICE employees atop it.

And a sign at the edge of the property which reads:

“Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.” (en espanol)

....

(^^ Tongue in cheek)

"BigBlock440" (440-4bbl)
01/31/2017 at 12:30, STARS: 0

I agree. What are your thoughts on NY’s “SAFE” act or CA’s background checks for ammo purchases, or Hilary’s proposed background checks for firearm transfers between family members?

"BigBlock440" (440-4bbl)
01/31/2017 at 12:30, STARS: 0

What you mean is American’s won’t (or can’t) do those jobs for below minimum wage....

"LOREM IPSUM" (lorem---ipsum)
01/31/2017 at 12:38, STARS: 0

Lots of people hate their jobs and feel that they are underpaid for the work they do, legal citizens or not. Most people would rather do a job they hate than be homeless once the welfare runs out.

"LOREM IPSUM" (lorem---ipsum)
01/31/2017 at 12:48, STARS: 0

I use Mexico as an example, because they share a physical border with the US and most illegally entering on foot tend to cross that border. The problem isn’t specifically with the Mexican people.

If you can’t board a plane or boat to the US, or aren’t allowed to get off of it if you do happen to board, that stops a huge chunk of the illegal entry problem in it’s tracks. The remaining folks entering illegally traveling by foot or floating 57 Bel Air are easier to mitigate.

Fwiw, the very nature of them being there illegally MAKES them criminals. They can’t participate in legally working. They can’t legally pay into the social system by way of taxes or payroll deductions to offset their presence. In the end, they take without giving back like everyone else.

It’s not difficult to migrate to the US legally. Fill out the paperwork, do what they ask of you, don’t be a degenerate criminal, and you’re golden. It’s harder to migrate to Canada, and the legal immigrant population here is staggering.

There’s no excuse for turning a blind eye, especially when a lot of these folks are getting picked up for legitimate crimes unrelated to their immigration status, but are allowed to remain in the country despite the federal mandate dictating otherwise.

"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
01/31/2017 at 12:53, STARS: 2

And the same number of jobs would be lost when those deported stop buying american goods. The only harm that the workers could do to the economy is the amount of remittance money they send to families back home in mexico, which totals ~$24bn ( http://www.tradingeconomics.com/mexico/remittances ). However, a portion of that money makes its way back to the US through imports anyway ( http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/mex/ )

Though many of those remittances are from legal work visas, not illegal immigrants. Most “illegal” immigrants are legal immigrants that overstay or do not renew their visas, between 30 and 50% depending on data sources. They do not enter illegally.

We could lower unemployment if the standard of living in the US dropped low enough that people could live on $5 an hour, or if our education system was good enough that career paths could keep up with automation.

"FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com" (alphaass)
01/31/2017 at 12:59, STARS: 1

I get the point, but I don’t really agree that there is a connection. Mateen’s parents came here over 30 years ago and there isn’t really any indication that they were instrumental at all in their son becoming an extremist. Also, they were from Afghanistan which is also not on the ban list.

"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
01/31/2017 at 13:02, STARS: 1

Most legitimate businesses don’t employ illegal aliens, unless they can hide the cash going out somehow, because then the company would be responsible for the taxable income.

Most illegal aliens enter the US legally and then overstay their work visas, which are subsequently renewed rather than deported. It is criminals and repeat offenders that are deported.

If we lowered the standard of living in the US such that it was possible to live on $4 an hour and still pay taxes, then people would still immigrating from Mexico.

In the case of Syria, they are under indiscriminate bombings from Russia and their government has been overtaken by militant ISIS control. Without guns of their own there is little that protesting can accomplish.

I think we would both agree that helping Mexico solve their own problems, make legal immigration a faster and less expensive process, are both better than dealing with mass immigration though, I mentioned that in my previous post. I do not think that a large, expensive, ineffective wall or a vague blanket ban on immigration will solve any of those problems, however.

"LOREM IPSUM" (lorem---ipsum)
01/31/2017 at 13:04, STARS: 0

How do you know they’re all amazing wonderful individuals? By what metric?

"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
01/31/2017 at 13:10, STARS: 1

I was including both sales and income tax, but to clarify further:

40% of illegal immigrants came to america legally and were employed and continue to pay taxes, but do not renew work visas. They pay income tax. the other 60% are less certain on whether they pay income tax or not, but a majority of the work they do is below minimum wage and would not be eligible to be taxed (and they would not be hired anyway) if they were in the system. These individuals are also not receiving tax benefits such as medicare or medicaid because they are not enrolled with a work visa or SSN, so they (with sales tax) are still a net gain to the state and federal tax system.

The concern that mexican immigrants are draining our tax base and inflating the deficit by not paying taxes is not backed by data.

The most efficient way for us to stop illegal immigration would be to lower the US standard of living until the average US citizen could survive on a nominal $4/hr (in 2017 money). This would mean, of course, everyone taking a huge income loss, or prices skyrocketing to balance out the standard of living until it was on-par with mexico.

Remittance is a concern (illegal immigrants send about $24bn a year back to mexico through their families) but that is a small portion of total trade that the US and Mexico do (~$300bn) with each other. Remittance fees and taxation is also collected during that process (through currency conversion and money transfers such as western union) so it is largely taxed as well.

"LOREM IPSUM" (lorem---ipsum)
01/31/2017 at 13:15, STARS: 0

Any idea how difficult is it to actually vet these people? Especially when they’re coming from an area with no record keeping?

Case in point. My wife works in Healthcare here in Canada. We have a HUGE east indian population here. Did you know that many folks from India have no idea when their birthday is? No one bothered to record it. No annual celebration. No idea. When asked, they generally just guess or make something up that seems about right.

Now nothing against my indian friends, but can you imagine how incredibly impossible it would be to vet someone who shares their name with a few hundred thousand other people, has no idea of their date of birth, with no central database or organization from their home country to reference during the vetting process?

I can’t imagine that middle eastern countries are much different in that regard.

You’d be stuck asking them questions and hoping someone didn’t coach them on what types of acceptable answers you’d be looking for. You’d have no way of truly verifying anything.

"LOREM IPSUM" (lorem---ipsum)
01/31/2017 at 13:19, STARS: 0

...and it’s temporary. 90 days isn’t “forever, from now on.”

Obama did the same shit, more or less, without the masses protesting as a result.

The only reason this is as big of a deal as it’s turning out to be is because of those who blindly oppose any and all things Trump.

"ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)" (adabofoppo)
01/31/2017 at 13:20, STARS: 1

That they are people.

Hard as it may be for you to comprehend, but anyone who isn’t white and male is not automatically a bad person out to cause harm.

"LOREM IPSUM" (lorem---ipsum)
01/31/2017 at 13:23, STARS: 0

This brings up a good question.

Why is the Canadian Mosque shooter a terrorist, but Dylan Roof the black church shooter just a Hate Criminal?

"LOREM IPSUM" (lorem---ipsum)
01/31/2017 at 13:39, STARS: 1

Once the work visa runs out though, I’d imagine that they cannot continue to draw a paycheck. If they were to continue to use the SSN on their visa/green card it would presumably throw a red flag and ICE would probably show up to their workplace or home to collect them for deportation.

Which begs the question of how are they continuing to earn a living, and how are taxes and deductions assessed? I’d imagine that once the visa runs out they go underground and work for cash, thus paying nothing further into the sustem.

A better question though, is if they went through the trouble to legally acquire a work visa, why just let it lapse knowing full well that it would put you at risk of losing your legal resident status? Why didn’t they continue to do the right thing?

I mean, if they refuse to play by the rules, why allow them to remain here?

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 14:00, STARS: 0

But there never will be a “wall”, not a continuous one anyways. Unless they eminent domain all the property along the Rio then there can not be a solid wall, as the rio is a water source for ranchers.

If you do build a solid wall, with a solid “fuck you” to all the landowners you just stole land from by the way, then who is paying for it? Not Mexico. It’s going to be coming out of the pockets of everyday americans, as any tax on goods from mexico is going to be passed on to the customer.

And what does the taxpayer get out of a wall? Well people who employ immigrants get a nice fat profit loss now that they have to pay minimum wage. That drives up the cost of all the goods that they make. Now you have americans working minimum wage jobs because they need to be done, but now even without a minimum wage increase you get a cost of living increase, so now that minimum wage job (that you most likely don’t have healthcare with because “LOL fuck you poors, you need to have 40hrs a week to get those and what’s this? I only scheduled you for 39hrs? Boo fucking hoo”) now is even less of a minimum wage job. Hell, might as well move to mexico at that point, at least the cost of living is low and healthcare is cheap.

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 14:00, STARS: 0

But there never will be a “wall”, not a continuous one anyways. Unless they eminent domain all the property along the Rio then there can not be a solid wall, as the rio is a water source for ranchers.

If you do build a solid wall, with a solid “fuck you” to all the landowners you just stole land from by the way, then who is paying for it? Not Mexico. It’s going to be coming out of the pockets of everyday americans, as any tax on goods from mexico is going to be passed on to the customer.

And what does the taxpayer get out of a wall? Well people who employ immigrants get a nice fat profit loss now that they have to pay minimum wage. That drives up the cost of all the goods that they make. Now you have americans working minimum wage jobs because they need to be done, but now even without a minimum wage increase you get a cost of living increase, so now that minimum wage job (that you most likely don’t have healthcare with because “LOL fuck you poors, you need to have 40hrs a week to get those and what’s this? I only scheduled you for 39hrs? Boo fucking hoo”) now is even less of a minimum wage job. Hell, might as well move to mexico at that point, at least the cost of living is low and healthcare is cheap.

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 14:01, STARS: 0

Minimum wage isn’t a livable wage, and if cheap immigrant labour is now gone expect heavy lobbying to lower minimum wage by businesses that now have unprofitable margins.

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 14:03, STARS: 0

So the people who simply overstay their work visa will suddenly be blocked by a wall?

If someone commits a crime they should be punished, but the justice system doesn’t work that way since plea bargains became a thing. Their are always bigger fish to fry.

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 14:07, STARS: 0

Going by the amount of people who shoot themselves or others by accident, anything that lowers gun use is statistically a good thing.

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 14:09, STARS: 0

Exactly, and just look at discourse that happens anytime a minimum wage increase is floated around. Companies will much rather invest in automation if they suddenly have to pay a living wage or even minimum wage. This would still mean jobs lost.

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 14:13, STARS: 0

Because America is all about the capitalist ideal, and illegal immigrants make companies mooney, who in turn fund politicians and the government.

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 14:17, STARS: 0

Jesus christ, you are Canadian and you are supporting an immigration ban? How patriotic and full of Canadian values of you.

"LOREM IPSUM" (lorem---ipsum)
01/31/2017 at 14:19, STARS: 0

Yes. We’re full. Everyone who isn’t here already can fuck right off.

I hear Mexico has some vacancy. Try there.

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 14:19, STARS: 1

Except Obama didn’t block people who were already approved from entering, because that would be illegal AF.

"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
01/31/2017 at 14:19, STARS: 1

You are using anecdotal evidence to support your case. While I’m sure it’s a factor, you do not work in intelligence. By this logic we’d never be able to vet anyone sufficiently. So why now all of sudden ban people from countries that haven’t demonstrably caused us harm in recent history? In fact, find me any recent refugee beyond 9/11 that has harmed an American citizen. Again, bathtubs have killed more people.

I would feel terrible if when we open up our borders to those affected, once again, and they do hurt/kill someone here, but I just don’t see how this ban is based in fact. Intelligence may have access to data that we don’t and feels there’s a real threat from these specific countries. But has anyone close to the administration stated even that?!?

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 14:24, STARS: 0

Because he was motivated politically, and it was also a hate crime.

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 14:32, STARS: 0

Get the fuck out of here with that xenophobic bullshit. Luck of being born in a country shouldn’t dictate your future opportunities. Canada is proud of its multicultural heritage and if you don’t you don’t like it you can fuck right off and start your own country that doesn’t take in immigrants. Let me know how that works for you.

Until then I’ll enjoy knowing that each immigrant that enters into Canada pisses you off.

"LOREM IPSUM" (lorem---ipsum)
01/31/2017 at 14:33, STARS: 0

Take a breath before you stroke out.

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 14:34, STARS: 0

Oh don’t worry, all this schadenfreude is pretty relaxing.

"LOREM IPSUM" (lorem---ipsum)
01/31/2017 at 14:36, STARS: 0

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/notices/2017-01-25.asp?platform=hootsuite

Even the government says we’re full.

"LOREM IPSUM" (lorem---ipsum)
01/31/2017 at 14:38, STARS: 1

Getting off on the misfortune of others?

Sounds pretty Canadian.

P.S. I don’t really care all that much about any of this. I just love watching the panties twist when people encounter opposing viewpoints they can’t handle hearing.

"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
01/31/2017 at 15:02, STARS: 2

It is temporary, and I’m glad for that. But it’s not comparable to Obama’s policies. From another comment of mine:

From what I can find, the Obama administration did delay (but not ban) immigration from Iraq in 2011, which prompted immigration reform shortly thereafter. It was a response to a specific threat (2 attempted immigrants were found to be related to roadside bombings in Iraq). Additionally, after the San Bernadino shooting (which was not the result of immigrants either, but US citizens, including army veterans) he amended the Visa Waiver Program ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program ) to require individuals from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria to obtain visas before traveling to the US, for any purpose. At no time were immigrants banned from entering the country.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Trump’s order is wide-sweeping and a complete ban (not a delay or visa requirement) and is not a response to an isolated incident and not supported by data. The main concern is that serves as evidence of a religion-specific discrimination, which is against the US constitution.

"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
01/31/2017 at 16:05, STARS: 0

My understanding is that once a worker’s visa runs out and they continue to stay in the country illegally, they would no longer be paying income tax and social security. Is that not correct? How could they continue to pay social security and income tax to the government they are hoping won’t notice they are still here? I had an employee that had to return to the Philippines when his visa ran out, and there was no option to do otherwise because there was no question that the University would even think of bucking immigration law. I would presume that other properly compliant employers who report and collect for social security would behave the same.

So, in summary, I still don’t see how illegals are part of the tax-paying work force. If most of them are low-income, as you say, then they are not even paying much sales tax because food is tax exempt, and they wouldn’t be buying much for expensive goods beyond that.

The other end of the equation is even more troubling to me. Illegals don’t get much of the protections of our system. They don’t get access to health care through Medicare or Medicaid, as you say (is there provision for illegals under the Affordable Care Act? I haven’t heard so), and they don’t get Social Security protection when disabled or retired. They are very vulnerable.

"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
01/31/2017 at 16:12, STARS: 1

I may be able to answer your question in part from my own experience with foreign visa holders at the University. I had a post-doc here on a J visa for a set time. When it was running out, his government insisted that he return. He applied for a waiver, but was refused. He desperately didn’t want to go back and fought hard. He eventually went home and then emigrated to Canada from there.

I have a Chinese employee right now who I picked up after she was downsized and her job was eliminated. She was in line for a green card but had to downgrade to a visitors visa to stay, and when I hired her, I had to pay the processing fees to reinstate her work visa.

So, the answer may be that for many there is no legal path to continue to stay, and they are so desperate to stay that the only way is to go underground.

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 16:18, STARS: 0

Nah, just the misfortune of bigots, that’s something the society at large is pretty okay with.

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
01/31/2017 at 16:19, STARS: 0

Full of applicants for now, but there will be more.

"yamahog" (yamahog)
01/31/2017 at 18:10, STARS: 1

!!!

*adjusts tinfoil hat*

"BigBlock440" (440-4bbl)
01/31/2017 at 23:49, STARS: 0

Jobs lost with more people to support. So why is this a good thing again?

Also, high school kids need jobs too, why can’t we go back to exploiting them instead of exploiting Mexicans?

"BigBlock440" (440-4bbl)
01/31/2017 at 23:51, STARS: 0

Except none of those lowers gun use, it just makes it more of a pain in the ass for law abiding citizens.

Alternatively, going by the amount of Syrians an Iraqis that blow themselves up or chop heads off of “infidels”, anything that lowers jihad use is statistically a good thing.

"BigBlock440" (440-4bbl)
02/01/2017 at 00:02, STARS: 0

Which would be gained back when those buying imported goods because that’s all they could afford are now able to buy American goods again. That’s money back in taxes and money back from not paying out welfare. And if $5/hr works for illegals, why doesn’t it work for us? Why do we let people live in squalor, right next door, because we don’t feel like paying a bit more? Because they’re brown and speak a funny language? Why the fuck is it acceptable to pay illegals $5/hour when we “need” to raise the minimum wage to $15 for Americans (or white people)?

"gmporschenut also a fan of hondas" (gmporschenut)
02/01/2017 at 00:22, STARS: 0

well no ones talking about the ACA

"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
02/01/2017 at 03:05, STARS: 1

$5 an hour doesn’t work for the US because property, transportation, taxation (esp. to cover military costs) and other costs raise the standard of living very high. That’s what makes it cheaper for chinese factories to make iPhones than for the US to drop the minimum wage: if we dropped the minimum wage, our civilians wouldn’t be able to afford a place to live, but people in china can.

Think of it like living in the city downtown vs the rural outskirts. The wages are higher in the wealthier place but the rent is higher too. Mexican immigrants are people who live in the outskirts but work low-wage jobs in the inner city, making more money at the cost of being far from home and commuting a long distance. You can do that too, if you move to mexico.

The core problem with jobs leaving is that our education system hasn’t caught up with globalization, so it’s no longer feasible to work the same unskilled labor job for 20-30 years in a country with a high standard of living. We need better career education so that 30+ year old people can quickly jump careers and improve their education levels to keep up with the faster economic growth and changing technology.

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
02/01/2017 at 11:35, STARS: 0

This ban will only increase extremist violence.

"Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again." (sir-stig)
02/01/2017 at 11:39, STARS: 0

Show me a teenager who can’t find a job because it’s all immigrants doing the menial jobs. Melenial employment is up.

"DrJohannVegas" (drjohannvegas)
02/03/2017 at 21:06, STARS: 0

*puts social science hat on*

The pedants among us (read: me) would argue that the difference, if there is one, comes down to whether each attack had a political aim. The ‘big 4' of terrorism are: 1) Violence 2) Against Civilians 3) Commited by non-state actors 4) For political purposes.

Each attack hits the first 3 clearly, the 4th is a matter of interpretation, I suppose. (I think hate crimes can be terrorism, but YMMV.) Ascribing the ‘terrorism’ label to an act (or ‘terrorist’ to an individual or group) is a very powerful thing.

But that doesn’t answer your question, does it?