Here is a silly argument:
According to the Cato Institute, the United States admitted 3,252,493 refugees between 1975 and 2015. Twenty of them were terrorists. This represents some 0.00062 percent of all refugees. Only three attacks carried out by these refugees were successful.So we should let the Moslem refugees in, and jail the toddlers?!
In total, in a span of forty years, “terrorist refugees” have killed three people in the United States.
But what about the attacks in San Bernardino, the Orlando Pulse Nightclub shooting, the Boston Marathon bombings, and 9/11? Are these not “proof” that such a ban is warranted? After all, the individuals responsible for the attacks had some connection to foreign countries.
In reality, the current executive order would have stopped exactly none of these attacks.
The Pulse Nightclub shooter was born in New York and was a U.S. citizen. Of the two San Bernardino shooters, one was born in Chicago. The other, his wife, was born in Pakistan and lived in Saudi Arabia — neither country is on the “banned” list. The Tsatnaev brothers, responsible for the Boston bombings, were born in Kyrgyzstan. People from Kyrgyzstan aren’t banned under the current executive order. Of the 19 people responsible for hijacking four airplanes on 9/11, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the UAE, one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon. Again, these countries aren’t on the “banned” list. ...
Yes, you are more likely to be killed by a gun-wielding toddler than a terrorist.
No, this is an argument to extend the ban to other Moslem countries. And to deport the Moslems who are already here.
It is true that the govt can spend 2 years vetting a Moslem refugee, determine that he is not connected to any terror networks, let him become a citizen, and then his kid could become a Moslem terrorist.
Terrorism is just the most obvious problem. These refugees and migrants cause a long list of other problems. Just look at how Uber has exploited immigrants and turned them into America-haters.