Mark Davis

The phrase everyone, meaning everyone who gets in via the lottery. I've never understood why we want to leave to chance what we can control. Many more people want to come to the U.S. than can come legally, we should be trying to select the best, or at the very least have a simple vetting system.

Perhaps. I'm willing to give it a go though and see if he would have. And where we fail, we can improve. Your way, we just throw our hands up and let anyone in, regardless of vetting or merit. I'd say you're conflating arguments about an individual merit system versus banning immigration from certain hotspots of Islamic terror. Nobody is saying we should ban everyone from Portugal.

This is similar to the whole argument about vetting people. When you don't have standards and you let people in via a lottery or you cannot vet them, by nature you are going to allow people in who have issues and shouldn't be here. Whether that's the lottery, random chance on who is coming in a refugee situation, etc. Neither of us knows what test or process we would come up with if we went to a merit based system so any standard either of us claims would be in place is just made up. Let's not kid each other. We absolutely do know one thing for sure, we have three dead people today because of this one guy winning the lottery. That's not a good thing. You can support it if you want, but doing so says you're willing to sacrifice the lives of people here for that system. I think we need to make a change to it.

Of course and we should do so IMO. But you said everyone here would have had a family member fail such a test. Of course we haven't set that test up to even know what the standards would be, so were you just saying that for effect or what? I don't understand how you would know given that it doesn't even exist today.

What test is that since we don't have that type system in place?

So according to CNN, the shooter stayed here in 2017 under the Diversity Visa Lottery. I've argued here against this system before. We need a merit based system. It's ridiculous that we literally have a lottery system for this, now we have three people dead because of it in this case alone.

I remember when XX and XY chromosomes were science.

Yet I can give you a list of terrorists and bad actors stopped from there since the war ended that we allowed into our country. So we don't seem to have that ability.

Some are as you say, but I'd also say some lesser number are coming for non religious reasons but still have that same more radicalized view. Since their society is such,, a critical mass of those people have to believe or support that more radical system. Just because someone tells you they were persecuted, how do you prove it or vet them? Is it the Taliban? I am asking sincerely because the Taliban control that area. I don't think any of us can answer that. In fact, our government hasn't been able to answer it, nor the other Western governments taking in refugees from the area. They've all failed to identify the threats. It's not a Trump nor a Biden thing, it's an everyone thing. If it's possible, nobody has figured it out.

Yes I would say confidently that radical Islamic culture in places like Afghanistan are not compatible with the values and lifestyles of the West. I wouldn't think that's so controversial. The gun debate is not one I take on much because I see both sides but the reality of that is that if you banned new sales today, our great grandkids would be dead and gone and there would be plenty of guns circling around. We both know citizens aren't going to just turn them in even certain types we might could even find common ground on shouldn't exist. If certain types were banned or more security checks were put in place, I'd be fine with it.

You state my belief fairly. I've seen no evidence we can vet them, quite the contrary. So to then be willing to say to hell with it, let's let them in anyway, we are sacrificing American lives and stability to look the other way. To me it's just simple numbers, the odds and our experiences say that's what is happening. I understand that's a red line for you, for me it's a red line on the other side. I would never support any politician who I view has their head in the sand or wants to be deemed politically correct or non bigoted by those on the left. Again, my feelings aren't going to be hurt by the terminology. I almost chuckle a bit at it. I think it does your argument more harm than good but it's ok if you want to make it. It feels like for those on the left of this issue, that the reality forces the need to use terms like bigot so they feel they have the righteous high ground. If all of a sudden we start having men from Norway begin to radicalize and commit terrorist attacks, I'll support banning entries from that region as well. However, just because these people are a different race or religion, I'm not going to just look the other way to the problems in immigration from those areas in order to not be labeled a pejorative term.

All good. We can even get chippy in it and I'm ok with that, I can be that way too. It's ok to disagree and discuss. To me it's always beneficial to understand why someone believes differently than I do.

I'm not going to get into the whole Trump thing. If you want to blame Trump I can't stop you and in reality isn't relevant to this part of the discussion. But if we weren't accepting people from these dangerous regions to begin with, which of these people you mentioned would have been in the US to begin with? The Ft Hood shooter, his parents were Palestinian. The Orlando shooter, his parents were Afghan. Your own statements give examples of how this policy has failed us.

The religion is not the problem, the propensity for violence, extremism, and wanting to bring the ideals of that extremism here rather than assimilate to the West is where I believe the problem is. I have no problem with someone who wants to worship differently than me, I have a problem when security concerns come from taking a subset of people into this country who statistically we know are disproportionately likely to be risks. The whole religion or race of the people involved couldn't mean less to me. I don't care if you wear a red sweater. But if you tell me 100 white men in red sweaters are walking around my city today, and 2 of those men may pull out a rifle and shoot me because they don't like the way I live, then I'd tell you I don't want the guys in the red sweaters walking around my city. I don't dislike red sweaters, I just don't want the threat. Again, let's not strawman this example, but to be honest nobody can tell us what the fail rate is for catching the bad elements when we bring people in from say Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc. Not all terrorists are Muslim, not all Muslims believe in this extreme version of their religion, but we dance around the fact and reality that they do disproportionately exist in these areas and we cannot possibly weed out who is good and who is bad when picking refugees. The way of life in these areas show that majorities either want to live in that society or tacitly accept it. Otherwise they wouldn't exist. I submit to you Afghanistan. We never could hold the countryside, they didn't want our values. To the second paragraph. again you are debating an argument I didn't make. I'm not in this instance making any inference about immigrants as a whole. I support legal immigration and even the need for work visas for some of those who I would term economic migrants. I grew up in an area that relied on their labor. And my arguments aren't to avoid being called a bigot. Not to be a slap at you, but honestly should any of us be upset if anyone on an internet message board called us a name? I'm not offended by it, I just think you're wrong. And I'm secure enough in my belief and I know where my views come from that it has nothing to do with race/religion. I honestly think those who dismiss views that differ from theirs as bigoted is a lazy argument. I'm not saying you're doing that, but there are those who do. It's been my experience in business that those the numbers don't agree with, often use words of emotion to try and distract from those realities. I feel that way about this. This should be a business decision for the safety of our country, not an emotional one.

I mean I’m willing to do a hot potato type back and forth naming terror attacks over the past 5, 10, 25 years you can pick the length. I’ll choose naming Muslim extremist terror attacks. I’ll give you the field, pick which group you want. Again before we go down this road, not every attack or scumbag person who commits terror is a Muslim extremist, but the problem is very disproportionate in that community specifically in certain regions of the globe. We are being so foolish that we can’t just say that and act accordingly.