I agree looking at both sides of the argument does seem rare these days.

Private security guards/mercenaries working in Iraq have been getting kidnapped and either executed or ransomed since they first arrived. Same as the soldiers.

What, you mean like, oh I don't know, having a visa program with a security vetting component in its screening, perhaps? Oh, no, wait, isn't that what's already been in place for several years?

YEH but the screening in those countries selected is very dubious that's why the ban was motioned

In what way is it dubious compared with screening in other countries?

Also, what screening is conducted in the countries from which refugees have fled?

I have no idea, I am just reporting what I have been told via various TV media channels, including Clintons News Network

This is only for immigrants with visas, not sure any screening is done for refugees

If this thread has taught us anything it is that not everyone should attempt to join an intelligent debate, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing or never let the public vote for something as important as Brexit or the U.S. Presidency

What a boring world that would be

What the actual ****? Seriously, man, what planet are you living on? Refugee applicants for the US take YEARS to process through all the screening and background checks. Refugees are a special class of immigrants, but they still have visas issued to allow them to travel to the USA.

Note that, for the US, a refugee is, by definition, a person who has been displaced from their country of origin but has not yet arrived in the US (in which case they'd be an asylum applicant).

Of course, all posters here are welcome to express their opinions, that is the basis of informed debate. But the key to success there is the word "informed." If I may, I would respectfully suggest that it might be worth your while getting the hint of a clue about the subject at hand before expressing such nonsensical claptrap.

Magnum, is it possible you are getting your news from some pro-Trump news feed (echo chamber)? There's quite a bit of disinformation out there, these days...

Maybe, I am just saying what I see, I feel betrayed, "Clinton rules ok" :@)

Trump orders strict new refugee screening, citing terrorists | Star Tribune

Trump said the halt in the refugee program was necessary to give government agencies time to develop a stricter vetting system. But the order did spell out what additional steps he wants the Homeland Security and State departments to take.

I think they ment did not in that statement

See, this is what we're talking about. Trump said, without spelling out any details, that the ban was necessary to allow agencies to develop stricter vetting. That is taken to mean that current vetting systems are somehow inadequate. Which is soon conflated to mean that there aren't any vetting checks for refugees. Which is nonsense.

In the current case in federal appeals court, the question was asked as to how many immigrants from any of the seven countries had ever perpetrated a terrorism offence in the USA. I imagine, if you can google an article in a Minnesota paper, you can also google the answer to that question.

In case not, I'll give you a hint. The answer is "none." Although, of course, there are several instances of people from other predominantly-Islamic countries, not on the magic list, who have perpetrated acts of terrorism in the USA.

Trump (well, Bannon) is very good at dog-whistle politics. Say one thing, watch it get escalated in people's minds, unsay it when the falsehood is called out, but bask in the fact that those people's minds are already made up.

So I have to read the right papers and watch more CNN

Some news sources are more likely to check things out than others.

For example, Kellyanne Conway's apology about her error in talking about a massacre that didn't happen sounded genuine. She meant to say Bowling Green terrorists rather than the Bowling Green Massacre and so didn't mean to imply there was some incident involving loss of life.

There's probably a ton of people out there thinking what a breath of fresh air, someone in politics, in the public eye, apologised for her mistake.

Other than the Guardian, who else reported that four days earlier she not only made the same "error", making it three times in total, but twice referred to soldiers having lost their lives in the incident, so that when she claims an honest mistake in word use it could not possibly have been honest?

I've had a google and while I find plenty of apology results I don't find results about how the apology could not be genuine.

So most people have a positive view of her apology whereas she's a bigger liar than at first thought.

Yes, only special people should join in.

Just like the "deplorables" should not have been allowed to vote.