US protected from 5 year olds

[billvon 3,107]

Sleep well, America. Trump is defending us from 5 year old boys.
=========
Video published by WJLA over the weekend showed the 5-year-old boy being reunited with his mother after he was detained at Washington Dulles International Airport for hours on Saturday.

On Monday, NBC White House correspondent Kristen Welker pressed Spicer about whether the detention was necessary.

“The president recognizes that it is his duty and obligation to keep this country safe,” Spicer explained. " . . .to assume that just because of someone’s age or gender or whatever that they don’t pose a threat would be misguided and wrong."
==========
You never know. Someday they might find a 5 year old with a clock!

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Well, toddlers with guns kill more Americans than Islamic Terrorists (both immigrant and natural born citizen Islamic Terrorists).

So I think it might be reasonable to worry about 5 year olds.

We really need a sarcasm font.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[brenthutch 444]

It's a little known fact, but all terrorists are former five year olds.

[winsor 236]

brenthutch

It's a little known fact, but all terrorists are former five year olds.

Bullshit. FOUR year old terrorists were NEVER five year olds.

[Phil1111 1,171]

That says more about the qualifications of Homeland Insecurity personnel than anything else.

[yoink 321]

billvon

Sleep well, America. Trump is defending us from 5 year old boys.
=========
Video published by WJLA over the weekend showed the 5-year-old boy being reunited with his mother after he was detained at Washington Dulles International Airport for hours on Saturday.

On Monday, NBC White House correspondent Kristen Welker pressed Spicer about whether the detention was necessary.

“The president recognizes that it is his duty and obligation to keep this country safe,” Spicer explained. " . . .to assume that just because of someone’s age or gender or whatever that they don’t pose a threat would be misguided and wrong."
==========
You never know. Someday they might find a 5 year old with a clock!

While I agree the way it was handled was poor, IF he's going to do this lockdown thing it'll be general exceptions that make it completely unworkable.
Either someone meets the specific critera for entrance or they don't - it can't be a 'except this type of guy, and that sort of guy, and those ages of people'.

I'm already irritated that apparently UK citizens with dual nationality are exempt. That just passes the buck on background checks over to the UK.

Generalized exceptions are bad news. If 5 year olds were written as exempt to checks you can bet your right testicle that terrorists would start grooming young children to deliver for them.

The policy needs to be well thought out and then enforced properly. This current boondoggle is a joke.

[normiss 891]

My dad said otherwise in Korea and Viet Nam.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

yoink

***Sleep well, America. Trump is defending us from 5 year old boys.
=========
Video published by WJLA over the weekend showed the 5-year-old boy being reunited with his mother after he was detained at Washington Dulles International Airport for hours on Saturday.

On Monday, NBC White House correspondent Kristen Welker pressed Spicer about whether the detention was necessary.

“The president recognizes that it is his duty and obligation to keep this country safe,” Spicer explained. " . . .to assume that just because of someone’s age or gender or whatever that they don’t pose a threat would be misguided and wrong."
==========
You never know. Someday they might find a 5 year old with a clock!

While I agree the way it was handled was poor, IF he's going to do this lockdown thing it'll be general exceptions that make it completely unworkable.
Either someone meets the specific critera for entrance or they don't - it can't be a 'except this type of guy, and that sort of guy, and those ages of people'.

I'm already irritated that apparently UK citizens with dual nationality are exempt. That just passes the buck on background checks over to the UK.

Generalized exceptions are bad news. If 5 year olds were written as exempt to checks you can bet your right testicle that terrorists would start grooming young children to deliver for them.

The policy needs to be well thought out and then enforced properly. This current boondoggle is a joke.

The whole thing is a joke.

Except jokes are usually funnier than this.

You do realize that:

A - There is already a fairly thorough vetting process in place.

B - There have been zero attacks committed by refugees that were allowed into the US.

Trump tweeted something to the effect "If you gave them a weeks notice, there would be a flood of bad guys getting in."

Well, other than the fact that the admissions process takes in the vicinity of 2 years.

Apparently Trump doesn't realize that 2 years is a bit longer than a week.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 3,107]

Quote

While I agree the way it was handled was poor, IF he's going to do this lockdown thing it'll be general exceptions that make it completely unworkable.
Either someone meets the specific critera for entrance or they don't - it can't be a 'except this type of guy, and that sort of guy, and those ages of people'.

Seems to work for the TSA. Special screening for kids under 12. No ID needed for kids under 18 with an adult. Over 75? Don't have to take your jacket or shoes off. Etc.

Quote

Generalized exceptions are bad news. If 5 year olds were written as exempt to checks you can bet your right testicle that terrorists would start grooming young children to deliver for them.

Haven't seen any under-12 or over-75 terrorist attacks or even attempts against airlines yet - and the US population has a much higher incidence of terrorist attacks than refugees do.

[yoink 321]

All I'm saying is that if you clamp down on everyone from a particular country or religion then say 'but don't vet people 5 years or under (or vet them a lot less because they CAN'T be a terrorist!)', then if I were a terrorist I'd be training children...

The original post feels like an appeal to emotions and law should be apart from that.
If he met the requirements for entry he shouldn't have been detained. Fair enough. If he didn't then he should have, and people shouldn't complain about it.

I am totally on the side of everyone who says that the EO is badly thought out, possibly unconstitutional and full of holes in the execution. That isn't my disagreement. Just that 'but think of the children' is weak argument. We should be able to do better.

[nigel99 614]

One thing this whole mess misses is that often (I don't have actual percentages) it is the children of migrants who become radicalised. Obviously not the 5 year old, but the 16-20 year olds.

It seems migrants are happy to have left their country, but the children get exposed to the bigotry and struggle to fit into the new country. As a result they end up being easy prey and so whoever detained the 5 year old may well have pulled the trigger on turning him into a terrorist and when in 15 years time he goes on a rampage, you'll get the story of you see we should have detained him!

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[billvon 3,107]

Quote

All I'm saying is that if you clamp down on everyone from a particular country or religion then say 'but don't vet people 5 years or under (or vet them a lot less because they CAN'T be a terrorist!)', then if I were a terrorist I'd be training children...

Right. Thus, if the TSA allowed more lenient screenings for people under 12 and over 75 (which they do) then terrorists would have used them to get past TSA security.

But they didn't.

>The original post feels like an appeal to emotions and law should be apart from that.

?? This law was BASED on an emotion - fear. That fear was carefully cultivated and stroked. It doesn't seem unreasonable to point out that another emotion might have relevance here. Nor is it unreasonable to point out that the law has unintended consequences, consequences that even many of the law's supporters did not expect.

[billvon 3,107]

And now - the administration says "hey, don't blame us, we didn't write it!"
===========
A senior administration official with knowledge of the situation but not authorized to speak publicly said the drafting of the order began not in the White House, but on Capitol Hill, where congressional staffers with immigration portfolios wrote the initial draft during Trump’s tumultuous presidential campaign.

They then refined their proposals throughout the transition and into the start of the administration a week before Trump signed the order.

“Republicans on Capitol Hill wrote it,” the official said. “The top drafters of this were the top immigration experts on Capitol Hill.”

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article129703344.html#storylink=cpy
============
What say you, "Capitol Hill Republicans?"
============
Hill Republicans: We Had No Input on Travel Ban
By Emily Cadei On 1/30/17 at 5:29 PM
Newsweek

One of the White House’s main defenses of President Donald Trump’s new ban on foreigners from certain Muslim-majority countries is that the executive order was, in fact, drafted by fellow Republicans in Congress. Leading House Republicans, however, are pushing back on that claim, insisting they were not consulted on the text of the order, let alone involved in writing it. And they argue that a white paper Trump allies are citing as the basis for the order was, in fact, very different in content and scope.
==============

[ryoder 1,590]

Washington attorney general sues to block Trump immigration ban
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/316905-wa-attorney-general-sues-to-block-trump-immigration-ban

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[wmw999 2,584]

Well 16-20 year olds do stupid stuff; it's their specialty. They take up enthusiasms, they start smoking -- they do everything they can to "prove they're adults." It's not that surprising they are the demographic most likely to radicalize.

They also, as a rule, have too much free time, giving all that misdirected energy no place useful to go.

We should give them all skydiving lessons , then they'd have to turn into packers and loaders to support their habit, and not have time for (other) stupid shit.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[TriGirl 343]

billvon

And now - the administration says "hey, don't blame us, we didn't write it!"
===========
A senior administration official with knowledge of the situation but not authorized to speak publicly said the drafting of the order began not in the White House, but on Capitol Hill, where congressional staffers with immigration portfolios wrote the initial draft during Trump’s tumultuous presidential campaign.

They then refined their proposals throughout the transition and into the start of the administration a week before Trump signed the order.

So, the new president is accustomed to signing documents without reading and understanding them thoroughly? That would explain a lot about his business history.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!