Report: 72 convicted of terrorism from 'Trump 7' mostly Muslim countries


#1

Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump’s “extreme vetting” executive order have been convicted of terrorism, a finding that clashes sharply with claims from an appeals court that there is “no evidence” those countries have produced a terrorist.

According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as “students,” and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.

washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-terrorists-came-from-7-muslim-countries-trump-targeted/article/2614582


#2

I thought the Dems and libs said terrorists didn’t come from those countries. Amazing


#3

Report? I follow the trail not to a report, but the page of a pro-Trump blogger that ahs a nice spreadsheet.

A quick look seems to indicate:

Only two dozen of the cases list an entry date. Of those only four appear to entered the country after 9/11. (The list definitely includes people for whom the adequacy of post 9/11 vetting is irrelevant, in cluding a group who seemed to be mopped up right after 9/11). Two of the four, were the perpetrators of the infamous “Bowling Green Massacre”… Another was a Canadian citizen apprehended during border crossing. And the last, a Syrian attempting entry with fake papers. Overall, it appears that none of the people listed were arrested for a terrorist attack in the US.

There seems to be some rank goal-post shifting here. Which will be gobbled up in alt-reality.


#4

No great surprise. Gilliam is pro-Trump and often links stories without backtracking the source. As long as it fits the narrative.


#5

If Trump included Saudi Arabia on the ban list I’d take him more seriously. SA is a hotbed for terrorism and funding for terrorist groups stem from it. Russia has the proof of the money trail etc but nobody listens to Putin because the last US President put him in the dog house. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from SA yet they get a free pass.

Ever wonder why SA has a $1million luxury air-conditioned tent city for refugees that nobody wants to go to?

Many muslims blame SA for inventing the wahabbism strain of Islam which has infected their faith and caused the suffering they are experiencing. Wahabbism is what drives the ideology of ISIS, Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Al Qaeda etc.


#6

If Trump included Saudi Arabia on the ban list I’d take him more seriously. SA is a hotbed for terrorism and funding for terrorist groups stem from it. Russia has the proof of the money trail etc but nobody listens to Putin because the last US President put him in the dog house. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from SA yet they get a free pass.

Ever wonder why SA has a $1million luxury air-conditioned tent city for refugees that nobody wants to go to?

Many muslims blame SA for inventing the Wahabbi strain of Islam which has infected their faith and caused the suffering they are experiencing. Wahabbism is what drives the ideology of ISIS, Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Al Qaeda etc.


#7

Trump banned 134 million people from 7 Muslim nations from entering the U.S due to the countries being “terrorist hotpots” Here are a list of countries with more terrorism then some of the countries Trump banned.

Nigeria
Egypt
Thailand
Philippines
Ukraine
Central African Republic
South Sudan
India
Colombia
Kenya
Republic of the Congo
Cameroon
Lebanon
China
Russia
Mali
Turkey
United Kingdom
Greece
Uganda
Nepal
Algeria
United States of America
Mozambique
South Africa

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Terrorism_Index

Do these people deserve to be banned too?
thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/607/didn%E2%80%99t-we-solve-this-one

And worst? Green Card Holders who went on holidays are being turned away at the border. These are people who live and work in America and call it home. How can they be denied entry? They are people who can technically apply for citizenship after living in the US for 5 years. He had the good sense to exempt diplomats and agency workers, but still… this order flies in the face of human decency. I see Saudis aren’t affected. Wait, what were the nationalities of the 9/11 hijackers? Oh wait, they’ve got oil, that’s right.


#8

What!? This is insane!? Refugees are safer than seat belts. This must be wrong, racist! Fake news!!!

But climate change… well yeah that’s science!


#9

If you don’t have data, you can always whoop up the primate display.


#10

And the situation is not going to improve in these failed states. There is still no proper data base which makes it impossible to verify terrorist status in these countries. Terrorists coming into US disguised as refugees or immigrants is a great risk if vetting system is not reviewed and improved.


#11

72 Terrorists Came From 7 Muslim Countries Trump Targeted

washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-terrorists-came-from-7-muslim-countries-trump-targeted/article/2614582

Immigration and Nationality Act. The first, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) was adopted in 1952.

Section 212(f), states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” <<<

This wasn’t even brought up in arguments!

Is the court making the Constitution unconstitutional?

it appears the left is attempting to put us into a Constitutional Crisis in this country.

This is not a left vs. right argument this is about reading comprehension & the clear executive authority of the President. Here is why the 9th circuit decision is wrong and it never should have gone this far to begin with. This is simply judicial activism by the 9th circuit…again.

  1. Immigration and Nationality Act. The first, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) was adopted in 1952. Section 212(f), states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” <<<This wasn’t even brought up in arguments!

  2. People have no legal right to enter this country. Period

  3. Yes, judges need to interpret the law but they need to READ THE CONSTITUTION.

  4. This is a specific area that the courts have no right to weigh in on.

  5. The notion that a judge is now determining our foreign policy, our immigration laws, & our national security is completely absurd. Contrary to the President of the United States is a violation of powers.

  6. The Government does not have the burden of proof here. In fact it does not even play into the judicial branch based on the clarity of the Constitution.

  7. The green card portion of this directive messed this up & should have been removed. But the Boston judge made the right call because those people have already been admitted to the U.S.

  8. President Carter removed all Iran access to the U.S. and that went to the district court of DC where the judge reviewed and basically said “Yea, it’s pretty clear based on 1182 I’m upholding it”

  9. As the U.S. Supreme Court said in 2004 in U.S. v. Flores-Montano, “The government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border.”


#12

Stupid article. Scan down the list from the actual report. I notice Canada popped up fair quickly as a country of origin.

cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/Terror%20Arrests.senate%20judiciary.pdf

I am always amazed at how gullible people are when it comes to the media. You would think before all the pro-Trump cheerleading started, someone would actually trace down the report and see what it was. Yes, I share a distrust of wikipedia, but in this case, they where much more reliable than either the National Examiner or the Center for Immigration Studies (a red flag site if there ever was one).

I am still going to keep my eye on them Canadians.


#13

If you look at the spreadsheet you will see that the trends in the data do not support your conjecture in the least; the situation has improved with improved vetting and surveillance.


#14

If you are actually interested in exploring the constitutional issues, here are a couple od links.

washingtonpost.com/news/…=.391ea4f7b5b7
thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo…constitutional


#15

WOW, 4.5 a year since 9/11 ?

More people have been murdered in Chicago the past year than killed by terrorists in the US, for the past 10 years.

Jim


#16

The site they source (Center for Immigration Studies) is a white nationalist organization. I’d like to see the spreadsheet linked from a government site. Don’t know if it’s true but without verification and more details it’s really useless.


closed #17

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.