4 ms·

Screening would be fine. Banning outright would not be. And the screening must be universal. Not just based on whatever ideology used by violent extremist curr

• TrevorJ 10y ago
  I agree. The real question then is do we have enough information about individuals in order to screen on a case by case basis, and what rubric should we use to determine who should be screened out.
  • custos 10y ago
    I've heard good things about Israel's security in this aspect. Has to be decent with all their enemies right next door instead of half a world away. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with it or know if it would be viable. Review publicly posted social media accounts for red flags, trained experts interviewing and talking to people. Or just admit casualties from foreign terrorists are such a low risk and stop freaking out over it would be good too. Cost spent on security should be proportional to lives saved in relation to spending on prevention of other causes of death to be honest. How much do we spend on national highway safety (locally + federal) / lives lost in traffic fatalities * lives lost in terrorist attacks. Don't spend more than that.
    • cpncrunch 10y ago
      Even Israel aren't banning Muslims outright, as Trump says he wants to do. For sure, some of his policies on immigration make sense. The problem is that he is at the extreme end of the scale, similar to UKIP, National Front, Wilders, etc. People have legitimate concerns about immigration. Whether those fears are real or imagined, the government needs to do something to address them. When they don't bother, that's when the people get fed up and then elect someone who will shake things up. That seems to be what is happening in the UK and Europe at the moment.