Posted by MikeT23 on 3/17/2017 12:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/17/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):
Of course not. I'm saying that our vetting system is already effective. No need to ban Muslims.
We could do better even without a ban.
And, FWIW, I say the same thing about gun control. We can, and should, do better with who we allow to buy guns.
It's two separate issues: 1) should we ban Muslims 2) can we vet immigrants better
The answer to 1 is clearly no. Using a religious test on immigrants is un-American.
The answer to 2 is probably. But whether or not we should do it depends on what the vetting is and what it will cost, in terms of actual dollars and in terms of our way of life.
For example, we could hire a special investigator to investigate all visa applications. That investigator could fly to the applicant's home, interview the applicant, his family, his friends, his boss, search his house, review his financial/medical/communication records, and follow him around for a couple weeks. That would be a pretty effective vetting process. Some might even call it extreme. It would definitely make us safer from whatever danger a visa holder might pose.
But there are 6 million visa applications a year. So we'd need a shitload of investigators and the cost for this program would be north of a bazillion dollars. We'd be better off spending that money on healthcare for Americans, since not having health coverage is much bigger threat to Americans than terrorism will every be. The point is, we can always do better, but better is not always the best choice.