Why did Schumer cry for the banned muslims

Blue jay

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 9:38 am

By the way, I now understand that you are not calling me selfish.

Thank you for clarifying

SixOfWands

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 9:53 am

QueenBee3 wrote:

Stop calling me selfish!

Where is your empathy?

You live in a democracy, debate and tell us all why you think having an open door policy with dangerous nations will be a safe choice for our families and fellow Americans. This is not a muslim ban! If there were dangerous people living in the North Pole who wanted to hurt Americans, we would ban them too!

Straw man.

The US does not have, and has never had, an open door immigration policy. Nor does anyone I know advocate that they should. Indeed, there was an extreme vetting program for Syrian refugees under Obama. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60.....isis/

The question is whether the government should, without prior notice, impose a ban on even people with valid visas entering the country. Whether it is appropriate to handcuff a 5 year old, who turned out to be a US citizen, because, "‘To assume that just because of someone’s age and gender that they don’t pose a threat would be misguided and wrong." Whether its appropriate to detain a BBC-credentialed reporter, holding a valid UK passport, and to demand that he turn over the password to his phone and be subjected to vetting of his political views, simply because he was born in Iran. Whether it is appropriate to subject green card holders -- people who are lawful permanent residents of the United States -- to extra scrutiny simply because of where they were born.

And, of course, the question is whether any of this affords us any additional protections.

The number of fatal terror attacks in the US by refugees since 1980? Zero. (There were 3 people killed by Cuban refugees before 1980.) In all fairness, a Somalian refugee injured 13 people at Ohio State University in November 2016; no one died.

Immigrants? Yes, there have been incidents. Rahimi, the guy who recently planted bombs in NY. He was born in Afghanistan and first came to the United States in 1995, following several years after his father arrived seeking asylum. Rahimi became a naturalized US citizen in 2011. He had recently spent time in Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said. Neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan is on Trump's list of banned countries.

Omar Mateen was born in NY; his parents were from Afghanistan, which is not on Trump's list.

Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who carried out the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013, were born in Kyrgyzstan to parents originally from war-torn Chechnya. Not on Trump's list.

9/11. 15 of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon. None of those countries is included on the list of banned countries.

SixOfWands

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 9:57 am

allthingsblue wrote:

But couldn't shed a tear for the Israelis who were put in danger by the Iran deal?

He opposed the deal. Is your problem that he didn't cry?

Quote:

My Position on the Iran Deal
Every several years or so a legislator is called upon to cast a momentous vote in which the stakes are high and both sides of the issue are vociferous in their views.

Over the years, I have learned that the best way to treat such decisions is to study the issue carefully, hear the full, unfiltered explanation of those for and against, and then, without regard to pressure, politics or party, make a decision solely based on the merits.

I have spent the last three weeks doing just that: carefully studying the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reading and re-reading the agreement and its annexes, questioning dozens of proponents and opponents, and seeking answers to questions that go beyond the text of the agreement but will have real consequences that must be considered.

Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed. This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.

While we have come to different conclusions, I give tremendous credit to President Obama for his work on this issue. The President, Secretary Kerry and their team have spent painstaking months and years pushing Iran to come to an agreement. Iran would not have come to the table without the President’s persistent efforts to convince the Europeans, the Russians, and the Chinese to join in the sanctions. In addition, it was the President’s far-sighted focus that led our nation to accelerate development of the Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP), the best military deterrent and antidote to a nuclear Iran. So whichever side one comes down on in this agreement, all fair-minded Americans should acknowledge the President’s strong achievements in combatting and containing Iran.

In making my decision, I examined this deal in three parts: nuclear restrictions on Iran in the first ten years, nuclear restrictions on Iran after ten years, and non-nuclear components and consequences of a deal. In each case I have asked: are we better off with the agreement or without it?

In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement. First, inspections are not “anywhere, anytime”; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling. While inspectors would likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) – the tools that go into building a bomb but don’t emit radioactivity.

Furthermore, even when we detect radioactivity at a site where Iran is illicitly advancing its bomb-making capability, the 24-day delay would hinder our ability to determine precisely what was being done at that site.

Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot demand inspections unilaterally. By requiring the majority of the 8-member Joint Commission, and assuming that China, Russia, and Iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1 as well as the EU representative. It is reasonable to fear that, once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may well be inclined not to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections.

Additionally, the “snapback” provisions in the agreement seem cumbersome and difficult to use. While the U.S. could unilaterally cause snapback of all sanctions, there will be instances where it would be more appropriate to snapback some but not all of the sanctions, because the violation is significant but not severe. A partial snapback of multilateral sanctions could be difficult to obtain, because the U.S. would require the cooperation of other nations. If the U.S. insists on snapback of all the provisions, which it can do unilaterally, and the Europeans, Russians, or Chinese feel that is too severe a punishment, they may not comply.

Those who argue for the agreement say it is better to have an imperfect deal than to have nothing; that without the agreement, there would be no inspections, no snapback. When you consider only this portion of the deal – nuclear restrictions for the first ten years – that line of thinking is plausible, but even for this part of the agreement, the weaknesses mentioned above make this argument less compelling.

Second, we must evaluate how this deal would restrict Iran’s nuclear development after ten years.

Supporters argue that after ten years, a future President would be in no weaker a position than we are today to prevent Iran from racing to the bomb. That argument discounts the current sanctions regime. After fifteen years of relief from sanctions, Iran would be stronger financially and better able to advance a robust nuclear program. Even more importantly, the agreement would allow Iran, after ten to fifteen years, to be a nuclear threshold state with the blessing of the world community. Iran would have a green light to be as close, if not closer to possessing a nuclear weapon than it is today. And the ability to thwart Iran if it is intent on becoming a nuclear power would have less moral and economic force.

If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. After ten years, it can be very close to achieving that goal, and, unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States and other nations. To me, after ten years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.

In addition, we must consider the non-nuclear elements of the agreement. This aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the U.S. has labeled Iran as one of only three nations in the world who are “state sponsors of terrorism.” Under this agreement, Iran would receive at least $50 billion dollars in the near future and would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East, and, perhaps, beyond.

To reduce the pain of sanctions, the Supreme Leader had to lean left and bend to the moderates in his country. It seems logical that to counterbalance, he will lean right and give the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) and the hardliners resources so that they can pursue their number one goal: strengthening Iran’s armed forces and pursuing even more harmful military and terrorist actions.

Finally, the hardliners can use the freed-up funds to build an ICBM on their own as soon as sanctions are lifted (and then augment their ICBM capabilities in 8 years after the ban on importing ballistic weaponry is lifted), threatening the United States. Restrictions should have been put in place limiting how Iran could use its new resources.

When it comes to the non-nuclear aspects of the deal, I think there is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one.

Using the proponents’ overall standard – which is not whether the agreement is ideal, but whether we are better with or without it – it seems to me, when it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it.

Ultimately, in my view, whether one supports or opposes the resolution of disapproval depends on how one thinks Iran will behave under this agreement.

If one thinks Iran will moderate, that contact with the West and a decrease in economic and political isolation will soften Iran’s hardline positions, one should approve the agreement. After all, a moderate Iran is less likely to exploit holes in the inspection and sanctions regime, is less likely to seek to become a threshold nuclear power after ten years, and is more likely to use its newfound resources for domestic growth, not international adventurism.

But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.

Admittedly, no one can tell with certainty which way Iran will go. It is true that Iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease its isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home. But it is also true that this desire has been evident in Iran for thirty-five years, yet the Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?

To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.

Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.

For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one.

youngishbear

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 9:59 am

QueenBee3 wrote:

I dont agree that this can be compared to the holocaust. But I do believe that this is very case sensitive and that America needs to find the safest route to help but at the same time protect its citizens. If a ban on immigration right now is necessary, than I support that. It just takes one terrorist and that is what we are all really afraid of. It does not make me selfish.

I think that is a good point. It seems many of us don't agree this was necessary now, out of the blue. There is a lot of vetting going on already, so we aren't sure what exactly Mr. Trump was trying to accomplish here, and that makes us nervous. Is it all just a game to him? Playing on people's fears to prove his competency, gain more support? What is he after?

Besides, this could have been done quietly, and in a less cruel way. I think that's why people didn't protest other immigration bans in the past. If Obama had stopped issuing visas or put refugee applications on hold for six months, nobody got arrested or put back on a plane. Burying people in bureaucratic red tape is one thing; this was different. It was erratic, it was chaotic, it was exactly what we were afraid our current president would come up with.

Blue jay

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 10:10 am

SixOfWands wrote:

Straw man.

The number of fatal terror attacks in the US by refugees since 1980? Zero. (There were 3 people killed by Cuban refugees before 1980.) In all fairness, a Somalian refugee injured 13 people at Ohio State University in November 2016; no one died.

Immigrants? Yes, there have been incidents. Rahimi, the guy who recently planted bombs in NY. He was born in Afghanistan and first came to the United States in 1995, following several years after his father arrived seeking asylum. Rahimi became a naturalized US citizen in 2011. He had recently spent time in Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said. Neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan is on Trump's list of banned countries.

Omar Mateen was born in NY; his parents were from Afghanistan, which is not on Trump's list.

Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who carried out the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013, were born in Kyrgyzstan to parents originally from war-torn Chechnya. Not on Trump's list.

9/11. 15 of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. Two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon. None of those countries is included on the list of banned countries.

Thank you for your response,here is what I understand from your post:

1. Trump is not imposing an immigration ban on all countries. He is imposing a ban on those that he feel are the greatest security risk now. From Obamas watch list himself!

2.We are very blessed that no one was killed at the Ohio State attack, or the pressure cooker bombs which were planted in nyc and nj during the marathons. So those dont count as a security concern? Perhaps this is a separate issue and has nothing to do with the immigration ban in certain countries.

3. Im not sure ive seen a picture of any handcuffed children at airports.

4. How can you assure me that the syrian refugee crisis that is happening in Europe would not happen here?

Blue jay

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 10:18 am

youngishbear wrote:

As informed as we all hope to be. I believe there are bigger threats than we may not know about. I know I was not happy with the way obama handled immigration, maybe we really need this sudden shift. No one is being tortured by the US, the US is asking for patience while a new system is put into place.

SixOfWands

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 10:28 am

wondergirl wrote:

Schumer is a New York politician. He is obligated to support, defend, and protect his constituents who are law abiding American citizens. Where is his sadness when New Yorkers are evicted from their homes and end up homeless?

Schumer, Gillibrand Announce Over 14 Million in Federal Funds to Support Homeless Vteran Families in NYC and Long Island
https://www.schumer.senate.gov.....sland

Schumer, Cantwell Push National Plan to Increase Federal Resource in NYC for Affordable Housing and to Fight Homelessness

https://www.schumer.senate.gov.....n-nyc

wondergirl wrote:

Where is his sadness when New Yorkers get rejected from CUNY schools in favor of foreign or illegal students?

Actually, every NYC resident is guaranteed --GUARANTEED admission to a CUNY. It may not be the one that you want, but its a given. As to admissions of foreign students, (1) it helps pay the bills, since they pay higher tuition; and (2) it makes the school more prestigious.

wondergirl wrote:

Where is his sadness when kids join gangs and kill each other over it?

Schumer to offer gun control bill

http://thehill.com/regulation/.....-bill

Schumer Unveils Comprehensive Plan To Crack Down On Gangs And School Violence With Violent Crime Up 10 Percent And Schools On Edge After Recent Rash Of Shootings

https://www.schumer.senate.gov.....tings

wondergirl wrote:

Where is his sadness when New Yorkers are forced to take out loans to pay for college because they couldnt get financial aid for whatever reason?

https://www.schumer.senate.gov.....ility

wondergirl wrote:

Where is his sadness when New Yorkers need lawyers to help them but the money goes to lawyers who aid and abet illegal aliens?

"Aid and abet" undocumented aliens? You mean represent them in deportation hearings? You do know that Congress bans Legal Services Corp from working on immigration cases, although they have done so by exploiting loopholes. There was also a proposal for a small amount of money to be used for representation of children who entered the US illegally, and without parents.

Under the US legal system, you pay your attorney, unless its a criminal matter and you can't afford counsel. Do you really want to change that? People oppose universal health care; you want free legal care?

wondergirl wrote:

I can ask where his sadness is for a million other things and reasons that a New York politician can be sad over when it comes to New York citizens, but for him to cry over foreigners is just pathetic. It shows that he is not loyal to the very people that voted him into office so its time to replace him with someone who cares about New York citizens and puts their needs before strangers from hutzenplotz.

Sorry. As demonstrated, Schumer has stood up for everything you claim you think he should. Maybe he didn't cry, but he fought, which is even better. Maybe you should be volunteering for him, given how much you seem to agree with him, instead of condemning him.

moonstone

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 10:30 am

Schumer's little act almost brought me to tears as well; it was pathetic. I loved the president's comment, "Who's his acting coach?" Nervous

SixOfWands

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 10:44 am

QueenBee3 wrote:

Obama created a limited exception to the visa waiver program relating to certain countries. There's no comparison to Trump's actions. But given Trump's general excoriation for Obama and his policies, why do you think that Trump should follow anything that Obama did?

And yes, we have security concerns. The point is that this heavy-handed policy wouldn't have stopped any of the attacks. Not a one. I'd like to think that security policies help reduce risks.

As to the handcuffed child, I saw reports yesterday, and a grainy photo that, to me, looked like he might or might not be handcuffed. So I didn't mention anything then. But today, it sounds like the Trump administration has not only conceded it happened, but defended it, so I'll take it as a truth. http://www.independent.co.uk/n......html

And I can't assure you that the Syrian crisis in Europe won't happen here. Any more than I can assure you that a meteor won't crash to earth tomorrow. All I can say is that there is already an enhanced vetting system in place. Review and tweak that.

naturalmom5

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 12:13 pm

Maya wrote:

I will not apologize for feeling a level of compassion for innocent women and little children who face the kinds of terrors and fears that neither you nor I, nor anyone on this board, can fathom or comprehend. The insensitivity and cruelty being exhibited by the frum women on this board, and the way some women are showing their true selves, is what's really startling to me. No one's asking you to take any concrete actions to bring in the refugees, but to feel a little sad about their circumstances is too much to ask? That's disgusting.

And what were you trying to imply by calling me Shprintzy? Because whatever it was, I'm sorry to say, it fell flat.

What I meant, is you went out and found good schools for your children. I always admired you for that..

But really, we have more than enough homegrown MO/Shwarna Goodman Jews. We don't need gvorerners

SixOfWands

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 12:19 pm

naturalmom5 wrote:

Well, IMNSHO, we don't have nearly enough MO Jews in the world.

And are your referring to Michael Schwerner (a"h) and Andrew Goodman (a"h)? Who were murdered for their part in the Civil Rights Movement. Not nearly enough of them, either.

Fox

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 1:14 pm

youngishbear wrote:

Besides, this could have been done quietly, and in a less cruel way. I think that's why people didn't protest other immigration bans in the past. If Obama had stopped issuing visas or put refugee applications on hold for six months, nobody got arrested or put back on a plane. Burying people in bureaucratic red tape is one thing; this was different. It was erratic, it was chaotic, it was exactly what we were afraid our current president would come up with.

This is precisely what Trump voters rebelled against: policies implemented secretly through passive-aggressive means and the refusal of the establishment media to report on those stories. Whether you agree or disagree with any specific action or policy of the President; whether you find the drama off-putting -- Trump's executive order wasn't signed and implemented in a way to stifle debate.

SixOfWands wrote:

And I can't assure you that the Syrian crisis in Europe won't happen here.

This is really the ultimate issue for me. The European crisis has resulted from a combination of compassion, good intentions, and an odd sort of globalist parochialism. "Islamophobia" suggests an irrational fear of Islam or Muslims, and I'm not entirely certain that such a fear isn't justified.

One of the co-founders of CAIR, Omar Ahmad, made the following statement July 1998

Quote:

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

Although Ahmad has since claimed that he never made that statement, the reporter stands by the story and Ahmad did not retract his words until they caused a public relations problem.

Likewise, co-founder Ibrahim Hooper told a reporter in 1993

Quote:

I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.

Or more recently, Egyptian cleric Ali Abu Al-Hasan:

Quote:

With the [Muslim] emigration [to Europe], and the unwillingness to get married and have children [among the Europeans]… A hundred of people there are succeeded by eighty, and ten years later, those eighty will be succeeded by sixty, and those sixty will later be succeeded by forty, and those forty will become ten a decade later, and twenty years later, not a single one of them will be left! Europe has realized this. After a while, Europe will become a single Islamic state . . .

Or Belgium's Fouad Belkacem, whose organization has disbanded since his imprisonment, but which was a significant conduit for ISIS and jihadi groups.

Quote:

Of course [it's just a matter of time before Muslims are the majority in Belgium]. Even the disbelievers themselves -- they say in 2030 something like that -- there will be a majority of Muslims here in Belgium. Here in Antwerp in the schools, 40 percent of the children are Muslim, so no problem. If they want to push us back or something, I don't know, maybe they can start by marrying four wives and have a lot of children. Start with that and they will have a chance, but I don't think so. I don't think we're very far away . . . So, I think the West and Europe needs to prepare itself for a wave of Sharia and Islam.

Quote:

The Sharia will dominate. We believe Sharia will be implemented worldwide... Sharia is Islam, to be clear. There is no difference between Islam and Sharia, it's just a name. Democracy is the opposite of Sharia and Islam.

And if you find fault with any of those representatives, just look at the study done by ICM Research for Britain's Channel 4:

British Muslims Survey

Concern over "tolerating the intolerant" is a frequent theme among moderate Muslims, those who have left Islam, and those from Islamic countries. Nonie Darwish, Raheel Raza, Robert Spencer, and Zuhdi Jasser have all spoken and written extensively, along with higher-profile people such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

There is a fundamental difference between Muslim immigrants/refugees and Jews escaping the Nazis: Islam has repeatedly said that it wants to supplant democracy and tolerance of other religions or lifestyles. The situation now faced in Europe suggests that this is true. I certainly do not condone being unkind to an individual Muslim on the street, who may or may not concur with the Islamic big picture. But as a whole, Islam has said it wants to wipe us out, either physically or spiritually. I, for one, believe them.

FranticFrummie

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 2:45 pm

Handcuffing a 5 year old? Where on earth would they get an idea like that?

https://www.google.co.il/searc.....h=855

Indoctrination starts in the cradle. Any good Islamist parent would be proud to have their child become a jihadi.

SixOfWands

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 2:52 pm

FranticFrummie wrote:

And any good Jewish parent would be proud to have their child become a gangster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_mobsters), or maybe a spy (like the Rosenbergs, or Pollard), or maybe even like the (non-existent) Mossad agents seen jumping for joy on 9/11.

But in any case, I don't really care to emulate the example of jihadists. Do you?

FranticFrummie

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 3:02 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

But in any case, I don't really care to emulate the example of jihadists. Do you?

No, I don't want anyone emulating jihadists. That's why they should stay in their own countries.

Let's just allow the women in, would that be OK with you?

https://www.google.co.il/searc.....rists

SixOfWands

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 3:04 pm

FranticFrummie wrote:

No, I don't want anyone emulating jihadists. That's why they should stay in their own countries.

Let's just allow the women in, would that be OK with you?

https://www.google.co.il/searc.....rists

Well, that's what the US said back in the 30s and 40s to a lot of our ancestors.

And that's what the Muslims are saying to you, in Israel. Get back where you belong.

I guess you agree with them.

FranticFrummie

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 3:20 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Well, that's what the US said back in the 30s and 40s to a lot of our ancestors.

And that's what the Muslims are saying to you, in Israel. Get back where you belong.

I guess you agree with them.

I am in Israel. That's where I belong! Jews have ONE, teeny, tiny homeland, and we've already absorbed more non Jewish Eritreans and Somalis than the infrastructure can handle.

Muslims have 26 other Muslim majority countries to choose from. Why aren't refugees flocking to Kuwait, or Bahrain, or Saudi Arabia, or Indonesia? An even better question - why aren't these countries throwing open their borders to their brethren? Why aren't they coordinating emergency air lifts, like Israel did for the Ethiopians, the Russians, and the Ukranians?

BTW, it used to crack me up when people would tell me to "Go back where you came from". I'd say, "You bet, buy me an airplane ticket and I'll be on the next flight!" Now I'm here, and the same people are still ticked off. Folks like that don't want Jews to be anywhere except 6 feet under.

SixOfWands

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 3:23 pm

FranticFrummie wrote:

But the Muslims say you don't belong there. So maybe you should go back to wherever it is that your ancestors came from. Germany? Russia? Enjoy the trip.

FranticFrummie

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 3:26 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

But the Muslims say you don't belong there. So maybe you should go back to wherever it is that your ancestors came from. Germany? Russia? Enjoy the trip.

Sorry. The Jewish claim to the land is over 3,000 years old. Islam has only been around for 700 years. Please check your history books and Chumash, and get back to me after you get your facts straight.

Raisin

Tue, Jan 31 2017, 3:28 pm

This is an extremely badly written article, but it. a. Lists how many terror attacks were carried out in Europe by citizens from these countries. and b. Is from a right wing paper.

(Btw one of the attacks referenced - the synagogue bombing in Instunbul - happened over 15 years ago. Since we have concluded that Saudis in 2017 are perfectly safe despite 15 saudis carrying out the 9/11 attacks, I don't think this is all that relevant.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new......html