What is the counter argument to a travel bam at this point? Are we really going to risk the safety of Americans because of a utopian view of human attitudes?
Discrimination based upon religion would be one.
But is there good reason to do so? It it out of hatred or pure statistical correlation? Maybe a mix of both but the atstas don't lie.
I'd be interested to see crime statistics by country of origin. Not that I think that is an appropriate basis for making policy. But I am curious what they show.
I'd be interested to see crime statistics by country of origin. Not that I think that is an appropriate basis for making policy. But I am curious what they show.
Are we really going to risk the safety of Americans because of a utopian view of human attitudes?
There's a pretty large gulf between "a utopian view of human attitudes" and a regime of "safety" so draconian that it renders us a nation so lapsed in its institutional values that it isn't worth keeping "safe".
Another question is why we're so very anxious to legislate this issue, even through extra-constitutional means, and not, for example, the issue of homegrown white extremist terrorism, or gun violence as a whole. An unsuccessful terrorist attack is justification for banning entire classes of people from entering the US, but a mass-casualty shooting isn't even a valid conversation-starter.
There's a pretty large gulf between "a utopian view of human attitudes" and a regime of "safety" so draconian that it renders us a nation so lapsed in its institutional values that it isn't worth keeping "safe".
In the spirit of you advanced statistical analysis background, which you demonstrate everyday when talking about baseball, what characteristic do you believe draws the highest correlation coefficient to actual terrorism?