My point still stands. Of course, you vet everyone but you focus that attention on certain groups because that is where the wheel is squeaky. Discrimination?
If you are vetting everyone. A criminal cannot get through ANY avenue. That is the ENTIRE point.
Your way leaves a back door open as you are only picking and choosing who to vet, seems to be a simple concept that leaves conservatives baffled.
The majority of Muslims do not even live in the Middle East. - Where are Trumps proposed immigration restrictions? Most are in the Middle East region.
If you truly wished to put a stop to islamic extremism finding it's way to your country, then you need to be a little more proactive instead of picking and choosing who to discriminate against because of some wierd political agenda.
How do you expect to find a criminal if you're afraid to use any of their individual traits to track them?
I am not saying to be afraid of using individual defining traits. I am saying to vet everyone.
If you're looking for illegal immigrants, do you pull over blacks to make the hispanics feel like you're not discriminating against them?
What stupidity and a waste of resources. Progressives always turn a good idea into something that's ass backwards that everyone else has to fix or work around by coming up with pragmatic solutions.
That isn't what I am saying at all. You have turned it into a straw-man argument.
I mean heck. Muslims aren't restricted to any specific "race" profile anyway.
I said to screen everyone while focusing the vetting efforts/largest amount of resources on a group of people with the largest amounts of terrorists who actively target the west. Your entire arguement hinges on me having the belief that we only screen/vet muslims which I dont't. *shrugs
It's not a strawman but an example of the kind of fallancy in your line of thinking.