Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,614 posts, read 12,543,921 times
Reputation: 10479
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
No, like the exact same vetting process that was used by the Trump administration.
"Just" the Trump administration? Seems the legislature you'd posted says different:
"(2) successfully completed background checks and screening in accordance with
the policies and procedures put in place as part of Operation Allies Welcome (or
any predecessor or successor operation) or equivalent background checks and screening."
xoe doesn't think he's destroying this country fast enough to satisfy his leftist constituents..
President Joe Biden’s deputies want Congress to flip immigration law on its head so they can quickly convert many Afghans into citizens without required vetting.
“They’re putting the entry/cart before the vetting/horse,” former immigration judge Andrew Arthur told Breitbart News
The request is buried on page 26 of a 34-page page list of budget requests to Congress, titled “Continuing Resolution (CR) Appropriations Issues.”
yet he won't even allow cuban refugees into the country out of fear they might vote republican
Why does he even have to ask anyone? The dems pass anything and everything they wish. They've been doing that since Obama. Between executive orders and mandates, they do whatever they want.
Mandate the vax as a condition of citizenship for illegals and refugees.
I disagree, illegals should not gain our citizenship vaccinated or not. As for refugees only 20% who claim that have a viable reason. I see no reason to give them our citizenship either even if they have a viable refugee claim just permission to stay here but in reasonable numbers.
You didn't "give a real argument" you gave an Argument from Incredulity fallacy.
Also, "leftist dolts"? Personal attacks are against the ToS, homie.
That is not incredulity fallacy. If I said "I don't like using equivalent bk checks in this scale, so it must not work", it is. Go back and re-read your phil 150 textbook. I like it is hard stuff
I give a real argument. You just cannot counter it. My argument is how can you apply the equivalent bk check in this scale when the equivalent bk chk was for the SIV etc.
That is not incredulity fallacy. If I said "I don't like using equivalent bk checks in this scale, so it must not work", it is. Go back and re-read your phil 150 textbook. I like it is hard stuff
I give a real argument. You just cannot counter it. My argument is how can you apply the equivalent bk check in this scale when the equivalent bk chk was for the SIV etc.
No your argument was, "I don't believe they can perform effective background checks on this scale.".
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
"It is very fishy" based on......? Your feelings?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 366h34d
...Based on applying this to this scale
That straight up Argument from Incredulity.
There's nothing to counter because all you supplied is an unsupported opinion. And no, 100-level philosophy is not "hard stuff".
No your argument was, "I don't believe they can perform effective background checks on this scale.".
That straight up Argument from Incredulity.
There's nothing to counter because all you supplied is an unsupported opinion. And no, 100-level philosophy is not "hard stuff".
Go back to my second. That is not what I am saying. You misread, and you, now, just put words into people's mouths when you cannot win the argument.
I don't think so. I had run into so many classmates that could not 'A' their critical thinking course. A lot of them were incapable of distinguishing different fallacies
While that number may seem low in compari-
son to the number of DAcA beneficiaries, “it con-
firms that the DAcA screening process was woefully
inadequate,” according to Jessica m. Vaughan of the center for Immigration Studies. Apparently, “only
a handful of the applicants were ever interviewed,
and only rarely was the information on the appli-
cation ever verified.”15 In fact, based on documents
obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom
of Information Act, it is apparent that the Obama
Administration moved to a “lean and light” sys-
tem of background checks in which only a few ran-
domly selected DAcA applicants were ever actually
investigated.16
Go back to my second. That is not what I am saying. You misread, and you, now, just put words into people's mouths when you cannot win the argument.
I don't think so. I had run into so many classmates that could not 'A' their critical thinking course. A lot of them were incapable of distinguishing different fallacies
I put no words in your mouth. It's a direct quote from your post. I'm not wasting any more time with this distraction however. You're welcome to the last word on the subject.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
