Muslim Terrorist In Ohio Takes Apartment Complex Hostage, And Then Opens Fire On Police Officer

[Steve_McGarrett]

It's time deport these jihadist bastards immediately! They are unstable and can't handle Western society in any form or fashion. Their cult religion prevents it.


Muslim Terrorist In Ohio Takes Apartment Complex Hostage, And Then Opens Fire On American Police Officer

 

[The Great Goose]

well, why import them???

 

[emilynghiem]

It's time deport these jihadist bastards immediately! They are unstable and can't handle Western society in any form or fashion. Their cult religion prevents it.


Muslim Terrorist In Ohio Takes Apartment Complex Hostage, And Then Opens Fire On American Police Officer

Dear Steve_McGarrett and The Great Goose
Why not require all immigrants to become legal wards under the guardianship and insurance of their Sponsors?

So sure, if the Catholic church sponsors workers, they are legally responsible for screening these applicants themselves
and not just rely on INS alone. If a mistake is made in judgment, as even happens with the military as in the case of the Ft. Hood Shooter who should have been screened
out and flagged as a Jihadist-sympathizer, then the sponsoring group or person pays the financial, legal and restitution damages to the victims if a crime is committed.

If no one wants to underwrite and take that responsibility, then the person can't be approved.

If a City has "sanctuary" policies, then that City is responsible for insurance to cover damages committed by any criminals they fail to screen out.
And if taxpayers don't want to pay this, then they should demand the same, that any organization that sponsors such individuals should be responsible, not them.

What do you think?
Of requiring a guardian to sign for legal and financial responsibility for either
* immigrants applying for citizenship
* citizens turning 18 and claiming privileges of citizenship
so that everyone who is legally competent agrees to pay for their own costs if convicted of crimes,
and for people who are not legally competent, a sponsor agrees to sign for these costs.

Would that deter crime if people cannot afford the costs.

 

[Ozone]

methinks this news story is getting scrubbed. the accidental shooting of a gun store owner is apparently a bigger headline in the local news than a hostage crisis. there was a massacre recently an entire family was wiped out, four different crime scenes on the same day, even the sheriff went telling people to arm themselves. but then, when people began speculating it might have something to do with mexican drug cartels, it's as if the news media just shut up about it. anything that might suggest trump is right, they don't want to report about it.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

It's time deport these jihadist bastards immediately! They are unstable and can't handle Western society in any form or fashion. Their cult religion prevents it.


Muslim Terrorist In Ohio Takes Apartment Complex Hostage, And Then Opens Fire On American Police Officer

Dear Steve_McGarrett and The Great Goose
Why not require all immigrants to become legal wards under the guardianship and insurance of their Sponsors?

So sure, if the Catholic church sponsors workers, they are legally responsible for screening these applicants themselves
and not just rely on INS alone. If a mistake is made in judgment, as even happens with the military as in the case of the Ft. Hood Shooter who should have been screened
out and flagged as a Jihadist-sympathizer, then the sponsoring group or person pays the financial, legal and restitution damages to the victims if a crime is committed.

If no one wants to underwrite and take that responsibility, then the person can't be approved.

If a City has "sanctuary" policies, then that City is responsible for insurance to cover damages committed by any criminals they fail to screen out.
And if taxpayers don't want to pay this, then they should demand the same, that any organization that sponsors such individuals should be responsible, not them.

What do you think?
Of requiring a guardian to sign for legal and financial responsibility for either
* immigrants applying for citizenship
* citizens turning 18 and claiming privileges of citizenship
so that everyone who is legally competent agrees to pay for their own costs if convicted of crimes,
and for people who are not legally competent, a sponsor agrees to sign for these costs.

Would that deter crime if people cannot afford the costs.

No Emily. It's time to stop giving options to keep these type people in our country. It's time to get rid of them so our quality of life can return without fear of these people going full jihad on an impulsive whim.

 

[S.J.]

Make them all leave, they are not compatible with American culture. Life will be better without them.

 

[The Great Goose]

It's time deport these jihadist bastards immediately! They are unstable and can't handle Western society in any form or fashion. Their cult religion prevents it.


Muslim Terrorist In Ohio Takes Apartment Complex Hostage, And Then Opens Fire On American Police Officer

Dear Steve_McGarrett and The Great Goose
Why not require all immigrants to become legal wards under the guardianship and insurance of their Sponsors?

So sure, if the Catholic church sponsors workers, they are legally responsible for screening these applicants themselves
and not just rely on INS alone. If a mistake is made in judgment, as even happens with the military as in the case of the Ft. Hood Shooter who should have been screened
out and flagged as a Jihadist-sympathizer, then the sponsoring group or person pays the financial, legal and restitution damages to the victims if a crime is committed.

If no one wants to underwrite and take that responsibility, then the person can't be approved.

If a City has "sanctuary" policies, then that City is responsible for insurance to cover damages committed by any criminals they fail to screen out.
And if taxpayers don't want to pay this, then they should demand the same, that any organization that sponsors such individuals should be responsible, not them.

What do you think?
Of requiring a guardian to sign for legal and financial responsibility for either
* immigrants applying for citizenship
* citizens turning 18 and claiming privileges of citizenship
so that everyone who is legally competent agrees to pay for their own costs if convicted of crimes,
and for people who are not legally competent, a sponsor agrees to sign for these costs.

Would that deter crime if people cannot afford the costs.

I see nothing particularly draconian about banning certain peoples from your sovereign nation. I

Jihadists don't bother me, but islam does have tendency to takeover.

It won't change anything, either way.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's time deport these jihadist bastards immediately! They are unstable and can't handle Western society in any form or fashion. Their cult religion prevents it.


Muslim Terrorist In Ohio Takes Apartment Complex Hostage, And Then Opens Fire On American Police Officer

Dear Steve_McGarrett and The Great Goose
Why not require all immigrants to become legal wards under the guardianship and insurance of their Sponsors?

So sure, if the Catholic church sponsors workers, they are legally responsible for screening these applicants themselves
and not just rely on INS alone. If a mistake is made in judgment, as even happens with the military as in the case of the Ft. Hood Shooter who should have been screened
out and flagged as a Jihadist-sympathizer, then the sponsoring group or person pays the financial, legal and restitution damages to the victims if a crime is committed.

If no one wants to underwrite and take that responsibility, then the person can't be approved.

If a City has "sanctuary" policies, then that City is responsible for insurance to cover damages committed by any criminals they fail to screen out.
And if taxpayers don't want to pay this, then they should demand the same, that any organization that sponsors such individuals should be responsible, not them.

What do you think?
Of requiring a guardian to sign for legal and financial responsibility for either
* immigrants applying for citizenship
* citizens turning 18 and claiming privileges of citizenship
so that everyone who is legally competent agrees to pay for their own costs if convicted of crimes,
and for people who are not legally competent, a sponsor agrees to sign for these costs.

Would that deter crime if people cannot afford the costs.

No Emily. It's time to stop giving options to keep these type people in our country. It's time to get rid of them so our quality of life can return without fear of these people going full jihad on an impulsive whim.

Yes Steve_McGarrett and to do that LEGALLY,
so that ALL people who are criminal get screened out,
that's what I'm saying -- set up and enforce rules
where people are compelled to take legal AND financial responsibility.

Add and enforce requirements where people responsible for TRAFFICKING
pay restitution into building production factories, schools and services
on the Mexican side of the border. So immigrant/workers don't have to
cross illegally to get to these opportunities that are provided right there.

We have to address the DEMAND also.
People wouldn't depend on coming to America if they had opportunities
in their home countries. Why not require this as restitution from immigrants
who broke federal immigration, labor or other laws -- where in relation to their crimes,
they invest a "proportional amount" of labor and resources into building sustainable
economies and communities in Mexico or their own homelands that were so lacking.
Earned Amnesty

 

[S.J.]

It's time deport these jihadist bastards immediately! They are unstable and can't handle Western society in any form or fashion. Their cult religion prevents it.


Muslim Terrorist In Ohio Takes Apartment Complex Hostage, And Then Opens Fire On American Police Officer

Dear Steve_McGarrett and The Great Goose
Why not require all immigrants to become legal wards under the guardianship and insurance of their Sponsors?

So sure, if the Catholic church sponsors workers, they are legally responsible for screening these applicants themselves
and not just rely on INS alone. If a mistake is made in judgment, as even happens with the military as in the case of the Ft. Hood Shooter who should have been screened
out and flagged as a Jihadist-sympathizer, then the sponsoring group or person pays the financial, legal and restitution damages to the victims if a crime is committed.

If no one wants to underwrite and take that responsibility, then the person can't be approved.

If a City has "sanctuary" policies, then that City is responsible for insurance to cover damages committed by any criminals they fail to screen out.
And if taxpayers don't want to pay this, then they should demand the same, that any organization that sponsors such individuals should be responsible, not them.

What do you think?
Of requiring a guardian to sign for legal and financial responsibility for either
* immigrants applying for citizenship
* citizens turning 18 and claiming privileges of citizenship
so that everyone who is legally competent agrees to pay for their own costs if convicted of crimes,
and for people who are not legally competent, a sponsor agrees to sign for these costs.

Would that deter crime if people cannot afford the costs.

No Emily. It's time to stop giving options to keep these type people in our country. It's time to get rid of them so our quality of life can return without fear of these people going full jihad on an impulsive whim.

Yes Steve_McGarrett and to do that LEGALLY,
so that ALL people who are criminal get screened out,
that's what I'm saying -- set up and enforce rules
where people are compelled to take legal AND financial responsibility.

Add and enforce requirements where people responsible for TRAFFICKING
pay restitution into building production factories, schools and services
on the Mexican side of the border. So immigrant/workers don't have to
cross illegally to get to these opportunities that are provided right there.

We have to address the DEMAND also.
People wouldn't depend on coming to America if they had opportunities
in their home countries. Why not require this as restitution from immigrants
who broke federal immigration, labor or other laws -- where in relation to their crimes,
they invest a "proportional amount" of labor and resources into building sustainable
economies and communities in Mexico or their own homelands that were so lacking.
Earned Amnesty

That's never gonna happen. The purpose of bringing them in is to cause chaos and disruption.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's time deport these jihadist bastards immediately! They are unstable and can't handle Western society in any form or fashion. Their cult religion prevents it.


Muslim Terrorist In Ohio Takes Apartment Complex Hostage, And Then Opens Fire On American Police Officer

Dear Steve_McGarrett and The Great Goose
Why not require all immigrants to become legal wards under the guardianship and insurance of their Sponsors?

So sure, if the Catholic church sponsors workers, they are legally responsible for screening these applicants themselves
and not just rely on INS alone. If a mistake is made in judgment, as even happens with the military as in the case of the Ft. Hood Shooter who should have been screened
out and flagged as a Jihadist-sympathizer, then the sponsoring group or person pays the financial, legal and restitution damages to the victims if a crime is committed.

If no one wants to underwrite and take that responsibility, then the person can't be approved.

If a City has "sanctuary" policies, then that City is responsible for insurance to cover damages committed by any criminals they fail to screen out.
And if taxpayers don't want to pay this, then they should demand the same, that any organization that sponsors such individuals should be responsible, not them.

What do you think?
Of requiring a guardian to sign for legal and financial responsibility for either
* immigrants applying for citizenship
* citizens turning 18 and claiming privileges of citizenship
so that everyone who is legally competent agrees to pay for their own costs if convicted of crimes,
and for people who are not legally competent, a sponsor agrees to sign for these costs.

Would that deter crime if people cannot afford the costs.

No Emily. It's time to stop giving options to keep these type people in our country. It's time to get rid of them so our quality of life can return without fear of these people going full jihad on an impulsive whim.

Yes Steve_McGarrett and to do that LEGALLY,
so that ALL people who are criminal get screened out,
that's what I'm saying -- set up and enforce rules
where people are compelled to take legal AND financial responsibility.

Add and enforce requirements where people responsible for TRAFFICKING
pay restitution into building production factories, schools and services
on the Mexican side of the border. So immigrant/workers don't have to
cross illegally to get to these opportunities that are provided right there.

We have to address the DEMAND also.
People wouldn't depend on coming to America if they had opportunities
in their home countries. Why not require this as restitution from immigrants
who broke federal immigration, labor or other laws -- where in relation to their crimes,
they invest a "proportional amount" of labor and resources into building sustainable
economies and communities in Mexico or their own homelands that were so lacking.
Earned Amnesty

That's never gonna happen. The purpose of bringing them in is to cause chaos and disruption.

Whoever is causing the chaos and disruption, S.J.
wouldn't they be outed publicly for refusing to instill and enforce protective laws?

Isn't the first step to identify and isolate the source of the problem?
Wouldn't pushing stronger legislation reveal who is on what side of law enforcement and protecting citizens?

 

[S.J.]

It's time deport these jihadist bastards immediately! They are unstable and can't handle Western society in any form or fashion. Their cult religion prevents it.


Muslim Terrorist In Ohio Takes Apartment Complex Hostage, And Then Opens Fire On American Police Officer

Dear Steve_McGarrett and The Great Goose
Why not require all immigrants to become legal wards under the guardianship and insurance of their Sponsors?

So sure, if the Catholic church sponsors workers, they are legally responsible for screening these applicants themselves
and not just rely on INS alone. If a mistake is made in judgment, as even happens with the military as in the case of the Ft. Hood Shooter who should have been screened
out and flagged as a Jihadist-sympathizer, then the sponsoring group or person pays the financial, legal and restitution damages to the victims if a crime is committed.

If no one wants to underwrite and take that responsibility, then the person can't be approved.

If a City has "sanctuary" policies, then that City is responsible for insurance to cover damages committed by any criminals they fail to screen out.
And if taxpayers don't want to pay this, then they should demand the same, that any organization that sponsors such individuals should be responsible, not them.

What do you think?
Of requiring a guardian to sign for legal and financial responsibility for either
* immigrants applying for citizenship
* citizens turning 18 and claiming privileges of citizenship
so that everyone who is legally competent agrees to pay for their own costs if convicted of crimes,
and for people who are not legally competent, a sponsor agrees to sign for these costs.

Would that deter crime if people cannot afford the costs.

No Emily. It's time to stop giving options to keep these type people in our country. It's time to get rid of them so our quality of life can return without fear of these people going full jihad on an impulsive whim.

Yes Steve_McGarrett and to do that LEGALLY,
so that ALL people who are criminal get screened out,
that's what I'm saying -- set up and enforce rules
where people are compelled to take legal AND financial responsibility.

Add and enforce requirements where people responsible for TRAFFICKING
pay restitution into building production factories, schools and services
on the Mexican side of the border. So immigrant/workers don't have to
cross illegally to get to these opportunities that are provided right there.

We have to address the DEMAND also.
People wouldn't depend on coming to America if they had opportunities
in their home countries. Why not require this as restitution from immigrants
who broke federal immigration, labor or other laws -- where in relation to their crimes,
they invest a "proportional amount" of labor and resources into building sustainable
economies and communities in Mexico or their own homelands that were so lacking.
Earned Amnesty

That's never gonna happen. The purpose of bringing them in is to cause chaos and disruption.

Whoever is causing the chaos and disruption, S.J.
wouldn't they be outed publicly for refusing to instill and enforce protective laws?

Isn't the first step to identify and isolate the source of the problem?
Wouldn't pushing stronger legislation reveal who is on what side of law enforcement and protecting citizens?

Maybe, if we were dealing with an honest government and an honest media, but we're not. We're dealing with a thug government and a complicit media. We're also dealing with a complacent public, half of which is dependent on the thugs who are bringing the terrorists into the country. We need new leadership, and Trump is the only one who shows any signs of changing the status quo.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Steve_McGarrett and The Great Goose
Why not require all immigrants to become legal wards under the guardianship and insurance of their Sponsors?

So sure, if the Catholic church sponsors workers, they are legally responsible for screening these applicants themselves
and not just rely on INS alone. If a mistake is made in judgment, as even happens with the military as in the case of the Ft. Hood Shooter who should have been screened
out and flagged as a Jihadist-sympathizer, then the sponsoring group or person pays the financial, legal and restitution damages to the victims if a crime is committed.

If no one wants to underwrite and take that responsibility, then the person can't be approved.

If a City has "sanctuary" policies, then that City is responsible for insurance to cover damages committed by any criminals they fail to screen out.
And if taxpayers don't want to pay this, then they should demand the same, that any organization that sponsors such individuals should be responsible, not them.

What do you think?
Of requiring a guardian to sign for legal and financial responsibility for either
* immigrants applying for citizenship
* citizens turning 18 and claiming privileges of citizenship
so that everyone who is legally competent agrees to pay for their own costs if convicted of crimes,
and for people who are not legally competent, a sponsor agrees to sign for these costs.

Would that deter crime if people cannot afford the costs.

No Emily. It's time to stop giving options to keep these type people in our country. It's time to get rid of them so our quality of life can return without fear of these people going full jihad on an impulsive whim.

Yes Steve_McGarrett and to do that LEGALLY,
so that ALL people who are criminal get screened out,
that's what I'm saying -- set up and enforce rules
where people are compelled to take legal AND financial responsibility.

Add and enforce requirements where people responsible for TRAFFICKING
pay restitution into building production factories, schools and services
on the Mexican side of the border. So immigrant/workers don't have to
cross illegally to get to these opportunities that are provided right there.

We have to address the DEMAND also.
People wouldn't depend on coming to America if they had opportunities
in their home countries. Why not require this as restitution from immigrants
who broke federal immigration, labor or other laws -- where in relation to their crimes,
they invest a "proportional amount" of labor and resources into building sustainable
economies and communities in Mexico or their own homelands that were so lacking.
Earned Amnesty

That's never gonna happen. The purpose of bringing them in is to cause chaos and disruption.

Whoever is causing the chaos and disruption, S.J.
wouldn't they be outed publicly for refusing to instill and enforce protective laws?

Isn't the first step to identify and isolate the source of the problem?
Wouldn't pushing stronger legislation reveal who is on what side of law enforcement and protecting citizens?

Maybe, if we were dealing with an honest government and an honest media, but we're not. We're dealing with a thug government and a complicit media. We're also dealing with a complacent public, half of which is dependent on the thugs who are bringing the terrorists into the country. We need new leadership, and Trump is the only one who shows any signs of changing the status quo.

Sure S.J. and what better way to weed out the leaders from the crooks.
Set up the better system of accountability. And even crooks will be on the side of settling out debts and paying back restitution if they want that chance (or if they are truly criminally ill and cannot comply with authority, these mentally ill will be screened out as well by this process).
Make the rules clear that if people lie about the wrongs committed and refuse to work with authorities,
they will lose citizenship to people who will work off the restitution they owe.

Reward the people willing to take responsibility, and revoke citizenship or refuse it to people who refuse.
If you take the Fifth and don't want to admit the extent of your wrongdoing,
then all the consequences still belong to you to pay for. So there is a price for taking the Fifth.
If a group of people don't want to admit who did what, then everyone in that group is held responsible for the restitution and
that's fine, they don't have to admit the details as long as they correct all the consequences and damages to the satisfaction of the victims and/or survivors.

What better way to screen people out? Enforce the laws,
give people a chance to make good on what went wrong.
The lawabiding people who want citizenship will comply and the criminal types will stand out in comparison.

 

[DarkFury]

It's time deport these jihadist bastards immediately! They are unstable and can't handle Western society in any form or fashion. Their cult religion prevents it.


Muslim Terrorist In Ohio Takes Apartment Complex Hostage, And Then Opens Fire On American Police Officer

Dear Steve_McGarrett and The Great Goose
Why not require all immigrants to become legal wards under the guardianship and insurance of their Sponsors?

So sure, if the Catholic church sponsors workers, they are legally responsible for screening these applicants themselves
and not just rely on INS alone. If a mistake is made in judgment, as even happens with the military as in the case of the Ft. Hood Shooter who should have been screened
out and flagged as a Jihadist-sympathizer, then the sponsoring group or person pays the financial, legal and restitution damages to the victims if a crime is committed.

If no one wants to underwrite and take that responsibility, then the person can't be approved.

If a City has "sanctuary" policies, then that City is responsible for insurance to cover damages committed by any criminals they fail to screen out.
And if taxpayers don't want to pay this, then they should demand the same, that any organization that sponsors such individuals should be responsible, not them.

What do you think?
Of requiring a guardian to sign for legal and financial responsibility for either
* immigrants applying for citizenship
* citizens turning 18 and claiming privileges of citizenship
so that everyone who is legally competent agrees to pay for their own costs if convicted of crimes,
and for people who are not legally competent, a sponsor agrees to sign for these costs.

Would that deter crime if people cannot afford the costs.

It fails on two levels.
1, Do you really want to be the one that walks up and tells a victims family "Sorry, but here's a check".
OR
2, Islam has pumped close to 100 million dollars into Hillary alone.
The terrorists are not short of money. As a matter of fact these are some of the richest terrorists the world has ever dealt with.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's time deport these jihadist bastards immediately! They are unstable and can't handle Western society in any form or fashion. Their cult religion prevents it.


Muslim Terrorist In Ohio Takes Apartment Complex Hostage, And Then Opens Fire On American Police Officer

Dear Steve_McGarrett and The Great Goose
Why not require all immigrants to become legal wards under the guardianship and insurance of their Sponsors?

So sure, if the Catholic church sponsors workers, they are legally responsible for screening these applicants themselves
and not just rely on INS alone. If a mistake is made in judgment, as even happens with the military as in the case of the Ft. Hood Shooter who should have been screened
out and flagged as a Jihadist-sympathizer, then the sponsoring group or person pays the financial, legal and restitution damages to the victims if a crime is committed.

If no one wants to underwrite and take that responsibility, then the person can't be approved.

If a City has "sanctuary" policies, then that City is responsible for insurance to cover damages committed by any criminals they fail to screen out.
And if taxpayers don't want to pay this, then they should demand the same, that any organization that sponsors such individuals should be responsible, not them.

What do you think?
Of requiring a guardian to sign for legal and financial responsibility for either
* immigrants applying for citizenship
* citizens turning 18 and claiming privileges of citizenship
so that everyone who is legally competent agrees to pay for their own costs if convicted of crimes,
and for people who are not legally competent, a sponsor agrees to sign for these costs.

Would that deter crime if people cannot afford the costs.

It fails on two levels.
1, Do you really want to be the one that walks up and tells a victims family "Sorry, but here's a check".
OR
2, Islam has pumped close to 100 million dollars into Hillary alone.
The terrorists are not short of money. As a matter of fact these are some of the richest terrorists the world has ever dealt with.

Dear DarkFury the point is deterrence not after the fact.
If sponsors have to sign against their citizenship, they'd be careful who they sign off for.

For damages like property that can be replaced, sure, money can work to cover that cost.

If you are talking about terrorist attacks that harm communities and national security,
that level of negligence might qualify for deportation and losing citizenship.

For example, if it is true that Clinton's emails got hacked and got Ambassador Stevens killed, along with the other service staff,
then I'd recommend a settlement agreement such as setting up 4 cities across the border as restitution for their deaths,
and have Clinton serve there for the number of years it takes to make these viable safe communities, including military bases for protection,
as alternatives for immigrant/workers to claim residence and for refugees to find safe haven without jeopardizing national security.
If she is guilty of infractions but lies she can get citizenship revoked if there was murder/capital offenses involved, and/or lose the right to serve in office if there were infractions against govt fiduciary duty or lying to jeopardize national security; as long as she cooperates with authorities then she can retain citizenship while serving restitution. The point is we need to start basing citizenship on enforcing laws, and have conditions where they can be revoked; and agree on the process and standards so these are enforced consistently.

 

[S.J.]

It's time deport these jihadist bastards immediately! They are unstable and can't handle Western society in any form or fashion. Their cult religion prevents it.


Muslim Terrorist In Ohio Takes Apartment Complex Hostage, And Then Opens Fire On American Police Officer

Dear Steve_McGarrett and The Great Goose
Why not require all immigrants to become legal wards under the guardianship and insurance of their Sponsors?

So sure, if the Catholic church sponsors workers, they are legally responsible for screening these applicants themselves
and not just rely on INS alone. If a mistake is made in judgment, as even happens with the military as in the case of the Ft. Hood Shooter who should have been screened
out and flagged as a Jihadist-sympathizer, then the sponsoring group or person pays the financial, legal and restitution damages to the victims if a crime is committed.

If no one wants to underwrite and take that responsibility, then the person can't be approved.

If a City has "sanctuary" policies, then that City is responsible for insurance to cover damages committed by any criminals they fail to screen out.
And if taxpayers don't want to pay this, then they should demand the same, that any organization that sponsors such individuals should be responsible, not them.

What do you think?
Of requiring a guardian to sign for legal and financial responsibility for either
* immigrants applying for citizenship
* citizens turning 18 and claiming privileges of citizenship
so that everyone who is legally competent agrees to pay for their own costs if convicted of crimes,
and for people who are not legally competent, a sponsor agrees to sign for these costs.

Would that deter crime if people cannot afford the costs.

It fails on two levels.
1, Do you really want to be the one that walks up and tells a victims family "Sorry, but here's a check".
OR
2, Islam has pumped close to 100 million dollars into Hillary alone.
The terrorists are not short of money. As a matter of fact these are some of the richest terrorists the world has ever dealt with.

Dear DarkFury the point is deterrence not after the fact.
If sponsors have to sign against their citizenship, they'd be careful who they sign off for.

For damages like property that can be replaced, sure, money can work to cover that cost.

If you are talking about terrorist attacks that harm communities and national security,
that level of negligence might qualify for deportation and losing citizenship.

For example, if it is true that Clinton's emails got hacked and got Ambassador Stevens killed, along with the other service staff,
then I'd recommend a settlement agreement such as setting up 4 cities across the border as restitution for their deaths,
and have Clinton serve there for the number of years it takes to make these viable safe communities, including military bases for protection,
as alternatives for immigrant/workers to claim residence and for refugees to find safe haven without jeopardizing national security.
If she is guilty of infractions but lies she can get citizenship revoked if there was murder/capital offenses involved, and/or lose the right to serve in office if there were infractions against govt fiduciary duty or lying to jeopardize national security; as long as she cooperates with authorities then she can retain citizenship while serving restitution. The point is we need to start basing citizenship on enforcing laws, and have conditions where they can be revoked; and agree on the process and standards so these are enforced consistently.

It's too late, we have a runaway government that feels they don't have to answer to the people anymore. They do what they want. Maybe after the inevitable revolution you can suggest that be put into the next Constitution. That's the only way it would ever happen. Sorry to be so cynical but that train done left the station.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

methinks this news story is getting scrubbed. the accidental shooting of a gun store owner is apparently a bigger headline in the local news than a hostage crisis. there was a massacre recently an entire family was wiped out, four different crime scenes on the same day, even the sheriff went telling people to arm themselves. but then, when people began speculating it might have something to do with mexican drug cartels, it's as if the news media just shut up about it. anything that might suggest trump is right, they don't want to report about it.

There was no "hostage crisis."

Here's the story from a less looney toon source:

Mohammed Abdou Laghaoui, accused of shooting Deputy Katie Barnes, kept low profile

 

[Claudette]

It's time deport these jihadist bastards immediately! They are unstable and can't handle Western society in any form or fashion. Their cult religion prevents it.


Muslim Terrorist In Ohio Takes Apartment Complex Hostage, And Then Opens Fire On American Police Officer

I agree. These Muslim assholes don't assimilate in any country they land in.

We should boot them all out of our country and follow Japans lead and don't let anymore in.

Europe is having all kinds of problems with them and if they were smart they would boot them the hell out of their countries.

 

[Claudette]

It's time deport these jihadist bastards immediately! They are unstable and can't handle Western society in any form or fashion. Their cult religion prevents it.


Muslim Terrorist In Ohio Takes Apartment Complex Hostage, And Then Opens Fire On American Police Officer

Dear Steve_McGarrett and The Great Goose
Why not require all immigrants to become legal wards under the guardianship and insurance of their Sponsors?

So sure, if the Catholic church sponsors workers, they are legally responsible for screening these applicants themselves
and not just rely on INS alone. If a mistake is made in judgment, as even happens with the military as in the case of the Ft. Hood Shooter who should have been screened
out and flagged as a Jihadist-sympathizer, then the sponsoring group or person pays the financial, legal and restitution damages to the victims if a crime is committed.

If no one wants to underwrite and take that responsibility, then the person can't be approved.

If a City has "sanctuary" policies, then that City is responsible for insurance to cover damages committed by any criminals they fail to screen out.
And if taxpayers don't want to pay this, then they should demand the same, that any organization that sponsors such individuals should be responsible, not them.

What do you think?
Of requiring a guardian to sign for legal and financial responsibility for either
* immigrants applying for citizenship
* citizens turning 18 and claiming privileges of citizenship
so that everyone who is legally competent agrees to pay for their own costs if convicted of crimes,
and for people who are not legally competent, a sponsor agrees to sign for these costs.

Would that deter crime if people cannot afford the costs.

It fails on two levels.
1, Do you really want to be the one that walks up and tells a victims family "Sorry, but here's a check".
OR
2, Islam has pumped close to 100 million dollars into Hillary alone.
The terrorists are not short of money. As a matter of fact these are some of the richest terrorists the world has ever dealt with.

Dear DarkFury the point is deterrence not after the fact.
If sponsors have to sign against their citizenship, they'd be careful who they sign off for.

For damages like property that can be replaced, sure, money can work to cover that cost.

If you are talking about terrorist attacks that harm communities and national security,
that level of negligence might qualify for deportation and losing citizenship.

For example, if it is true that Clinton's emails got hacked and got Ambassador Stevens killed, along with the other service staff,
then I'd recommend a settlement agreement such as setting up 4 cities across the border as restitution for their deaths,
and have Clinton serve there for the number of years it takes to make these viable safe communities, including military bases for protection,
as alternatives for immigrant/workers to claim residence and for refugees to find safe haven without jeopardizing national security.
If she is guilty of infractions but lies she can get citizenship revoked if there was murder/capital offenses involved, and/or lose the right to serve in office if there were infractions against govt fiduciary duty or lying to jeopardize national security; as long as she cooperates with authorities then she can retain citizenship while serving restitution. The point is we need to start basing citizenship on enforcing laws, and have conditions where they can be revoked; and agree on the process and standards so these are enforced consistently.

It's too late, we have a runaway government that feels they don't have to answer to the people anymore. They do what they want. Maybe after the inevitable revolution you can suggest that be put into the next Constitution. That's the only way it would ever happen. Sorry to be so cynical but that train done left the station.

Fifty three percent of Americans didn't want them in our country and thirty one States didn't want them either.

Yet douchebag in the WH totally ignored the wants of the people and the States and is bringing those bastards in anyway.

Anyone have any idea who's best interests he has at heart??

 

[DarkFury]

methinks this news story is getting scrubbed. the accidental shooting of a gun store owner is apparently a bigger headline in the local news than a hostage crisis. there was a massacre recently an entire family was wiped out, four different crime scenes on the same day, even the sheriff went telling people to arm themselves. but then, when people began speculating it might have something to do with mexican drug cartels, it's as if the news media just shut up about it. anything that might suggest trump is right, they don't want to report about it.

There was no "hostage crisis."

Here's the story from a less looney toon source:

Mohammed Abdou Laghaoui, accused of shooting Deputy Katie Barnes, kept low profile

Standard policy would be to have everybody to stay in their apartments and stay down on the floor. If you have to stay in your apartment against your will because of a gun man inside OR out you ARE a hostage.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

methinks this news story is getting scrubbed. the accidental shooting of a gun store owner is apparently a bigger headline in the local news than a hostage crisis. there was a massacre recently an entire family was wiped out, four different crime scenes on the same day, even the sheriff went telling people to arm themselves. but then, when people began speculating it might have something to do with mexican drug cartels, it's as if the news media just shut up about it. anything that might suggest trump is right, they don't want to report about it.

There was no "hostage crisis."

Here's the story from a less looney toon source:

Mohammed Abdou Laghaoui, accused of shooting Deputy Katie Barnes, kept low profile

Standard policy would be to have everybody to stay in their apartments and stay down on the floor. If you have to stay in your apartment against your will because of a gun man inside OR out you ARE a hostage.

You would think theDoctorisIn would realize that using common sense logic. He is one illogical doctor.