I am posting a reference link that talks about the number of Muslim Majority Immigrants being allowed into the US during Obama's administration. This information can also be verified on the Department of Homeland Security website under Immigration. The point about this post is to make people aware that refugees being allowed into the US are not just Syrian, and the number is not just 10,000. 10,000 refugees is a relative small number in comparison to the total allowed over the years; and small compared to what other nations have allowed in. Furthermore, ISIS is not just interested in infiltrating the ranks of Syrian refugees, but they certainly are capable of infiltrating the ranks of any refugees that are coming to the US. Again, this article is only about immigration from Muslim countries, not all immigration that is coming to the US. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/muslim-immigrant-green-card-obama/2016/06/17/id/734434/.
Note: This post has been edited to show Muslim Majority Immigrants so that it is not misleading in any way to claim all or only Muslim immigrants are coming from these countries.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
1. The US revises the number of immigrants allowed every year, to insure, as a country of immigrants, we remain a melting pot.
If you look at the actual records from DHS, you will find that we had about 7M immigrants during the Obama years, depicted in the graph you included in your post. Out of 7M, you have 832,000 who came from Muslim majority countries.
Muslim majority does not mean all Muslim. Countries like Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Morocco, have a mix of Muslim/Christian/Jewish. However, setting that aside, 832,000, represents less than 12%, where if you were to project it to the actual world population, it should be 1.9M
2. The Syrian refugees are dealt with, using a different calculus. The 10K deal, was part of a deal struck, in conjunction with other Western nations. It did NOT follow standard immigration channels, and the Obama administration had trouble fulfilling, due to lack of resources, and the desire to insure proper vetting.
For historical comparison purposes, we admitted 800,000 Vietnamese, during the waning days of the Vietnam war. We did not vet any of them, and had no idea how many of them, prescribed to an ideology, that allowed suicide attacks, to defeat us. The legacy of that mass migration is mostly good, with the criminal element going into organized crime.
Also, for historical comparison purposes, about 1.2M people from Muslim-majority countries, were admitted to the US, during the Bush regime.
Hmm, interesting response. First, my post was about Muslim immigration, not total immigration; so there was no need to point out something that did not apply. Secondly, no where did I state Muslim majority meant all Muslim; although someone might jump to that conclusion as I did not specify. Thank you, I will edit my post, and state such. Thirdly, the Syrian refugees were discussed in my post, but my post was not about them. However, thank you for stating the process of the Syrian refugees for those that might be interested. I am/was not interested in historical comparisons as all I was doing was posting about the Muslim majority immigration movement during Obama's administration; something that I should be allowed to do. However, again thank you for posting that comparison, albeit without a reference link to provide truth and support. In conclusion, we do not need to stick to comparing anything to anything, as I was not doing a comparison; you were, and obviously not apples to apples or apples to oranges in your case. 🤔
@aldnazmeister: Why should I include a reference link? The link is IN the graph you provided. It's right there, under the graph and it's called the department of homeland security yearbook. newsmax.com was pretty selective, but I tend to read a bit more, than the part that supports my conclusions. Since you asked, here's the reference link:
http://bit.ly/2b0JPx4
Yes, you're right. You should be able to post a graph, showing the number of immigrants admitted to the US, during the Obama administration. Where did I say that you could not do that.
This is YOUR post. If you don't want me to publish more comprehensive figures, then delete my posts. I will post it under a separate heading.
@Northwest: I only suggest posting a link to support any argument or point that goes against a posters original post or counterpoints, be it me or any other contributor. After all, anyone could go around saying someone else's stories, posts, and/or comments are wrong if they did not have to support their stance. Thank you for the link to Immigration Statistics book showing the historical numbers. Fyi, my link does not go directly to this book, but someone certainly could get there through some effort. I am not concerned with deleting your comments, as you have a right to them. My point was that they did not directly correlate to my story, but they do provide some interesting reading for those that may choose to do so.
@aldnazmeister: Like I said, I did not come up with the link, I copied it from the graph that you posted. So, then you intended to post a completely orphan story, pointing to the number of people admitted from Muslim countries, for absolutely no other reason?
@Northwest: I will admit that I am not seeing any link in the graph that I posted. I posted a picture that I found. I move my mouse all around that picture, and get no link. The one link that I have in the story takes me to a story about what I posted. I was able to work my way to the statistics book. Hmm, so I am not allowed to post a story, without reason other than I want to; I have to have an agenda or purpose other than posting? So does that mean you are yet attacking someone on the simple principle of freedom of speech?
