19 Dead,50 Injured in terror attack at Ariana Grande Concert

[Azalin]

Too bad neither liberals nor conservatives named Saudi Arabia to any of those lists. The problem is far more complicated than many understand. The world is a tangled web of alliances and interests that often times conflict.

 

The proposed travel restrictions weren't about how dangerous the country may or may not be, it was about a country's ability to provide thorough background checks on travelers coming to the US. Then of course critics went on an all-out campaign to say it was all inspired by anti-Muslim sentiment, because we're just not able to have a realistic dialogue about anything anymore.

[GoBills808]

 

The proposed travel restrictions weren't about how dangerous the country may or may not be, it was about a country's ability to provide thorough background checks on travelers coming to the US. Then of course critics went on an all-out campaign to say it was all inspired by anti-Muslim sentiment, because we're just not able to have a realistic dialogue about anything anymore.

Appeals court in VA just ruled against revised ban...I think it's possible they simply won't pass Constitutional muster as currently authored.

[Azalin]

Appeals court in VA just ruled against revised ban...I think it's possible they simply won't pass Constitutional muster as currently authored.

 

Then it should be an easy fix. Constitutional protections do not extend to foreign nationals seeking visas.

[GoBills808]

 

Then it should be an easy fix. Constitutional protections do not extend to foreign nationals seeking visas.

I agree. It really makes you wonder why they couldn't have argued it properly in the first place.

[DC Tom]

I agree. It really makes you wonder why they couldn't have argued it properly in the first place.

 

Because the challenge isn't about the constitutional rights of visa applicants. It's about the constitutional right of this President to issue such an executive order.

 

And the answer seems to be "No, because he's racist." It's an ad hominem judicial decision, which is patently ridiculous.

[Azalin]

I agree. It really makes you wonder why they couldn't have argued it properly in the first place.

 

What specifically would you have had the administration do? After their first attempt at the EO, it was modified from 7 countries affected down to 6, none of which have the means to properly conduct thorough enough background checks. Detractors still called it a "Muslim ban", conveniently ignoring (and most certainly not reporting) the fact that 44 majority-Muslim nations were not included in the "ban".

 

It ain't much of a ban if you're still granting visas to the majority of Muslim nations.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Azalin

[row_33]

I agree. It really makes you wonder why they couldn't have argued it properly in the first place.

 

if he did it 100% perfect the media and Dems would denounce it and they'd find a judge in Alaska to bend their way.

[DriveFor1Outta5]

 

The proposed travel restrictions weren't about how dangerous the country may or may not be, it was about a country's ability to provide thorough background checks on travelers coming to the US. Then of course critics went on an all-out campaign to say it was all inspired by anti-Muslim sentiment, because we're just not able to have a realistic dialogue about anything anymore.

True, but what makes us think that we can trust the Saudis background checks? The answer is that we shouldn't. Unless every Islamic nation faces travel restrictions they do very little to guarantee safety.

 

What specifically would you have had the administration do? After their first attempt at the EO, it was modified from 7 countries affected down to 6, none of which have the means to properly conduct thorough enough background checks. Detractors still called it a "Muslim ban", conveniently ignoring (and most certainly not reporting) the fact that 44 majority-Muslim nations were not included in the "ban".

 

It ain't much of a ban if you're still granting visas to the majority of Muslim nations.

You're right, it ain't much of a ban. That's the problem. Liberals will hate any travel ban, they will whine to no end. Conservatives will be blissful in their naive joy thinking bans on a few nations actual do something. Sadly Americans are so entrenched along party line that no one uses logic anymore. Edited May 25, 2017 by DriveFor1Outta5

[row_33]

True, but what makes us think that we can trust the Saudis background checks? The answer is that we shouldn't. Unless every Islamic nation faces travel restrictions they do very little to guarantee safety.

You're right, it ain't much of a ban. That's the problem. Liberals will hate any travel ban, they will whine to no end. Conservatives will be blissful in their naive joy thinking bans on a few nations actual do something. Sadly Americans are so entrenched along party line that no one uses logic anymore.

 

at least some kind of review of people entering

 

not swinging the gate wide open and handing them a drivers license and green stamp approval

[DC Tom]

 

What specifically would you have had the administration do? After their first attempt at the EO, it was modified from 7 countries affected down to 6, none of which have the means to properly conduct thorough enough background checks. Detractors still called it a "Muslim ban", conveniently ignoring (and most certainly not reporting) the fact that 44 majority-Muslim nations were not included in the "ban".

 

It ain't much of a ban if you're still granting visas to the majority of Muslim nations.

 

And it wasn't a "ban," it was a 90-day stay while the background check process was reviewed.

[Azalin]

True, but what makes us think that we can trust the Saudis background checks? The answer is that we shouldn't. Unless every Islamic nation faces travel restrictions they do very little to guarantee safety.

You're right, it ain't much of a ban. That's the problem. Liberals will hate any travel ban, they will whine to no end. Conservatives will be blissful in their naive joy thinking bans on a few nations actual do something. Sadly Americans are so entrenched along party line that no one uses logic anymore.

 

Okay, I will ask again: What specifically would you have had the administration do? It's easy to sit here and say 'liberals will do this, conservatives will do that, etc, etc' but what do you believe would be the best way to safeguard against terrorists from entering the country?

 

 

And it wasn't a "ban," it was a 90-day stay while the background check process was reviewed.

 

I know. I'm using the word because that's what critics are calling it.

[DriveFor1Outta5]

 

Okay, I will ask again: What specifically would you have had the administration do? It's easy to sit here and say 'liberals will do this, conservatives will do that, etc, etc' but what do you believe would be the best way to safeguard against terrorists from entering the country?

 

 

I know. I'm using the word because that's what critics are calling it.

I don't have the answer. There are plenty of people who are far more intelligent than I who work on this everyday. They haven't been able to find the answers either. I'm simply making observations. The responses of conservatives and liberals are always predictable. I will not take that statement back.

 

My issue is with people on both sides who claim to have the answers. No one has the answers yet. International terrorism is a complicated web. The Saudis are major sponsors of terrorist activities. That doesn't stop western leaders from knelling before these creeps. International conflict and relations are complicated affairs. That is how we have allies such as the Saudis. Nations are forced to choose the lesser of two evils. Allowing open borders certainly isn't the answer, but neither is arbitrarily travel restrictions that don't address the entire Middle East. The entire Middle East is a problem.

[Rockpile233]

Okay, I will ask again: What specifically would you have had the administration do? It's easy to sit here and say 'liberals will do this, conservatives will do that, etc, etc' but what do you believe would be the best way to safeguard against terrorists from entering the country?

 

 

 

I know. I'm using the word because that's what critics are calling it.

I wasn't against the "ban", but I think you could objectively say it was rolled out poorly. The backlash is still backlash against Trump, which at this point it is what it is.

 

I'm not in favor of completely closing the country to refugees, but if you are traveling to one of these hotbeds in the ME, that obviously needs to raise some damn red flags. Most will probably hate this solution, but I want surveillance. We don't know the extent of which it's already happening, but it didn't seem long for the Manchester bombers online history to be dragged up. How was this guy not picked up? Spare me rights on this.

 

The issue I take, which I've mentioned elsewhere, is turning any of this into an anti refugee/anti immigration conversation. The trend is homegrown. The stricture immigration/refugee conversation deserves it's day, but it's not as pressing as the homegrown terrorist issue.

 

The first argument could me to stop the source and go back to the points above. Sure, this would help, but wouldn't solve the problems completely. I do believe this is also contrary to our country's larger values.

 

So they here and are defecting and their sons/daughters are defecting. I think you need to both fight and install preventative measures. They are defecting online for the most part. Yes, it's an unpopular opinion with small government people, but targeted surveillance of online activity followed by arrests. You are getting to government cencored content at this point, which I'm struggling with, but frankly can't get past. It would be more effective.

 

I mentioned in another thread preventative measures. Google had an idea:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/09/googles-clever-plan-stop-aspiring-isis-recruits/amp/

 

It's a start.

[HappyDays]

 

Then it should be an easy fix. Constitutional protections do not extend to foreign nationals seeking visas.

This is far from a settled issue:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/

 

Trump supporters might be surprised at how far the Constitution extends toward non-citizens once they're inside the country, however. Cases extending back to the 1800s, including ones brought by Chinese immigrants challenging the arbitrary seizure of their property, have established the rights of non-citizens under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments including due process and the right to a jury.

[Foxx]

This is far from a settled issue:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/

 

but... but... there is a constitutional free zone within 100 miles of all US borders.

[GoBills808]

 

Because the challenge isn't about the constitutional rights of visa applicants. It's about the constitutional right of this President to issue such an executive order.

 

And the answer seems to be "No, because he's racist." It's an ad hominem judicial decision, which is patently ridiculous.

Not exactly. If you read the judge's ruling from today, he referenced US Code 1182(a)(3)(B) which defines the admissibility of certain aliens regarding their affiliations with specific groups of whom members have engaged in terrorism, as defined by Congress and which does not preclude their entry as per situational approval (I'm not very high on this provision, but it is law). Thus, he concluded that it's similarly wrong to deny applicants based on geographical location.

 

What specifically would you have had the administration do? After their first attempt at the EO, it was modified from 7 countries affected down to 6, none of which have the means to properly conduct thorough enough background checks. Detractors still called it a "Muslim ban", conveniently ignoring (and most certainly not reporting) the fact that 44 majority-Muslim nations were not included in the "ban".

 

It ain't much of a ban if you're still granting visas to the majority of Muslim nations.

I would have taken out the language in the EO that grouped applicants by country and, as in response above, worked on an order geared toward the definitions in 1182 to more broadly target potential threats. It looks to me as if there already exist enough potential reasons to mitigate or at least delay applicants legally, you just can't target specific groups in the way both EOs attempted to do. It was a sloppy job.

[Azalin]

I would have taken out the language in the EO that grouped applicants by country and, as in response above, worked on an order geared toward the definitions in 1182 to more broadly target potential threats. It looks to me as if there already exist enough potential reasons to mitigate or at least delay applicants legally, you just can't target specific groups in the way both EOs attempted to do. It was a sloppy job.

 

I fail to see how holding six specific countries to the same standard we do with every other country regarding background checks for visas is in any way a violation of anyone's rights or our own domestic statutes. If a country does not have a system in place for keeping arrest records or other information pertinent to obtaining a visa, then how can one logically make the claim that it's not right to group applicants by country?

Edited May 25, 2017 by Azalin

[GoBills808]

 

I fail to see how holding six specific countries to the same standard we do with every other country regarding background checks for visas is in any way a violation of anyone's rights or our own domestic statutes. If a country does not have a system in place for keeping arrest records or other information pertinent to obtaining a visa, then how can one logically make the claim that it's not right to group applicants by country?

If I'm reading this ruling correctly, he's saying it is.

 

Maybe your approach would have worked: ie, to raise (or in this case, simply comply with) the existing 'standards' required of other countries for these particular six. My guess is that proving they were unable to provide the necessary information would have been the challenge, as the EO contained just one sentence (from what I see) pertaining to 'standards for background checks', and it's kind of a throwaway:

 

Any of these circumstances diminishes the foreign government's willingness or ability to share or validate important information about individuals seeking to travel to the United States

[Azalin]

If I'm reading this ruling correctly, he's saying it is.

 

Maybe your approach would have worked: ie, to raise (or in this case, simply comply with) the existing 'standards' required of other countries for these particular six. My guess is that proving they were unable to provide the necessary information would have been the challenge, as the EO contained just one sentence (from what I see) pertaining to 'standards for background checks', and it's kind of a throwaway:

 

Any of these circumstances diminishes the foreign government's willingness or ability to share or validate important information about individuals seeking to travel to the United States

 

Well, that's where I disagree with them, then.

[Nanker]

If they just added North Korea to the list, it would pass. Without fail.