The never-ending POTUS Election thread....

[cockstrong]

What are the prevailing thoughts on what is going on with the immigration ban that is currently going on. I believe its necessary to suspend refugees and immigrants until we get get a better vetting process if one actually exists but I have to say this doesnt seem like america

Waiting for Dblair and Jbond to reply

 

[peplaw06]

Has anyone actually heard of a terrorist coming in through the refugee process? I think the vetting process is fine. The terroristic events that have happened here have been self-radicalized IIRC.

 

[Doomsday]

What are the prevailing thoughts on what is going on with the immigration ban that is currently going on. I believe its necessary to suspend refugees and immigrants until we get get a better vetting process if one actually exists but I have to say this doesnt seem like america

It's actually been the law of the land for decades.

Has anyone actually heard of a terrorist coming in through the refugee process?

Not here, yet. But in Europe, certainly.

 

[NoMoRedJ]

Has anyone actually heard of a terrorist coming in through the refugee process? I think the vetting process is fine. The terroristic events that have happened here have been self-radicalized IIRC.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=56194

 

[NoMoRedJ]

Has anyone actually heard of a terrorist coming in through the refugee process? I think the vetting process is fine. The terroristic events that have happened here have been self-radicalized IIRC.

Why is the compassionate open armed Justin Trudeau so willing to let refugees in Canada but limits it to women, children or families but no single men?

 

[yimyammer]

Has anyone actually heard of a terrorist coming in through the refugee process? I think the vetting process is fine. The terroristic events that have happened here have been self-radicalized IIRC.

I'm not sure how you'd classify the San Bernardino shooters because the husband was born in the US but the wife was from Pakistan. I'm not sure what vetting process she went through vs what a typical immigrant has to do.

Regardless, there was nothing to cause suspension as she came through customs, amirate?



The Minnesota Mall attacker:

Dahir A. Adan (c. 1994 – September 17, 2016) was a member of St. Cloud's Somali-American community. He was born in Kenya and moved to the U.S. at the age of two on a refugee visa, becoming a U.S. citizen in 2008 Link

These are what come to mind, perhaps there are others. I'm virtually positive there will be more

 

[junk]

What are the prevailing thoughts on what is going on with the immigration ban that is currently going on. I believe its necessary to suspend refugees and immigrants until we get get a better vetting process if one actually exists but I have to say this doesnt seem like america

Waiting for Dblair and Jbond to reply

A ton of information coming in right now, so it is hard to tell what is factual and what is not. If a fraction of what is being reported is true, it is very disturbing.

However, putting that aside, none of the 9-11 attackers would have been impacted by this. None of their home countries are on the list (Egypt, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia).

So, if you simply look at it through that prism alone, it is a failed policy.

 

[theoneandonly]

Welp, I just read Trump has already pissed off the Koch brothers. Now Trump probably doesnt give a shit because supposedly he is loaded, but you can best believe the rest of the GOP can be none too happy about that. Why does it matter? Koch brothers are probably the biggest GOP and conservative donors. They give hundreds of millions of dollars to push their causes. If that stops there will be plenty of pissed of Republicans at the Prez.

 

[bbgun]

Koch brothers

they're big open borders advocates. GOP donors love that cheap labor.

 

[yimyammer]

Also, IIUC, the Boston Marathon Bombers were immigrants who became citizens

Can anyone confirm if I have this correct?

Man, I'm all for immigration but it feels like theres a bit of hysteria going on here. IIUC, its a temporary ban of people from certain countries not an outright ban of all muslims as its being portrayed

Re Boston Bombers (Tamerlan Tsarnaev & Dzhokhar Tsarnaev):

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev got a green card in 2007, and became a naturalized United States citizen on Sept. 11, 2012, officials said. Tamerlan was denied citizenship after he was involved in a domestic-violence episode, his father said.Source

I feel like I've got something wrong because no one mentions the Boston bombers or the other two I mentioned

 

[theoneandonly]

they're big open borders advocates. GOP donors love that cheap labor.

Not to mention I am sure they do plenty of business in countries that are none too happy right now. I am sure that has a lot more to do with it than welcoming imigrants. I am sure that story was planted as a shot across the bow.

 

[peplaw06]

Also, IIUC, the Boston Marathon Bombers were immigrants who became citizens

Can anyone confirm if I have this correct?

Man, I'm all for immigration but it feels like theres a bit of hysteria going on here. IIUC, its a temporary ban of people from certain countries not an outright ban of all muslims as its being portrayed

Re Boston Bombers (Tamerlan Tsarnaev & Dzhokhar Tsarnaev):



I feel like I've got something wrong because no one mentions the Boston bombers or the other two I mentioned

The Tsarnaev's were not refugees when they came here. They came on tourist visas from Kazakhstan and then their father applied for asylum. So not only does this EO not address them, it doesn't ban people from their country of origin.

Likewise for the San Bernadino guy. He was born in the US. He brought his wife over from Pakistan... not a refugee and not from a country on the list.

 

[peplaw06]

I'm just tired of people's willingness to let the government take rights by whatever means, if you're in agreement with the ends. The GOP doesn't buy that when the government wants to infringe on the Second Amendment. But if the curtailing of the rights doesn't affect you, it's all good.

We should be fighting the government stifling liberty at every step. It's just a matter of time until the government takes away a right from you. When you endorse the government taking rights, it becomes harder to stop them when they take the one that affects you.

 

[yimyammer]

The Tsarnaev's were not refugees when they came here. They came on tourist visas from Kazakhstan and then their father applied for asylum. So not only does this EO not address them, it doesn't ban people from their country of origin.

Likewise for the San Bernadino guy. He was born in the US. He brought his wife over from Pakistan... not a refugee and not from a country on the list.

Thanks for clearing up the situation with the Tsarnaev's, something didn't seem correct about what I was posting thus why I asked

you merely repeated what I wrote about the San Bernadino shooters so I'm not sure what you're point is

Given that the 3/4 people mentioned above weren't US citizens, it makes me wonder if there is some loophole that could be exploited

 

[yimyammer]

I'm just tired of people's willingness to let the government take rights by whatever means, if you're in agreement with the ends. The GOP doesn't buy that when the government wants to infringe on the Second Amendment. But if the curtailing of the rights doesn't affect you, it's all good.

We should be fighting the government stifling liberty at every step. It's just a matter of time until the government takes away a right from you. When you endorse the government taking rights, it becomes harder to stop them when they take the one that affects you.

I want the smallest government possible and the last thing I want is to give them more control of our lives.

However, one of my expectations of the government is to defend and protect its citizens and I want the governments responsibilities to be as lean as possible so they can do their job well (I know, complete pipe dream). Given the state of the world, it seems acceptable to do everything reasonably possible to prevent people from coming into the US that want to harm and kill americans. I don't think its unreasonable to believe there are folks who would like to use our immigration policy as an opportunity to gain access to the US.

Seems to me the vetting required should be the same for all countries, so isolating these 7 countries is perhaps unnecessarily strident. Although 6 of the 7 countries (Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen & Libya) are in an unusual state of chaos and would seem to present a greater level of risk, especially if its true that blank Syrian passports have been stolen. How the heck do you vet people with no documentation from unstable governments like the countries mentioned above? I'm not sure why Iran was added to the list, that seems rather provocative unless they have classified information justifying the decision we're not prove too.

What rights are you referring to that are currently being taken away?

Sidebar: Has there ever been a more intense first 8 days of any presidency? I've never seen people so consistently outraged

 

[dbair1967]

I'm just tired of people's willingness to let the government take rights by whatever means, if you're in agreement with the ends. The GOP doesn't buy that when the government wants to infringe on the Second Amendment. But if the curtailing of the rights doesn't affect you, it's all good.

We should be fighting the government stifling liberty at every step. It's just a matter of time until the government takes away a right from you. When you endorse the government taking rights, it becomes harder to stop them when they take the one that affects you.

I'm sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with banning the influx of Muslimrefugees/certain Muslim country immigrants at this time.

Its called common fucking sense.

 

[dbair1967]

And by the way Pep, its not the "right" of people around the world to fucking immigrate here whenever they want.

Immigration was set up to benefit the COUNTRY, not to benefit the WORLD.

 

[Dodger12]

I'm just tired of people's willingness to let the government take rights by whatever means, if you're in agreement with the ends. The GOP doesn't buy that when the government wants to infringe on the Second Amendment. But if the curtailing of the rights doesn't affect you, it's all good.

We should be fighting the government stifling liberty at every step. It's just a matter of time until the government takes away a right from you. When you endorse the government taking rights, it becomes harder to stop them when they take the one that affects you.

What rights is the government infringing on in this instance? Do non-citizens who may have never stepped foot in the US have any right to citizenship or a visa? It's far more different than your comparison with the Second Amendment.

 

[Doomsday]

We should be fighting the government stifling liberty at every step.

It's "stifling liberty" to follow 8USC 1182 when it comes to foreign nationals who aren't citizens?

 

[peplaw06]

Rep. Amash (R-Mich) says it better than I can...

Many supporters and opponents of President Trump's executive order are conflating the terms "immigrant" (which encompasses green card holders), "nonimmigrant," and "refugee."

It's not lawful to ban immigrants because of "nationality, place of birth, or place of residence." This nondiscrimination provision comes from a 1965 law (8 U.S.C. 1152 Sec. 202(a)(1)(A)) that limits the 1952 law (8 U.S.C. 1182 Sec. 212(f)) that the president cites.

It's lawful to ban nonimmigrants for almost any reason. These are people who are temporarily visiting the United States, like tourists or students.

It's lawful to ban refugees for almost any reason. But banning all refugees from particular countries is harsh and unwise. We still should admit well-vetted persons.

Understanding these distinctions is important because supporters of President Trump's executive order continue to wrongly insist that the order is lawful and that President Obama did almost the same thing in 2011. And opponents of President Trump's executive order continue to wrongly insist that banning refugees violates the Constitution or the law.

President Trump's executive order covers not only refugees but also immigrants and nonimmigrants. As noted above, it's not lawful to discriminate in the issuance of an *immigrant* visa because of the person's "nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."

President Obama's action (which wasn't disclosed at the time) covered only refugees and, therefore, did not violate the Constitution or the law, even if one finds it objectionable for other reasons.