Muslim ban already having effect

DeacMan said:

Well, that is also going to score negative points too. If someone has a Green Card they are already here legally. So either the order is FUBAR or it is not being implemented right.

Click to expand...

They are issuing all of the executive orders without running it through the OLC of the Justice department. It's absurd.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html

"Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen -- did not apply to people who with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders.
The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President's inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon."

birdman said:

There is a lot of FUBAR going on these days.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm no immigration law expert, but I suspect you cannot just arbitrarily say everyone holding a green card who leaves the country for vacation cannot re-enter the country. The general standard of administrative law is you can't take arbitrary and capricious actions or make a&c rules. If the order is really doing this, then it is going to get stopped in its tracks (apparently it has) and will have to be re-worked.

tiltdeac said:

They are issuing all of the executive orders without running it through the OLC of the Justice department. It's absurd.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html

"Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen -- did not apply to people who with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders.
The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President's inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon."

Click to expand...

That is just an epic face palm. No way that holds up.

DeacMan said:

This is true, Bob - at least the 6 mos. ban part. It all stemmed out of finding fingerprints on IEDs in Iraq that were ultimately tied to two refugee immigrants from Iraq who had later settled in Kentucky. The State Department put a ban in place for several months to improve the vetting process.

I think what would be useful is to understand:

a - What is the current vetting process. What questions are asked of refugees.

b - How would that vetting process be changed by this administration.

Because I don't think you will (or legally can) see a permanent ban on refugees from any country. And I'd like to know what is it that the administration believes is flawed in the current vetting process and how do they intend to change it.

Does anyone know the details of vetting of refugees as of a week ago vs. what is expected to change.

I just had a long conversation with my brother-in-law. His view is let the law sort people out once they are here. But when asked whether we should let in people who think it is o.k. to have sex with children he said the vetting process would take care of that. When asked if people who think it is acceptable to abuse spouses should be admitted he punted and talked about vetting again. But neither of us knew how vetting actually works today or how it is proposed to be changed.

And I get that we have an 18 mos. process, etc. But how, in detail, does it work. Specifically, what is asked and not asked? And what is it the current administration thinks has to be changed?

Click to expand...

This is a very rational post and would be a good way of thinking about it, except Trump has not laid out any specific criticism. He has incorrectly attributed the San Bernadino and the Orlando attacks to foreigners and called for banning Muslim immigrants until our countries representatives can figure out what's going on. We don't know what is supposedly wrong with the system, because no gripes have been put forth.

DeacMan said:

Well, I'm no immigration law expert, but I suspect you cannot just arbitrarily say everyone holding a green card who leaves the country for vacation cannot re-enter the country. The general standard of administrative law is you can't take arbitrary and capricious actions or make a&c rules. If the order is really doing this, then it is going to get stopped in its tracks (apparently it has) and will have to be re-worked.

Click to expand...

Thank goodness for courts because the executive branch is FUBAR and Congress are in a wait and see pattern.

birdman said:

This is a very rational post and would be a good way of thinking about it, except Trump has not laid out any specific criticism. He has incorrectly attributed the San Bernadino and the Orlando attacks to foreigners and called for banning Muslim immigrants until our countries representatives can figure out what's going on. We don't know what is supposedly wrong with the system, because no gripes have been put forth.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say no gripes have been put forth. One of the articles I posted had gripes because it stated questions that would get to the heart of potential terrorism sympathies were off limits. But I can find nothing that confirms this is true or false. The problem, as I see it, is that we don't know what is and is not off limits. For instance, I saw one article that said people were asked if they were in a political party. Well, that question wouldn't get to the real issue, which is whether they sympathize with political parties that would condone violence. To me the whole point of vetting would be to assure the people we admit are not prone to be criminals - which goes beyond terrorism. That's just my view. I have no idea what sorts of questions are and are not within bounds to make this determination. And so far I can find very little on it.

I do agree that I doubt Trump really thought this all through during the campaign. Just because something takes 18 mos. doesn't mean it can't or doesn't need to be made better - hence the 6 mos. ban on Iraqis Obama himself saw fit to install in 2011. The question I have raised, however, will likely go begging. Which is silly. We should be able to know exactly what is and is not off limits to ask today and understand whether it needs improvement (where opinions can differ) and how the current administration thinks it can be improved specifically. Right now I don't see much in the way of details that lets the general public make their own assessment. And that's dumb.

birdman said:

Thank goodness for courts because the executive branch is FUBAR and Congress are in a wait and see pattern.

Click to expand...

I just saw on reuters that the admin is now saying if you have a green card you will be admitted once you go to the embassy or consulate for some added screening. I don't see how that is legal. A green card, by definition, means you are a permanent legal resident. You have been given rights. And if you've not committed or been accused of a crime, I don't see how legally those rights are potentially taken away. Again, not an immigration lawyer, but just generally how admin law works this type of thing seems both arbitrary and capricious and shouldn't stand.

DeacMan said:

I wouldn't say no gripes have been put forth. One of the articles I posted had gripes because it stated questions that would get to the heart of potential terrorism sympathies were off limits. But I can find nothing that confirms this is true or false. The problem, as I see it, is that we don't know what is and is not off limits. For instance, I saw one article that said people were asked if they were in a political party. Well, that question wouldn't get to the real issue, which is whether they sympathize with political parties that would condone violence. To me the whole point of vetting would be to assure the people we admit are not prone to be criminals - which goes beyond terrorism. That's just my view. I have no idea what sorts of questions are and are not within bounds to make this determination. And so far I can find very little on it.

I do agree that I doubt Trump really thought this all through during the campaign. Just because something takes 18 mos. doesn't mean it can't or doesn't need to be made better - hence the 6 mos. ban on Iraqis Obama himself saw fit to install in 2011. The question I have raised, however, will likely go begging. Which is silly. We should be able to know exactly what is and is not off limits to ask today and understand whether it needs improvement (where opinions can differ) and how the current administration thinks it can be improved specifically. Right now I don't see much in the way of details that lets the general public make their own assessment. And that's dumb.

Click to expand...

I meant Trump has laid out any explicit problems with the current system that he intends to fix. He just wants our representative to figure out what's going.

MysteryMen said:

People made the same argument about letting Jews into the United States in the 1930s. We turned thousands of them away, and many of them were later killed in the Holocaust. Let's assume that for the sake of argument that letting them in would have "hurt the standard of living for native born citizens." Give me a yes or no: was turning them away the right decision?

Click to expand...

I think the argument most people made back then was predicated on anti-Semitism. But for those that did make an economic argument, the tragedy that unfolded does not mean the point they were making was incorrect, though it might have been. Anyway to answer your question, no, I don't think it was right to turn those people away and more should have been done by the global community to help them. But what do you suggest- we take in the billions of people in the world who are constantly at risk and are forced to eek out a living on less than $2 a day? What you want to see happen is that we continue take in a miniscule percentage of those in danger, plucking them from refugee camps as the lucky chosen ones, as well as continuing to allow millions to cross our southern border, without regard for our own unemployed and vulnerable citizens (you've admitted before something like you're not concerned about what happens to poor Americans or our environment as a result of immigration). Instead of taking the most capable people from these camps, which is often what we do, it makes more sense from my perspective for them to remain in the region until things settle down and they can return to their homes and help to rebuild their country. They've made it to a relatively safe country. I understand people wanting a better life. But if we cleaned out the camps and allowed them all to immigrate it would devastate the livelihoods of our own people. The sad reality is that we can't significantly help the people in these regions through immigration AND immigration does hurt native born citizens. Instead of picking the most capable from the camps and contributing to a brain drain in the region, we need to help them where they are.

birdman said:

I meant Trump has laid out any explicit problems with the current system that he intends to fix. He just wants our representative to figure out what's going.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm with you.

I just find it odd we can't even get at how, exactly, the process worked before yesterday. What was and was not allowed to be asked. What was the process really screening against. How were the questions being asked. At least we could then have a real debate about whether more / different vetting is appropriate.

My Brother-in-Law was really laissez faire about all of this. And I'm obviously more hands on. And what was interesting about the conversation we had was that each of us ended up getting trapped. He was of the view we'll just let the law sort everyone out once they are here and not put people from any particular place through more scrutiny. But he acknowledged vetting should keep out people who, for instance, think it is ok to have sex with kids (even if there's no evidence they've done this act). And my view is we should screen certain countries more heavily based on their cultural norms but that the real aim is just to keep people who are more inclined to think felony criminal acts are ok out of the country. To which he rightfully asked how we draw that line when we vet and for which I did not have a great answer. In the end we both pretty much admitted tacitly that how you vet really matters a lot. But when you go to find the specifics about how the questions asked are structured and used, the details are not really available.

birdman said:

Thank goodness for courts because the executive branch is FUBAR and Congress are in a wait and see pattern.

Click to expand...

The courts? The federal courts are going to include Trump appointees before long.

Scenes like this will only stop the bleeding for a little while.

I hope you and your BIL don't end up in a big fight. The idea of profiling is anathema to a lot of people.

Bannon is a really nefarious dude.

PhDeac said:

The courts? The federal courts are going to include Trump appointees before long.

Scenes like this will only stop the bleeding for a little while.

Click to expand...

Why is it all white people in that pic, except for maybe an Indian looking guy. I wonder how the black community tends to feel about immigration.

PhDeac said:

The courts? The federal courts are going to include Trump nominees before long.

Scenes like this will only stop the bleeding for a little while.

Click to expand...

I would not get too worked up about the courts, Ph. The laws these courts interpret all have standards and the standards have loads of precedent as do the procedures used to get cases from point A to point B. Yes, there are conservative and liberal judges, etc. And yes, you have activist judges from both sides of the spectrum. I get it. But this order, for instance, seems like a no brainer. It is legally flawed and has to be re-worked.

Bob2, why to you support this?

A recent Clemson engineering PhD graduate was denied entrance to the US after visiting family in Tehran.

DeacMan said:

I would not get too worked up about the courts, Ph. The laws these courts interpret all have standards and the standards have loads of precedent as do the procedures used to get cases from point A to point B. Yes, there are conservative and liberal judges, etc. And yes, you have activist judges from both sides of the spectrum. I get it. But this order, for instance, seems like a no brainer. It is legally flawed and has to be re-worked.

Click to expand...

No. Trump isn't going to appoint judges who will overrule him. Anybody with power can rationalize any way possible to get from Point A to Point B anyway.

PhDeac said:

Bob2, why to you support this?

A recent Clemson engineering PhD graduate was denied entrance to the US after visiting family in Tehran.

Click to expand...

I hope they make an exception for him. Worried about his dog.

PhDeac said:

Bob2, why to you support this?

A recent Clemson engineering PhD graduate was denied entrance to the US after visiting family in Tehran.

Click to expand...

1 - That is fucked up big time.

2 - At the very least there are now news reports that she'll be able to re-enter the country after going to get screening at an embassy or consulate - which presumably she can do in Dubai (because we have no embassy in Iran). That is still massively fucked up. But at least that is the public positioning now. Already walking things back - which they have to do.

3 - If the courts keep things real (which they are doing) the order won't work until it is re-written.