Immigration Ban

[knapplc]

After ten times asking for proof that we are at risk, I've given up. I'm not taking anyone at their word, especially someone who refuses to acknowledge that Bannon is a bad actor.

 

Pretend I'm from Missouri. Show Me.

[Moiraine]

Anyone who thinks Trump makes data-driven decisions hasn't been paying attention.

[VectorVictor]

Incredible tweetstorm happening here. A couple reporters in this chain are apparently up to speed with people STILL being detained w/o access to an attorney:

 

 

So, if I'm reading them correctly, CBP at airport still detaining people and still refusing to honor the order issued by a federal judge. When CBP wouldn't help, immigration attorneys asked the US Marshals (who are the law enforcement arm of the Judiciary branch) to enforce the order w/ CBP, the Marshals refused. Marshals directed the attorneys to reach out the US Attorney's office for help with enforcement. When the immigration attorneys arrived at US Attorney's office, US Attorney was mysteriously called away - when they returned, the told the immigration attorneys they could not sign off on reigning in CBP/Marshals.

 

In the meantime, the federal courts had to issue a temporary restraining order against CBP because they deported a detainee from LAX in defiance of the original stay order.

 

Tweets are 11 hrs old. When they were published, they said they were not aware if more people were being deported, but people were still being detained.

 

This is insanity.

 

It's not insanity--it's a very simple, somewhat efficient way for President Bannon Trump to find out who is loyal to the President vs. who is loyal to the United States.

 

The fact that we have people in law enforcement that are not willing to respect the rule of law or respecting the logic of putting the law of one's own country ahead of their personal interests and beliefs shouldn't be shocking--this board is lousy with Trump supporters who, when provided logical and thought-out rebuffs to their preconceived notions, still refuse to believe or accept them. When logic and reason don't hold any sway with these people, what other recourse is there for these lost souls?

 

It's not all that dissimilar to what is going on here--you have a group of law enforcement personnel with preconceived ideas that are unwilling to logically and rationally execute the law, because it goes against their preconceived ideas/notions, and instead willingly choose to believe a figurehead in the White House over the rule of law and logic. There is no reason, good or otherwise, that these members of law enforcement should be ignoring the injunction of a Federal Court on this matter. None.

 

Now that Trump/Bannon (Bannump? Trunon?) know who is willing to discard the rule of law when it doesn't conform to their preconceived notions, they now know who they can lean on when they want to push down more nonsense (e.g. rounding up Muslims and political dissidents, acting against the Constitution). Add to this the fact that Congress wasn't informed about this (they were purposely kept in the dark about it), and it seems as though the White House now wishes to end around Congress to get things done.

 

It's anything but insanity, IMO--it's a clear, calculated move by a group that wants to consolidate power and reap the rewards of abusing their power.

[VectorVictor]

Anyone who thinks Trump makes data-driven decisions hasn't been paying attention.

 

Fixed for accuracy?

[Oade]

You keep saying we have weaknesses? What are the weaknesses? You know how vulnerable we are, and where those weak points are. So then, my two follow up questions would be how vulnerable are we, in a way that has some kind of static comparison and not just 'feeling' or anecdote, and what are the weak points? For example, I agree that there are vulnerabilities in the United States. One such vulnerability is how easy it is to get into this country in essentially any way other than the refugee vetting process. Why has Donald Trump not suspended the visa waiver, program for example? Terrorists could get here from one of 38 countries without even having a VISA by these means, instead of an arduous 18-24 month long investigation.

 

And still, if you don't know what data is being used, but you do know the data that no refugees have ever killed Americans, and you admit that maybe Trump (who has a history of immaturity, insecurity, temper tantrums and rash overreactionary decisions) might have just been having a bad day, and you look at the evidence of Steve Bannon's white supremacy philosophies, and you see how people's lives are being seriously affected by this...how can you stand for it?

 

I really want to know the answer to that. I hope you feel I am not badgering you. I don't know how anyone can be okay with this, because to me it looks like there is a mountain's worth of evidence saying, "This is wrong, possibly illegal, not thought through, and really hurting people." compared to conjecture and spin saying, "This is necessary to keep us safe."

 

 

But there is also a good reason to not just raise objections because proposed changes depart from the way we've been doing things for a long time. The fact that we've been doing something the same way for a long time is not, in and of itself, a good reason to keep doing things the same way.

 

-- Josh Earnest, January 17, 2017

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/17/did-obamas-press-secretary-just-defend-trumps-approach-to-the-media/?utm_term=.8777c8d296ea

 

And again, I'm not in support of a ban. However, I'm not opposed to the idea of continually improving and refining our procedures.

 

I don't agree with the ban, but I do agree with the idea of practicing some patients when it comes to any politician(s), left or right.... Its entirely possible that new info surfaced that final week of Obama's tenure that would have made even Obama act in a similar manner.... I don't necessarily believe that to be the case, but I can be patient in the mean time.

[Landlord]

I'm not opposed to the idea of continually improving and refining our procedures.

 

 

Neither am I. Neither is anyone, I would imagine. But, who said that this hairbrained unconstitutional fiasco was necessary in order to continue to self-evaluate? I know you're not in favor of it, so this isn't directed at you specifically, but to anyone defending it or somehow in support of it - what's the cost? How many people's livelihood destroyed or otherwise adversely affected is too many?

[The Dude]

We have the internet now. Travel restrictions won't slow the flow of bad ideas.

[JJ Husker]

We have the internet now. Travel restrictions won't slow the flow of bad ideas.

Huskerboard has been proving this for many years.

[TAKODA]

You keep saying we have weaknesses? What are the weaknesses? You know how vulnerable we are, and where those weak points are. So then, my two follow up questions would be how vulnerable are we, in a way that has some kind of static comparison and not just 'feeling' or anecdote, and what are the weak points? For example, I agree that there are vulnerabilities in the United States. One such vulnerability is how easy it is to get into this country in essentially any way other than the refugee vetting process. Why has Donald Trump not suspended the visa waiver, program for example? Terrorists could get here from one of 38 countries without even having a VISA by these means, instead of an arduous 18-24 month long investigation.

 

And still, if you don't know what data is being used, but you do know the data that no refugees have ever killed Americans, and you admit that maybe Trump (who has a history of immaturity, insecurity, temper tantrums and rash overreactionary decisions) might have just been having a bad day, and you look at the evidence of Steve Bannon's white supremacy philosophies, and you see how people's lives are being seriously affected by this...how can you stand for it?

 

I really want to know the answer to that. I hope you feel I am not badgering you. I don't know how anyone can be okay with this, because to me it looks like there is a mountain's worth of evidence saying, "This is wrong, possibly illegal, not thought through, and really hurting people." compared to conjecture and spin saying, "This is necessary to keep us safe."

LLOMS;

 

Just got a little break so I came here to see the follow ups from last night.

 

I am miffed at the Q that you asked regarding "how can I stand for it"

 

What the EO that DT signed is, is his directive, not mine. I am not standing for anything other than I would like our vetting process to cover deficient holes in our system. People not associated or who have no history or wisdom of the current procedures in place, can't see the potential issues because up to now, it appears it has worked fine.

 

I am not able to list what those are because that would be ludicrous to share with anyone other than those who deal with it and our security. Not trying to skirt issues here but that is the way it needs to be. Those who have been vetting in the past, are also aware of the short comings, and I would even bet, that they brought their points to those who made the decision they did.

 

I do not think you are badgering me at all. Would love to show everyone the short comings, the documents or proof, mapping and such items that would make you have an ahh ha moment, but thats not going to happen for numerous reasons.

 

I recognize that the EO has caused people pain, anguish, but where in the world in any of my postings, have I said that I think this "Ban" is a swell idea? What I have stated is that the fact that they have done this, might make agents/officers and others judgement calls better (if this was done to fix the short comings in the vetting process). A good starting point to be in knowing that everyone who is required to be vetted, has been vetted using the full range of tools that are available. Not missing a couple of key components, that would/could avert something we don't want to happen.

 

Your comment on the vetting of Visa's, is spot on. That is just 1 (widely known weaknesses), that needs to be corrected. There are numerous (will not number) other areas that are not within you or any average citizens knowledge base. That comment is not saying anything bad about your intellect, you just don't know what you don't know.

[TAKODA]

After ten times asking for proof that we are at risk, I've given up. I'm not taking anyone at their word, especially someone who refuses to acknowledge that Bannon is a bad actor.Pretend I'm from Missouri. Show Me.

Knapp, who are you directing this comment towards?

[RedDenver]

 

You keep saying we have weaknesses? What are the weaknesses? You know how vulnerable we are, and where those weak points are. So then, my two follow up questions would be how vulnerable are we, in a way that has some kind of static comparison and not just 'feeling' or anecdote, and what are the weak points? For example, I agree that there are vulnerabilities in the United States. One such vulnerability is how easy it is to get into this country in essentially any way other than the refugee vetting process. Why has Donald Trump not suspended the visa waiver, program for example? Terrorists could get here from one of 38 countries without even having a VISA by these means, instead of an arduous 18-24 month long investigation.

 

And still, if you don't know what data is being used, but you do know the data that no refugees have ever killed Americans, and you admit that maybe Trump (who has a history of immaturity, insecurity, temper tantrums and rash overreactionary decisions) might have just been having a bad day, and you look at the evidence of Steve Bannon's white supremacy philosophies, and you see how people's lives are being seriously affected by this...how can you stand for it?

 

I really want to know the answer to that. I hope you feel I am not badgering you. I don't know how anyone can be okay with this, because to me it looks like there is a mountain's worth of evidence saying, "This is wrong, possibly illegal, not thought through, and really hurting people." compared to conjecture and spin saying, "This is necessary to keep us safe."

LLOMS;

 

Just got a little break so I came here to see the follow ups from last night.

 

I am miffed at the Q that you asked regarding "how can I stand for it"

 

What the EO that DT signed is, is his directive, not mine. I am not standing for anything other than I would like our vetting process to cover deficient holes in our system. People not associated or who have no history or wisdom of the current procedures in place, can't see the potential issues because up to now, it appears it has worked fine.

 

I am not able to list what those are because that would be ludicrous to share with anyone other than those who deal with it and our security. Not trying to skirt issues here but that is the way it needs to be. Those who have been vetting in the past, are also aware of the short comings, and I would even bet, that they brought their points to those who made the decision they did.

 

I do not think you are badgering me at all. Would love to show everyone the short comings, the documents or proof, mapping and such items that would make you have an ahh ha moment, but thats not going to happen for numerous reasons.

 

I recognize that the EO has caused people pain, anguish, but where in the world in any of my postings, have I said that I think this "Ban" is a swell idea? What I have stated is that the fact that they have done this, might make agents/officers and others judgement calls better. A good starting point to be in knowing that everyone who is required to be vetted, has been vetted using the full range of tools that are available. Not missing a couple of key components, that would/could avert something we don't want to happen.

 

Your comment on the vetting of Visa's, is spot on. That is just 1 (widely known weaknesses), that needs to be corrected. There are numerous (will not number) other areas that are not within you or any average citizens knowledge base. That comment is not saying anything bad about your intellect, you just don't know what you don't know.

 

I'm a bit confused as to your stance. I understand that you'd like a better vetting process; we all would, I think.

 

But are you for or against the EO ban?

 

IMO, the ban is just terrible as currently written and applied. Could a ban have been crafted that was reasonable? Absolutely. But the ban wasn't run through his own legal advisers, appears to have been deliberately kept secret from Mattis, DHS, and DOJ, blcoks green card holders who live in the US (in many cases for years), applies to countries whose immigrants/refugees have NOT attacked the US, doesn't actually apply to countries that have had immigrants or refugees attack the US, and most of all is clearly in violation of the Constitution based on comments by Trump and Giuliani.

[TAKODA]

First paragraph & again in 4th paragraph!

[RedDenver]

First paragraph & again in 4th paragraph!

You said you didn't write the EO - that's not a position on the actual EO that has been written. The fourth paragraph is about the EO causing anguish, so you're against it? It's not clear, that's why I'm asking.

[TAKODA]

Jeezus:

 

1st paragraph: I am not standing for anything other than I would like our vetting process to cover deficient holes in our system

 

4th paragraph: where in the world in any of my postings, have I said that I think this "Ban" is a swell idea?

[Landlord]

Takoda, he's asked if you are for or against this ban, or in other words, if you support it or approve of it or not.

 

 

You still haven't answered that. All you've said is that you haven't said that you are for it. Nobody is putting words in your mouth - we're trying to get them out of your mouth