Immigration ban and backlash

[Baiter]

I'm sure most of you heard that a Federal judge temporary blocked Trump's immigration ban, and as expected the judge found himself in the crosshairs of social media backlash from the President, who has also tasked the DOJ to un-block it again.  The article is a bit extreme, but it has some interesting points:

(CNN) On Saturday morning, President Donald Trump may have unleashed his most bone-chilling tweet -- at least to those who believe the United States should not become a Trump-led dictatorship. And I don't make that comment simply to be provocative or without giving it a great deal of thought. Our democracy is far more fragile than some might grasp and Trump is engaging in a concerned effort to undermine the workings of it.

Here is Trump's truly jaw-dropping tweet from Saturday morning: "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!"

Why is this so concerning? It's OK to argue about whether the judge should or shouldn't have issued this order. But Trump is apparently attempting to delegitimize our federal judiciary by calling Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush-appointed judge, a "so-called" judge while arguing that his decision is "ridiculous."

Let's be blunt, because the stakes demand it: An independent federal judiciary is our last, best hope at preventing Trump from violating the US Constitution and illegally grabbing power. And Trump has to understand that, hence his attempt to undermine it.

The President truly appears to be leading a master class in transforming the United States into a dictatorship. Trump -- and it's fair to assume it is by design -- has sought to undermine anyone or anything that tries to counter him.

First, Trump has made the media -- which is a watchdog of our presidents -- a focus of his attacks, calling them "dishonest," claiming they peddle "fake news" and even recently labeling them "the opposition party." The practical result is that when the media calls out Trump's lies and presents objective facts to counter him, his followers will likely dismiss the media reports and instead side with Trump.

Then Trump went after our intelligence agencies because he didn't agree with their views on Russia's involvement in our recent election. Trump lashed out, calling these agencies, charged with gathering information for our national security, "disgraceful" and accusing them of leaking information, comparing it to "something that Nazi Germany would have done."

Trump has clearly begun the process of destroying their credibility so if they come forward in the future to oppose his views or offer facts to undermine his position, he will tell his followers they also aren't to be believed.

And now Trump, who attacked a judge during his campaign, citing his Mexican heritage, has turned on our judiciary again. But this time it's far more disturbing given Trump is not a candidate, but president of the United States. The rationale must be assumed to be the same, namely that Trump wants to delegitimize the judiciary so that court decisions Trump disagrees with will be viewed by his followers as at the least horribly partisan, or at worst invalid.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/04/opinions/donald-trumps-most-bone-chilling-tweet-obeidallah-opinion/index.html

[Yosho]

Yep, I agree... i don't like how he takes attacks personally and returns them the same way.  I do think he has cause to respond though and most of his complaints have merit. 

I haven't heard the specifics of the Judge's order, but my limited understanding of the law, the roles and responsibilites of each branch of Govt, and the history of immigration policy leave me perplexed on why the EO wouldn't be valid.  Is this simply continuing the trend of the Judiciary Branch legislating from the bench on their own political views or is this actually based in real law?  Does the Legislative Branch need to clarify the law giving the President the authority to make these decisions?  How is this recent EO different than when previous Presidents had issued similar orders?  I guess we'll see as this plays out.  Let's hope we don't have a future terrorist from one of these countries make his or her way in during this stay on the EO.

[Baiter]

Part of this stems from the fact that most agencies tasked with enforcing the ban were confused as to how to enforce it, particularly exactly to whom it applies and doesn't apply.  In addition, part of this federal ruling questioned it's constitutionality indicating that further research was needed before it can actually be enforced.  The acting attorney general was fired for the same concerns.

[Yosho]

She was fired because she she made a political and philosophical judgement call to order the Agency she had agreed to lead to not follow a legal order.  If she made a legal case, that would be different.

All this talk about banning Muslims, but the vast majority of Muslims in the world are not restricted by this order.  So who is restricted?  Tell me which of the 7 countries was a mistake? 

Iraq - Elements of Civil War, Sectarian Genocide, Terrorist bombings/attacks common.
Syria - Dictatorship in open Civil War, home of ISIS, center of Radical Islam, Genocide common.
Iran - Theocratic Govt openly hostile to US/West, State sponsor of regional and global terrorism.
Libya - Failed state in Civil War, terrorism common, Radical Islamic elements in control of half.
Somalia - Warlords, International Piracy, Radical Islam, terrorism... 20 years of failed state.
Sudan - Warlords, child slave soldiers, "Sudan's killing fields" Terrorism as a way of life.
Yemen - Failed state in civil war, Sectarian proxy war by Iran and Saudi Arabia, USS Cole.

These are among the most dangerous countries to travel in and the radical elements destabilizing them are openly hostile to the US and the West and have been effective in carrying out terrorist attacks.  While it is noble to want to help innocent people escape that horror, how do you ensure that we're not importing it here?  Under the Obama administration, they weren't able to create an effective screening system.  Congressional testimony by the previous administration department heads confirmed that - I've watched it.  The Trump EO was put in place for the new Administration to have time to create a new screening system or to make a decision to permanently ban immigration from those countries if they couldn't creat one.  Where's the problem?

[Baiter]

Honestly that list of countries is a bit of a ploy as people from most of those countries pose little threat to the U.S. other than the influx of refugees seeking freedom from oppression.  They are too consumed with their own infighting to organize cross-Atlantic terrorism.  In fact...

Experts told us no fatal attack has been attributed to nationals from those countries, but that there have been a few non-deadly acts by individuals from two of those countries.

Increased homegrown terrorism

According to New America, a think tank compiling information on terrorist activities in the United States since 9/11, 94 people have been killed by jihadists in the past 15 years.

But in its overview of who are the individuals committing the attacks, New America says the majority of attackers come from within.

"Far from being foreign infiltrators, the large majority of jihadist terrorists in the United States have been American citizens or legal residents. Moreover, while a range of citizenship statuses are represented, every jihadist who conducted a lethal attack inside the United States since 9/11 was a citizen or legal resident," the New America study says. "In addition about a quarter of the extremists are converts, further confirming that the challenge cannot be reduced to one of immigration."

"It's certainly the case that none of the major, deadly attacks carried out in the United States were carried out by people from these countries," said Erin Miller, who manages the Global Terrorism Database for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland.

Other experts agreed.

"Since 9/11, no one has been killed in this country in a terrorist attack by anyone who emigrated from any of the seven countries," added William C. Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University College of Law.

However, there have been at least three non-deadly attacks in which the perpetrators were from Iran or Somalia, said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University, expert on terrorism and a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Nadler said in a CNN interview Jan. 28. "If you really want to protect this country, why are Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey left out of the order? Most of the 9/11 conspirators came from Saudi Arabia."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/

[Yosho]

Really?  The article is pretty dismissive of the threat and then goes on in the highlighted portion to talk about the majority of attacks being committed by citizens or legal residents (green card holders).  The whole purpose of the EO and review of the screening process is to prevent the bad guys from those countries from coming here legally and obtaining citizenship or a green card.

Beyond large scale terrorism attacks, the screening process is supposed to make judgements on who a person is and if they've ever conducted criminal activity.  How do you do that for someone from a failed state?  Again, the screening process is currently inadequate, and they need to design a new one if possible.

Edit - here's a good video to my point.
http://youtu.be/iQ3KZ6B7OSU

[Baiter]

Beyond large scale terrorism attacks, the screening process is supposed to make judgements on who a person is and if they've ever conducted criminal activity.  How do you do that for someone from a failed state?  Again, the screening process is currently inadequate, and they need to design a new one if possible.

The point I question is this: Is it worth all this effort to prevent 6 deaths per year?  6 deaths out of the 140,000 accidental deaths we have in the U.S. per year is barely a measurable statistic.

[Baiter]

Now that the ban on the travel ban has been upheld, it appears Sally Yates, former acting attorney general, was right in her refusal to defend the travel ban, and thus her firing should come under question at this point.  Was it technically legal?  Sure... but ethics and morals are a much more slippery slope.

[Yosho]

Sally Yates was fired because her policial views prevented her from faithfully carrying out her duties.  What legal argument did she make in opposition to EO 13769?

I have read the courts decision, and while not surprised, I am disappointed.  Courts should be apolitical, but they are not.  Ask yourself this... If Judge Gorsuch is confirmed to the Supreme Court, is this ruling likely be overturned?  If this had been heard by them 2 years ago, would it also have likely been overturned?   If this Executive Order had been signed 2 years ago by President Obama, would it have even been challenged in court?

[WannaTheater]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152

“no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

Had Trump not blown his horn for a year about how he was going to ban an entire religion from entering the us, create a muslim registry, etc, there would probably be little to challenge the above law, and it could have been positioned as nothing other than a "Safety" travel ban.

[kbvette]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152

“no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

Had Trump not blown his horn for a year about how he was going to ban an entire religion from entering the us, create a muslim registry, etc, there would probably be little to challenge the above law, and it could have been positioned as nothing other than a "Safety" travel ban.

   He was schmoozing the "so called Evangelical Right" and it paid off in spades......they don't like mooselambs.

[Mamushka]

Honestly that list of countries is a bit of a ploy as people from most of those countries pose little threat to the U.S. other than the influx of refugees seeking freedom from oppression.  They are too consumed with their own infighting to organize cross-Atlantic terrorism.  In fact...

So we have had 72 convicted terrorist come from the countries Trump wants to ban since 9-11 (just think how many have not been caught or convicted yet). Look what just 1 terrorist did in Orlando. But you think they "pose little threat". 


Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism, a finding that clashes sharply with claims from an appeals court that there is "no evidence" those countries have produced a terrorist.

According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as "students," and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.

The Center for Immigration Studies calculated the numbers of convicted terrorists from the Trump Seven:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-terrorists-came-from-7-muslim-countries-trump-targeted/article/2614582

[WannaTheater]

How many deaths have been caused by terrorist attacks from the Travel Ban countries since 9/11?  I am pretty sure it is zero.

The Orlando shooter was an American, born in New York.  His parents were from Afghanistan.  Another country not on the Travel ban.
Trump might want to take a look at Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, UAE, Egypt- These countries have produced terrorist attacks on US soil, with high death counts (... 9/11).  He might also want to take a look US-born and led terrorist attacks, which again, this ban would not have prevented.

[Yosho]

I'm curios if Trumps 90 day hold and review process included those countries if you'd support it?  Wouldn't that just open him further to the charge that "this is really just a muslim ban?"  Are you really asking him to look at banning those countries or are you creating a straw man?

I see this as 4 separate questions....

1. How do you screen those who only wish to come here for a better life from those that want to do us harm.
2. How do you screen those who will abide by American laws, values, and integrate into our melting pot of culture from those who would self segregate or seek to impose their previous cultural norms on us.
3. How do you check the backgrounds of people when they come from a Country that is either unable to aid us in that process or from one that is openly hostile to that process.
4. What skills and level of self sufficiency do we require vs how much in welfare are we willing to give out.

Those are my 4 top priorities, and as long as they can pass all of them, I really don't care if they're White, Brown, Black, Yellow, or Blue.  I don't even care if they speak English as long as they're willing to learn. 





 

[WannaTheater]

Good questions, but I really only see one- similar to Baiter's about the great wall of Mexico.
What problem is the travel ban on those 7 countries solving.  "Make America Safe Again?"  A little too vague for me.  The engineer in me says, "if you want to stop terrorist attacks in the US, find out where the terrorists are coming from, and focus on those countries.  Not "we pocked these countries because Obama did."

Or if they are already here, i.e. born here/citizens, make it more difficult to get weapons.  How about extreme vetting for people trying to buy guns?  That's a much more defined group, and easier to manage then the loosely defined pool of all mexicans, because they are rapists, and all muslims, because they want to do us harm.