Extreme Vetting

[Brackneyc]

This is all going to end well.

I don't have the answers, but I sure don't like the path we're on.

[7Seconds]

The fact that literally everything about our anti-terrorism policy for the last 15 years has left Saudi Arabia untouched is pretty good evidence that it's not about countering terrorism.

[ElrondHubbard]

The fact that literally everything about our anti-terrorism policy for the last 15 years has left Saudi Arabia untouched is pretty good evidence that it's not about countering terrorism.

Or "Freedom".

[Brackneyc]

I found it curious that one news organization reported this as unconstitutional. How is that possible, being that the people potentially being vetted are not covered under the constitution.

Educate me.

[Karl_Hungus]

This is all going to end well.

I don't have the answers, but I sure don't like the path we're on.

I think it's an improvement...

[paolo59]

Just read an interesting, short article in the Daily Signal, written by one of the members of the Trump transition team who was involved in the process and determinations regarding refuges from particular nations in the Middle East. Worth looking up and reading.

[Jtbny]

I'm glad that Saudi, Egypt, and Pakistan were included.

Oh wait...

[7Seconds]

I found it curious that one news organization reported this as unconstitutional. How is that possible, being that the people potentially being vetted are not covered under the constitution.

Educate me.

Their argument is probably based around the First Amendment. It guarantees freedom of religion, and the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment gives equal protection to all individuals from federal government actions. It�s difficult to square those with a policy which applies a ban to a number of Muslim-majority countries, while making exceptions for non-Muslims from those countries.

[so-tex]

Their argument is probably based around the First Amendment. It guarantees freedom of religion, and the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment gives equal protection to all individuals from federal government actions. It�s difficult to square those with a policy which applies a ban to a number of Muslim-majority countries, while making exceptions for non-Muslims from those countries.

It still wouldn't apply, since they're not Americans.

[so-tex]

I think it's an improvement...

I do as well.
From what I've read, it seems we want to make sure that these potential immigrants are okay with gays, ltbg etc.

[Jtbny]

It still wouldn't apply, since they're not Americans.

It does. You don't have to be a a citizen to enjoy the protections under the constitution. The founders were smart to use the word people and not citizen.

[7Seconds]

It still wouldn't apply, since they're not Americans.

They don't have to be Americans. For essentially all purposes, it is definite a non-citizen physically present in and subject to the laws of the United States has the same constitutional rights of a citizen of the United States. Since they are not physically here the argument is the Constitution does not define the rights of the citizens. It defines the limits of government. The government is prohibited from violating any of the restrictions placed on it by the Constitution, under any circumstances. The government doesn�t afford rights. Rights are inherent in humans.

Should be interesting.

[so-tex]

It does. You don't have to be a a citizen to enjoy the protections under the constitution. The founders were smart to use the word people and not citizen.

True, but we just can't give people a free ride into our country. Look at the waiting list from people all over the world waiting for their citizenship. It's a tedious process, and if I remember correctly, they used to have to take a citizenship test. Idk if they still do.
And yes, you don't have to be a citizen to enjoy our protection. That means foreign visitors can't be unfairly treated. Citizenship is a different ball of wax I would think.

[so-tex]

They don't have to be Americans. For essentially all purposes, it is definite a non-citizen physically present in and subject to the laws of the United States has the same constitutional rights of a citizen of the United States. Since they are not physically here the argument is the Constitution does not define the rights of the citizens. It defines the limits of government. The government is prohibited from violating any of the restrictions placed on it by the Constitution, under any circumstances. The government doesn�t afford rights. Rights are inherent in humans.

Should be interesting.

Good point.

[Fishman15]

This is all going to end well.

I don't have the answers, but I sure don't like the path we're on.

I don't have all the right answers either. I don't think any of us do. Who could have predicted we would be in the position we are in now. I do like the dome idea though. We could all be bubble boys...

[whatevergirl]

What I don't get, is if people are coming to the US with the right paperwork, etc...why are they being vetted/stopped at the airports?

I'm against profiling, etc, but at that same time...look what happened recently with Germany and France. When you just have nothing in place, and no precautions, that could happen in the US. I don't know the solution to this, and not sure this is the main step to take when trying to deal with ISIS and other terrorists.

[Jtbny]

True, but we just can't give people a free ride into our country. Look at the waiting list from people all over the world waiting for their citizenship. It's a tedious process, and if I remember correctly, they used to have to take a citizenship test. Idk if they still do.
And yes, you don't have to be a citizen to enjoy our protection. That means foreign visitors can't be unfairly treated. Citizenship is a different ball of wax I would think.

I agree about a free ride into the country. What I don't like is stopping two people at JFK who were returning to the country and already had their visas. One of the men worked w/ the U.S military for ten years as well. Also, the list of countries is a joke. Any list like this that doesn't include Saudi or Pakistan is incomplete. I mean if we are going this route lets not half-ass it. lets just go full potato.

[ljimd]

An unfortunate fact is, there are people in this world who
wish us ill will. Regardless their motivations, religious or
otherwise, it is prudent to attempt to determine those
intentions.

If it slows down or denies entry, so be it.


Edit: totally agree with adding Saudi to the list

[so-tex]

I agree about a free ride into the country. What I don't like is stopping two people at La Guardia who were returning to the country and already had their visas. One of the men worked w/ the U.S military for ten years as well. Also, the list of countries is a joke. Any list like this that doesn't include Saudi or Pakistan is incomplete. I mean if we are going this route lets not half-ass it. lets just go full potato.

Totally agree with you.

[DuracellBunny]

I'm hearing it reported that people with dual nationality/citizenship are being stopped at the gate. Specifically Iranian Americans on the report I heard, and that governors and congressmen are at some airports going apesh!t.

[Iceman1800]

It's interesting that Trump didn't include countries that he has business interests in as part of his ban...

[Brackneyc]

It's interesting that Trump didn't include countries that he has business interests in as part of his ban...

No presudent has included those nations when the topic of terrorism comes up. At least not publicly.

[Old-Time-Lifter]

My understanding as to why Saudi Arabia isn't on the list is because they aren't letting refuges in their country to begin with.

Though they certainly are a major source of terrorism.

[Karl_Hungus]

Their argument is probably based around the First Amendment. It guarantees freedom of religion, and the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment gives equal protection to all individuals from federal government actions. It�s difficult to square those with a policy which applies a ban to a number of Muslim-majority countries, while making exceptions for non-Muslims from those countries.

Perhaps a solution is uniform immigration restriction from these countries.

[BecomingSmaller]

I'm really disappointed, I thought it was some kinky extreme PETTING!

[Corbi]

I agree about a free ride into the country. What I don't like is stopping two people at JFK who were returning to the country and already had their visas. One of the men worked w/ the U.S military for ten years as well. Also, the list of countries is a joke. Any list like this that doesn't include Saudi or Pakistan is incomplete. I mean if we are going this route lets not half-ass it. lets just go full potato.

I agree with you, I am fine with stopping/slowing the flow of refugees until we get a handle on this but for those who already have visas I would assume have been vetted. And not including pakistan or Saudi is a screw up.

[7Seconds]

Perhaps a solution is uniform immigration restriction from these countries.

Seems like it would still be illegal due to the Immigration Act of 1965. Although it doesn't really seem to cover refugees. I am not sure.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immi...ty_Act_of_1965

[7Seconds]

I agree about a free ride into the country. What I don't like is stopping two people at JFK who were returning to the country and already had their visas. One of the men worked w/ the U.S military for ten years as well. Also, the list of countries is a joke. Any list like this that doesn't include Saudi or Pakistan is incomplete. I mean if we are going this route lets not half-ass it. lets just go full potato.

The list of countries does have one thing in common; they are all countries we bombed. It's almost like us bombing countries promotes terrorism and destabilizes regions.

[paolo59]

It's a bit ugly. Certainly uncomfortable and unsettling for refugees seeking to enter the United States, and others with apparent documentation to do so. The immigration situation, undocumented aliens, will be another equally difficult problem to deal with. It is impossible to please everyone. There are some really perplexing and serious issues to be dealt with in the nation. It isn't going to be easy. For a fact, it's much easier to just sit back and do nothing. Let it ride. I don't think that is on the agenda.

[acrawlingchaos]

I found it curious that one news organization reported this as unconstitutional. How is that possible, being that the people potentially being vetted are not covered under the constitution.

Educate me.

I understand your point, but some of those that are being detained or even turned away where those who put themselves at risk being interpreters for our military forces in a war zone, and IMO more deserving if not more so than those Americans who have never left our borders.