Random Politics & Religion #18

Actually ....

Those countries are fine, well Lebanon and Afghanistan are kinda up in the air, but the others are a fairly stable government that isn't exporting terrorism to other countries. The countries that were named are countries who's governments are either exporting terrorists to other nations or who are in such a situation that terrorism is being exported de-facto. It's about which places are likely to have "refugees" or "students" that aren't either and instead are using our VISA system to sneak terrorists in.

Saudi doesn't export terrorism, they actually have extremely harsh penalties, their monarchy takes a very hard line stance against anarchists that like to blow things up. The terrorists that come from Saudi are ones that left and went to another country, usually one of those on that list, train there for awhile and then precede to the USA. The US already has a ban on those entering the USA who have recently traveled through one of those other nations but not on those who are from those other nations, so they were burning their passports and getting new ones instead. Egypt doesn't export terrorism and has a domestic system to hunt them down and kill them where found. People like to yell as Israel for it's practices against Islamic extremism but Egypt is even worse. Pakistan is also fairly benign when it comes to state support of terrorism. We could turn a hard eye on Turkey as they do support terrorism but in a way that wouldn't threaten the USA.

See this situation is FAR more complicated then "hurr durr he hatez deh muehslems peoplez gahh!!!" that the liberals are pushing.

In SK there is a huge foreigner worker population compromising Indonesians, Egyptians, Indians and even some Pakistanis. I happen to have many friends among those groups and let me tell you guys something, all the "moderate" Muslim countries are having problems with their own citizens traveling to Syria, Iran, Iraq and several of those countries who all happen to be on "that list". They get there and then immediately burn their former passports, join Isis and then arrange to have "new" passports issued with new names. They are "going to join their brothers in the fight" and it's scaring the moderate Islamic countries because their afraid these people will come back home and bring that extremist interpretation of Islam back with them. So they watch on who's doing this and if they come back they are summarily executed. I'm not making that up, those who do that are killed upon returning to their home countries because those nations don't want that extremist Islam spreading.

But hey the USA is supposed to open it's arms wide and accept the newly-trained bombers, err terrorists, err freedom fighters, umm "Liberal Approved Islamic Activists who are really Peaceful but Misunderstood".

I've literally never seen any sane person claim Trump is a mastermind of anything.

But, y'know, okay.

But hey he's an ignorant incompetent criminal mastermind who's already abusing his power to somehow make money. Just look at that hair, reason enough that he's a villain.

Pay no attention to nausi,

Justin Trudeau ‏@JustinTrudeau 34 minutes ago

Tonight, Canadians grieve for those killed in a cowardly attack on a mosque in Quebec City. My thoughts are with victims & their families.

That's what the next 8 years is going to be like, "but muh stereotypes"

You know I might pay more attention to vic if his catchphrase didn't remind me so much of the wizard of oz.

At least 5 killed and a dozen injured by 2-3 shooters. 2 suspects have been arrested and looking for a possible third one.

That's what the next 8 years is going to be like, "but muh stereotypes"

Saudi doesn't export terrorism, they actually have extremely harsh penalties, their monarchy takes a very hard line stance against anarchists that like to blow things up. The terrorists that come from Saudi are ones that left and went to another country, usually one of those on that list, train there for awhile and then precede to the USA. The US already has a ban on those entering the USA who have recently traveled through one of those other nations but not on those who are from those other nations, so they were burning their passports and getting new ones instead. Egypt doesn't export terrorism and has a domestic system to hunt them down and kill them where found. People like to yell as Israel for it's practices against Islamic extremism but Egypt is even worse. Pakistan is also fairly benign when it comes to state support of terrorism. We could turn a hard eye on Turkey as they do support terrorism but in a way that wouldn't threaten the USA.

So after digging around, yeah those seven countries were originally identified by Obama and his intelligence agency as the places most likely to sneak covert terrorist agents into the USA. President Obama never went forward with the proposed restrictions because the Democrat party was afraid of angering Muslim voters during the 2016 election season.

But hey he's an ignorant incompetent criminal mastermind who's already abusing his power to somehow make money. Just look at that hair, reason enough that he's a villain.

Seems like overreacting to me, since the kinks will likely be ironed out in short order. But hey, I'll take overreacting over something real rather than what's been going on with Trump for the past year or so.

By Benjamin Wittes Saturday, January 28, 2017, 10:58 PM

...

I think we can, without drawing any kind of equivalence between this order and Jim Crow, make a similar point here: Is this document a reasonable security measure? There are many areas in which security policy affects innocent lives but within which we do not presumptively say that the fact that some group of people faces disproportionate burdens renders that policy illegitimate. But if an entire religious grouping finds itself irrationally excluded from the country for no discernible security benefit following a lengthy campaign that overtly promised precisely such discrimination and exactly this sort of exclusion, if the relevant security agencies are excluded from the policy process, and if the question is then solemnly propounded whether the reasonable pursuit of security is the purpose, I think we ought to exercise one of the sovereign prerogatives of philosophers—that of laughter.

So yes, the order is malevolent. But here’s the thing: Many of these malevolent objectives were certainly achievable within the president’s lawful authority. The president’s power over refugee admissions is vast. His power to restrict visa issuances and entry of aliens to the United States is almost as wide. If the National Security Council had run a process of minimal competence, it could certainly have done a lot of stuff that folks like me, who care about refugees, would have gnashed our teeth over but which would have been solidly within the President’s authority. It could have all been implemented in a fashion that didn’t create endless litigation opportunities and didn’t cause enormous diplomatic friction.

How incompetent is this order? An immigration lawyer who works for the federal government wrote me today describing the quality of the work as “look[ing] like what an intern came up with over a lunch hour. . . . My take is that it is so poorly written that it’s hard to tell the impact." One of the reasons there’s so much chaos going on right now, in fact, is that nobody really knows what the order means on important points.

Some examples:

-Sec. 3(c) bans "entry"—which to the best of my knowledge has had no meaning in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) since the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996. Pre-IIRIRA law did use the term “entry,” but that is no longer the case.

-Section 3(g) talks of waivers on a case-by-case basis for people who are otherwise denied visas or other benefits under the immigration laws pursuant to the order. If a person needs a waiver to obtain "other benefits," does that mean that nationals of the seven countries are denied any benefit under the INA without a waiver, benefits such as naturalization, adjustment of status, or temporary protected status, even if they are already in the US?

-On its face, the order bars entry of both immigrants and non-immigrants. Again, as entry is not defined, and no one was given any time to draft implementing guidance or to clarify any points, it’s no surprise that Customs and Border Protection doesn’t seem to know how to apply it to lawful permanent residents (LPRs). The INA, at section 101(a)(13)(C), says that green card holders will not be deemed as seeking admission absent the factors enumerated therein—factors that do not include an executive order banning entry. Yet Reuters and The Guardian are both reporting quotations from a DHS public relations official, stating that the order does apply to LPRs. If that interpretation lasts, look for DHS to get its *** handed to it on a platter in federal court—a defeat it will richly deserve.

-Another big mystery is how the order will apply to asylees. Will people even be allowed to apply? On the one hand, the right to seek asylum is right there in the INA. But to apply for asylum, you have to be interviewed by a U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services officer to determine if you have a credible fear of persecution. Is that interview a benefit under the act? And if so, is it barred? From what I hear, right now anyway, Customs and Border Protection is not allowing anyone to claim asylum and have a credible fear interview.

I could go on, but you get the point. This order is a giant birthday present to the ACLU and other immigration litigators. And godspeed to them in going after it—which, as I noted above, they are already succeeding in doing.

But the incompetence actually does not stop at running a process that causes legal chaos and probable manhandling by the federal courts.

Consider, for example, the likely diplomatic fallout. In his first week in office, Trump has managed to create a major rift with Mexico, our peaceable neighbor to the south with whom we have no earthly reason to be spatting and haven’t had bilateral problem this serious since Pancho Villa. Trump’s new order seems certain to raise tensions with other countries too—and not just the countries whose nationals it targets (Iran, for example, which today restricted travel by U.S. nationals in retaliation; a great many U.S. citizens have family in Iran and now can’t visit them).

Because the order applies to dual nationals, where a person is a citizen of one restricted country and one non-restricted country, it appears to bar entry to hundreds of thousands of citizens of the U.K. and Canada—including a British Member of Parliament and a Canadian-Iranian consultant who lives in the United States but now can no longer safely travel to her business’s headquarters in Toronto without being blocked from reentry.

But hey he's an evil capitalistic *** who's out to destroy the world and cause Armageddon by sacrificing poor Muslim children. Just look at his hair, that's all the proof we need of his duplicity.

I mean wow, progressives are alternating describing him as a complete buffoon who will slip on a banana, accidentally launching nuclear holocaust, and only got elected because Racist Evil White European Males had the audacity to vote this election. And that he's a corporate overlord criminal mastermind who's secretly working for the iluminati and working on a secret world agenda to perpetually enslave us all.

Suha Abushamma, 26, is in the first year of an Internal Medicine residency program at the clinic and held an H-1B visa for workers in “specialty occupations.” Born and raised in Saudi Arabia, she holds a passport from Sudan, one of the seven countries from which Trump barred visitors.

On Saturday evening, Abushamma was forced to make a choice by Customs and Border Protection agents: She could leave the country voluntarily and withdraw her visa — or she could be forcibly deported, which would have prevented her from coming back to the United States for at least five years. The latter also would have resulted in a permanent black mark on her immigration record.

Those places can only exist in locations that the government is either too weak, too corrupt to stop them or actually supports and funds them.

It doesn't matter where they received training and where the terrorist boot camps are.

Not even two weeks in to the tRump illegitimate "administration" and the country is still split in two with a deep division. First it was protests of tRump, then protests to save the right to safe and legal abortions, now protests over the Muslim ban (which, if it were genuinely about cutting off access from terrorist hot spots, Saudi Arabia would have been affected as well)...
I foresee tRump's reign of terror ending one of two ways:
1. A combination impeachment and forced resignation, or...
2. tRump arrested on charges of treason.

More Americans have been killed by people like Dylann Roof than foreign terrorists since 9/11. The Boston marathon bombing was committed by two American citizens.

I hear this point being made a lot, and it's weak. In non-homogenous populations, you have to standardize the numbers with rates instead of counts.

For example, dogs kill more people in the U.S. than lions do. That doesn't mean that it would be safer to replace dogs with lions.

I hear this point being made a lot, and it's weak. In non-homogenous populations, you have to standardize the numbers with rates instead of counts.

For example, dogs kill more people in the U.S. than lions do. That doesn't mean that it would be safer to replace dogs with lions.

When is last time there was a foreign terrorist attack on US soil?

2001

When is the last time there was a domestic terrorist attack?

2016