Federal Judge momentarily suspends Immigration Executive Order

[Aerion Brightflame]

I posted in the admin thread, but it also merits it's own thread for discussion.

 

http://www.reuters.c...SKBN15I32G?il=0

 

http://www.cnbc.com/...wide-basis.html

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38864253

 

I believe a Federal Judge in Seattle has issued a temporary restraining order on the the Immigration Executive Order, suspending most of it's function, for one week. I expect a continued series of challenges like this against the order that may leave it non-functioning until it is redefined to be a manner that would appear more consititutional. The ban applies nationally, so the state of things is back to how it was before the order.

 

For the most part this is a good test as to whether or not one believes in the full system of checks and balances in place in the US political system. It has always been within the power of the judicial branch to do this kind of thing, the question is, should it be done? And should the powers of the executive branch be limited if they aim to act around the limitations of there branch, or within the juristriction of the other two?

 

EDIT: Added BBC source.

[mido9]

Based on what? AFAIK there's nothing stopping it from being passed, they can suspend it to review it for a week if they want but I think it will just turn up nothing.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Based on what? AFAIK there's nothing stopping it from being passed, they can suspend it to review it for a week if they want but I think it will just turn up nothing.

 

In general Trump's legal basis for suspending visa's and such I believe is the 1952 Immigration and Nationality act (Which curiously president Truman at the time vetoed because he felt it was un-American and discriminatory') which gives legal precident for banning those 'suspected subversives' from entering the US, and was used to mostly prevent suspected Communists entering the country. In part before this was a set of national quota's for different nations, which restricted numbers of people from different regions of the world to enter the US.

 

The act was largely superseeded by the act of 1965 however, outright abolishing these quotas, and I believe Congres at the time stated quite clearly ;no person could 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' which undermines the order afterwards.

 

Some additionally argue that the EO loose interperation around Visa's and the like is a violation of the 5th Ammendments due process requirement. Because people were stripped of rights to enter the nation without any form of due process. Additionally some question the logic of targeting those 7 countries given some of the terror justifications usedm including the actual presiding Judge:

 

https://twitter.com/sydbrownstone/status/827657537482731521 - A brief extract of speech between the Judge and the opposing counsel.

 

Judge Robart asks DOJ's Bennet how many arrests of foreign nationals there have been from the 7 countries since 9/11.

She [bennett] says she doesn't know.

Judge Robart says "None as I can tell". He [Judge Robart] continues: "You're here arguing on behalf of someone who says we have to protect the US from these individuals coming from these countries, and there's no support for that".

DOJ's Bennett says that POTUS gets to make the call and the court doesn't get "to look behind those determinations".

Judge Robart says that he's looking to see if the immigration order is "rationally based", he [Judge Robart] says "I have to find facts as opposed to fiction".

 

You even have the now former Attorney General, Sally Yates, who refused to support the order not on moral grounds, but because she felt felt it was impossible to defend from a legal perspective. Which would indicate that there is a lot of s*** at fault with order. A call supported by 70 former assisant US attorneys.

 

I believe the suspension is based on them refuting the legality of the order in the first place because of some of the above.

[Tentacruel]

Good.  Checks and balances. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I already linked it in the admin thread last night

 

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000860

 

It'll be overturned before the plane lands. Anyway, seeing that a federal judge in Boston cleared it at the same time this clown blocked it, you'll see a swift and just reinstatedment of the order

 

There's a reason most of the gulf nations support the EO and have their own form of it in place.

 

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-in-major-blow-to-aclu-judge-finds-trump-immigration-ban-doesnt-discriminate-against-muslims/

[Aerion Brightflame]

But the Boston Judge turned down it as being discriminatory against Muslims, which is a seperate issue to it being illegal or unconstutional or it being discriminatory against people due to place of birth rather than actual risk. The order beating one of those things does not automatically clear it on the others, because there is immense room for such claims within just the things I mentioned to Mido.

 

I also question the need to call a federal judge a clown. It's pety, like Trump's tweet in response to the TRO (Ignoring the whole 'I don't repsect the powers of the judicial branch' that it's implying): https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827867311054974976 

 

The duty of the judge is to uphold the consitution, not the presidents will. If the presidents will happens to be unconsitituional, they can and should intervene, as is the power of there branch. As such one choosing to do so, in his legal opinion, shouldn't be cause to try and discredit the man.

 

It's just a TRO; If the EO is actually constitutional, with no flaw, then after the hearing or whatever this gets taken forwards towards it will be dismissed entirely. But given the lack of clarity on the order in the first place, and even the lack of clarity given to those enforcing the order (And evidence of wildly different numbers of plantiffs being given to different cases covering the same thing), one cannot be suprised that the Judicial Branch calls for a temporary halt.

 

Even if it was unconsitutional, it alone wouldn't be enough to sink the EO I believe, asumming one could find cause of a threat to do so. But the transcript from the Judge seems to imply that they were incapable of doing so; If they cannot prove that those from that region of the world are a threat, as is the basis of the entire order, and the entire immigration policy (That letting these people into the US endangers it) why the hell should the order be in place? There's no reason to suggest it's nessecary if one cannot prove reasonable threat.

[cr47t]

About the transcript:
 

DOJ's Bennett says that POTUS gets to make the call and the court doesn't get "to look behind those determinations".

I can't tell for sure but that seems to be implying that because it (the executive order) came from the President, the judicial branch should not question it. If that is the intended implication that should be raising alarms for the people of this coutnry.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

But the Boston Judge turned down it as being discriminatory against Muslims, which is a seperate issue to it being illegal or unconstutional or it being discriminatory against people due to place of birth rather than actual risk. The order beating one of those things does not automatically clear it on the others, because there is immense room for such claims within just the things I mentioned to Mido.

 

I also question the need to call a federal judge a clown. It's pety, like Trump's tweet in response to the TRO (Ignoring the whole 'I don't repsect the powers of the judicial branch' that it's implying): https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827867311054974976 

 

The duty of the judge is to uphold the consitution, not the presidents will. If the presidents will happens to be unconsitituional, they can and should intervene, as is the power of there branch. As such one choosing to do so, in his legal opinion, shouldn't be cause to try and discredit the man.

 

It's just a TRO; If the EO is actually constitutional, with no flaw, then after the hearing or whatever this gets taken forwards towards it will be dismissed entirely. But given the lack of clarity on the order in the first place, and even the lack of clarity given to those enforcing the order (And evidence of wildly different numbers of plantiffs being given to different cases covering the same thing), one cannot be suprised that the Judicial Branch calls for a temporary halt.

See that's the problem. The boston judge ruled that it would not discriminate based on religion. That removes the conflict with the 1st amendment. At that point, this is judicial overreach because the president has power to limit immigration otherwise.

 

 

As the Trump administration noted. The reason why I called him a clown isn't because I disagree with his ruling (I obv do), but because the TRO has no funking dates! It's a Preliminary injunction and hence it's appealable. The judge was so concerned being an activist he forgot to put in the funking expiration dates. Hell, the plot thickens. The Washington AG, in proposed order, listed expiration dates. The judge went off deep end and wrote his own bullshit.

 

He just made this so much easier for Sessions and the acting AG overturn this

About the transcript:

 

I can't tell for sure but that seems to be implying that because it (the executive order) came from the President, the judicial branch should not question it. If that is the intended implication that should be raising alarms for the people of this coutnry.

No lol, the order was ruled not to violate the 1st amendment. At that point, this is a Judicial overreach turning over an existing law without any clear case in the constitution to do so. It doesn't matter if they've not killed anyone here, they've certainly done damage in Europe and most of their neighboring countries like Kuwait and SA restrict them for a reason. 

[Dad]

I'm fine with this having a thread of its own, but you know this doesn't belong in General.  Moving it to Debates.

[Aerion Brightflame]

But I've already highlighted other cases where it goes against existing law. Lack of due notice on the order interfers with at least one other clause within same set of statutes that the Press statement quotes. Then there's the potential 5th ammendment violation. But if the law is that simple (I doubt it is, the law is rarely simple) then any future orders will be dismissed in short order. One would have thought though if the defence was really that simple the prosecutor in the case would have raised it and the case would have been thrown out however.

 

Remember what I said about clarity? Next time, say why he's a clown, don't assume one would find it looking through legal documents. Takes like 10s of your time, and makes things easier for everyone.

 

And I don't think a TRO is overturning an existing law, simply suspending the EO?

 

 

I'm fine with this having a thread of its own, but you know this doesn't belong in General.  Moving it to Debates.

 

Fair enough. I assumed because it was around a current news article rather than a specific talking point it was more suited for general. But i will bare that in mind for future.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

But I've already highlighted other cases where it goes against existing law. Lack of due notice on the order interfers with at least one other clause within same set of statutes that the Press statement quotes. Then there's the potential 5th ammendment violation. But if the law is that simple (I doubt it is, the law is rarely simple) then any future orders will be dismissed in short order. One would have thought though if the defence was really that simple the prosecutor in the case would have raised it and the case would have been thrown out however.

 

Remember what I said about clarity? Next time, say why he's a clown, don't assume one would find it looking through legal documents. Takes like 10s of your time, and makes things easier for everyone.

 

And I don't think a TRO is overturning an existing law, simply suspending the EO?

 

 

 

Fair enough. I assumed because it was around a current news article rather than a specific talking point it was more suited for general. But i will bare that in mind for future.

By putting a halt on enforcement of the order, he's letting the people in who the order wanted to stop. 

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

 

There was a compelling case made in Boston using the foreign attacks and the fact the list was made under Obama given nat sec threats that admin found. The person defending the EO in Seattle was incompetent. 

[cr47t]

By putting a halt on enforcement of the order, he's letting the people in who the order wanted to stop. 

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

 

There was a compelling case made in Boston using the foreign attacks and the fact the list was made under Obama given nat sec threats that admin found. The person defending the EO in Seattle was incompetent. 

 

Well it all comes down to what and when is considered "public danger". What does it mean to you, seeing as you are using it as a way to back the executive order?

[Aerion Brightflame]

By putting a halt on enforcement of the order, he's letting the people in who the order wanted to stop. 

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

 

There was a compelling case made in Boston using the foreign attacks and the fact the list was made under Obama given nat sec threats that admin found. The person defending the EO in Seattle was incompetent. 

 

And we have proof that the Judge looked for precisely that; risk of public endangerment,

 

https://twitter.com/sydbrownstone/status/827657537482731521 - A brief extract of speech between the Judge and the opposing counsel.

 

Judge Robart asks DOJ's Bennet how many arrests of foreign nationals there have been from the 7 countries since 9/11.

She [bennett] says she doesn't know.

Judge Robart says "None as I can tell". He [Judge Robart] continues: "You're here arguing on behalf of someone who says we have to protect the US from these individuals coming from these countries, and there's no support for that".

DOJ's Bennett says that POTUS gets to make the call and the court doesn't get "to look behind those determinations".

Judge Robart says that he's looking to see if the immigration order is "rationally based", he [Judge Robart] says "I have to find facts as opposed to fiction".

 

We can assume from this that the DOJ were incapable of providing any indication of public threat that was substantial enough to allow the EO to pass without issue.

 

Incompetance here on the behalf of the prosecution would not be an excuse to overturn the decision, one would still have to provide this proof of threat to the public. If the Boston case is compelling, it can be used at the next trial (Or the appeal) over this issue or what have you. As it stands, they did not prove threat which means that exception you quoted does not apply in this decision.

 

For all we know the exact same arguments as the Boston case could have been made but the Judge in his discretion found that lacking.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

And we have proof that the Judge looked for precisely that; risk of public endangerment,

 

 

We can assume from this that the DOJ were incapable of providing any indication of public threat that was substantial enough to allow the EO to pass without issue.

 

Incompetance here on the behalf of the prosecution would not be an excuse to overturn the decision, one would still have to provide this proof of threat to the public. If the Boston case is compelling, it can be used at the next trial (Or the appeal) over this issue or what have you. As it stands, they did not prove threat which means that exception you quoted does not apply in this decision.

 

For all we know the exact same arguments as the Boston case could have been made but the Judge in his discretion found that lacking.

We cannot actually. 

 

There were actually two. Two Iraqi men were attempted to secure a bombing ploy in Ohio, which is why President Obama put the immigration halt in place for six months in the first place.

 

I agree, the incompetence of the DoJ is not a reason to overturn the case. But it's enough of a reason to slow roll the enforcement and make sure we can deport anyone who gets on that plane as soon as they hit American soil. The order would force the DHS to start issuing visas again, but it says nothing about the rate that one would have to do so. WH will and should drag their feet. This is a national sovereignty issue

[Aerion Brightflame]

We cannot actually. 

 

There were actually two. Two Iraqi men were attempted to secure a bombing ploy in Ohio, which is why President Obama put the immigration halt in place for six months in the first place.

 

I agree, the incompetence of the DoJ is not a reason to overturn the case. But it's enough of a reason to slow roll the enforcement and make sure we can deport anyone who gets on that plane as soon as they hit American soil. The order would force the DHS to start issuing visas again, but it says nothing about the rate that one would have to do so. WH will and should drag their feet. This is a national sovereignty issue

Why can we not assume that conclusion from the quote given that it seems to cover the exact grounds we are talking about

 

I know about the Obama case, but it's actually a mark against this EO because Obama only managed to justify this due to an actual evidenced failing of the immigration system. And even then he only suspended it from the one country that actual got terrorists through the border. It makes Trump banning it from 7 nations when there is no evidence of them actually getting terrorists through the border in the US, and as such it represents a huge overleap that presumably weakens the precident. Hell the Obama order wasn't even as extreme as this one because as far as I can recall it didn't ban green card holders or dual nationals and the like, compared to the initial insistance made by Bannon that it was the case. (I know it isn't the case now, but the lack of initial clarity in the order will stand against it I imagine in a court of law)

 

Also one shouldn't talk about the order in the future tense; It's in effect now, the US immigration service is functioning as it was two weeks ago. The state department and the department of Homeland Security are functioning as they used to. A slow roll would ignore the point of the TRO in the first place because the TRO is based around the idea that the EO is illegal, and as such even a slow roll of it would be allowing the illegality to perpetuate.

 

On a side note, if the initial order hadn't stretched as far as it did there'd probably be far less of a legal challenge.

 

EDIT: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827981079042805761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Trump tweets once again, saying 'What is our country coming too if a judge can halt a homeland security ban' which again to me highlights a lack of understanding as to how the judicial branch actual works.

[Wahrheit]

State Department officially reversed position.

 

http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-immigration-state-idINKBN15J0M5

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Why can we not assume that conclusion from the quote given that it seems to cover the exact grounds we are talking about

 

I know about the Obama case, but it's actually a mark against this EO because Obama only managed to justify this due to an actual evidenced failing of the immigration system. And even then he only suspended it from the one country that actual got terrorists through the border. It makes Trump banning it from 7 nations when there is no evidence of them actually getting terrorists through the border in the US, and as such it represents a huge overleap that presumably weakens the precident. Hell the Obama order wasn't even as extreme as this one because as far as I can recall it didn't ban green card holders or dual nationals and the like, compared to the initial insistance made by Bannon that it was the case. (I know it isn't the case now, but the lack of initial clarity in the order will stand against it I imagine in a court of law)

 

Also one shouldn't talk about the order in the future tense; It's in effect now, the US immigration service is functioning as it was two weeks ago. The state department and the department of Homeland Security are functioning as they used to. A slow roll would ignore the point of the TRO in the first place because the TRO is based around the idea that the EO is illegal, and as such even a slow roll of it would be allowing the illegality to perpetuate.

 

On a side note, if the initial order hadn't stretched as far as it did there'd probably be far less of a legal challenge.

The point of the TRO, as shoddly crafted as it was, was to put a temporary halt on the current EO. It does not imply having to go back to the status quo. POTUS should not back down here and should do the bare minimum he legally can. Which is to drag your feet and issue a new EO tomorrow that does the same thing really

State Department officially reversed position.

 

http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-immigration-state-idINKBN15J0M5

Correct, but "Those individuals with visas that were not physically canceled may now travel if the visa is otherwise valid."

 

We canceled close to 60k? 60k less of them in the nation now. Slow role processing of any further visas. Drag feet and don't let a single one into the US.

 

Edit:

 

Disappointing really. Trump admin dropped the ball. They should have had State working overtime to physically cancel visas. Could have easily done more than 60k cancellations in the week they had. It was only a matter of time before an activist judge took a sheet on the EO. No foresight. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

I don't think they could get away with a deliberate slowdown. There would probably be an argument for contempt of court, which the judge could then enact and I don't think the state department wants to get into a pissing match with federal judges. Frankly I don't think anyone wants to get into a pissing match with a judge.

 

There's also nothing they could do to stop people getting in once the TRO was in place. Because iirc the EO didn't suspend the previously issued visa's, they just kept people from being able to use them as they should be able to. If they'd actually revoked visa's and green cards the order wouldn't have lasted this long as it stands. As such, there's little the state department could do to keep them from actually coming in because they had already been issued visa's.

 

Lack of foresight seems to be a common theme as of late with this order. Take the various conflicting mesages from the start of it.

[a bad post]

We cannot actually. 

 

There were actually two. Two Iraqi men were attempted to secure a bombing ploy in Ohio, which is why President Obama put the immigration halt in place for six months in the first place.

 

I agree, the incompetence of the DoJ is not a reason to overturn the case. But it's enough of a reason to slow roll the enforcement and make sure we can deport anyone who gets on that plane as soon as they hit American soil. The order would force the DHS to start issuing visas again, but it says nothing about the rate that one would have to do so. WH will and should drag their feet. This is a national sovereignty issue

This is not a sovereignty issue, this is very obvious discrimination. There are people who sold everything to come here, people who helped this country as translators being turned away because of this executive order. I cannot believe that you have the audacity to jabroni and moan about how Obama is deporting illegal Cubans, but then praise Trump for deporting people who jumped through every legal loophole our mess of an immigration system has. 

 

Do you even know how the process for refugees to come to this country works? These people are not a threat. From 1975 to today there have been no American citizens has been killed by a terrorist from any of the seven countries covered by the ban.  

 

For the love of god Winter if you won't listen to me, at least listen to the conservative think tank

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/five-reasons-congress-should-repeal-trumps-immigrant-refugee-ban

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This is not a sovereignty issue, this is very obvious discrimination. There are people who sold everything to come here, people who helped this country as translators being turned away because of this executive order. I cannot believe that you have the audacity to jabroni and moan about how Obama is deporting illegal Cubans, but then praise Trump for deporting people who jumped through every legal loophole our mess of an immigration system has. 

 

Do you even know how the process for refugees to come to this country works? These people are not a threat. From 1975 to today there have been no American citizens has been killed by a terrorist from any of the seven countries covered by the ban.  

 

For the love of god Winter if you won't listen to me, at least listen to the conservative think tank

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/five-reasons-congress-should-repeal-trumps-immigrant-refugee-ban

Translators are not being denied admittance. Sec. Mattis saw to that. 

 

Nice false equivalency there. Have there been many cuban refugee attacks in Europe or Africa recently? Please educate me on your vast knowledge of cuban terrorist activites please :)

 

Anyway, you're really not understood me if you think I have any manner of respect for the non-Trump conservative wing of the GOP. This election was as much a repudiation of the import happy GOP as it was of the far left like you

[a bad post]

Translators are not being denied admittance. Sec. Mattis saw to that. 

 

Nice false equivalency there. Have there been many cuban refugee attacks in Europe or Africa recently? Please educate me on your vast knowledge of cuban terrorist activites please :)

 

Anyway, you're really not understood me if you think I have any manner of respect for the non-Trump conservative wing of the GOP. This election was as much a repudiation of the import happy GOP as it was of the far left like you

It's not a false equivalency when people from these countries pose no threat. There is a no chance that you will be killed by a refugee. Like I don't think you understand how refugee process works. It's actually the least efficient way for a jihadist to enter the country. You're more likely to be killed by a white supremacist than a refugee. In fact refugees are more likely to be killed by locals than you are to be killed by a refugee.  

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's not a false equivalency when people from these countries pose no threat. There is a no chance that you will be killed by a refugee. Like I don't think you understand how refugee process works. It's actually the least efficient way for a jihadist to enter the country. You're more likely to be killed by a white supremacist than a refugee. In fact refugees are more likely to be killed by locals than you are to be killed by a refugee.  

And you'd be wrong there too. There have been no attacks in the US to date thanks to the refugee process, but there have been plenty in Europe and the FBI director says we cannot vet the refugees fully. Our system is now flawless, just lucky so far. Build safe zones in the ME is a safer route

 

 

The major problem is those 7 nations are not giving us proper information about their citizens, contrasting something like Egypt where we have a friendly government in a stable situation who can tell us who is who and who's not a danger. We cannot do that with Iran

 

Full Transcript:

 

"FBI director James Comey said during a House Committee on Homeland Security hearing on Wednesday that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct thorough background checks on all of the 10,000 Syrian refugees that the Obama administration says will be allowed to come to the U.S.

 

“We can only query against that which we have collected,” Comey said in response to a line of questioning from Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson.

 

“And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them.”

 

More than 4 million Syrians have fled their homeland amid a brutal civil war. But many Middle Eastern countries have refused to accept refugees, putting the burden on Europe and the West. Under pressure to assist, President Obama approved a proposal to allow at least 10,000 refugees to settle. According to The New York Times, just over 1,800 have come to the U.S. so far.

 

But many have expressed concerns over allowing refugees from ISIS’ breeding ground to enter the country.

 

As Thompson, a Democrat, said, “a lot of us are concerned about whether you have enough information available to you to do an accurate vetting.”

 

Comey acknowledged that knowledge gap.

 

“You can only query what you’ve collected,” he reiterated.

 

He also acknowledged differences in the U.S.’s ability to screen Syrian refugees compared to how Iraqi refugees were vetted in the aftermath of the Iraq War.

 

“And with respect with Iraqi databases, we had far more because of our country’s work there for a decade,” he said.

 

“This is a different situation.”"

[a bad post]

 

And you'd be wrong there too. There have been no attacks in the US to date thanks to the refugee process, but there have been plenty in Europe and the FBI director says we cannot vet the refugees fully. Our system is now flawless, just lucky so far. Build safe zones in the ME is a safer route

 

 

The major problem is those 7 nations are not giving us proper information about their citizens, contrasting something like Egypt where we have a friendly government in a stable situation who can tell us who is who and who's not a danger. We cannot do that with Iran

 

Full Transcript:

 

"FBI director James Comey said during a House Committee on Homeland Security hearing on Wednesday that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct thorough background checks on all of the 10,000 Syrian refugees that the Obama administration says will be allowed to come to the U.S.

 

“We can only query against that which we have collected,” Comey said in response to a line of questioning from Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson.

 

“And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them.”

 

More than 4 million Syrians have fled their homeland amid a brutal civil war. But many Middle Eastern countries have refused to accept refugees, putting the burden on Europe and the West. Under pressure to assist, President Obama approved a proposal to allow at least 10,000 refugees to settle. According to The New York Times, just over 1,800 have come to the U.S. so far.

 

But many have expressed concerns over allowing refugees from ISIS’ breeding ground to enter the country.

 

As Thompson, a Democrat, said, “a lot of us are concerned about whether you have enough information available to you to do an accurate vetting.”

 

Comey acknowledged that knowledge gap.

 

“You can only query what you’ve collected,” he reiterated.

 

He also acknowledged differences in the U.S.’s ability to screen Syrian refugees compared to how Iraqi refugees were vetted in the aftermath of the Iraq War.

 

“And with respect with Iraqi databases, we had far more because of our country’s work there for a decade,” he said.

 

“This is a different situation.”"

 

Of course, you can't ever "fully vet" someone. There's always a possibility that anyone could be a terrorist in disguise. For all you know the person sitting next to you on the train could be a terrorist. The chances of someone being killed by a refugee is 1 in 3.6 billion. It's not luck that's kept it from happening in the US it's a statistical improbability. Also, there haven't been refugee terrorist attacks in Europe, that's just straight up false. 

[cr47t]

Translators are not being denied admittance. Sec. Mattis saw to that. 

 

Nice false equivalency there. Have there been many cuban refugee attacks in Europe or Africa recently? Please educate me on your vast knowledge of cuban terrorist activites please :)

 

Anyway, you're really not understood me if you think I have any manner of respect for the non-Trump conservative wing of the GOP. This election was as much a repudiation of the import happy GOP as it was of the far left like you

 

He didn't talk about in Europe or Africa. He talked about American citizens.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

He didn't talk about in Europe or Africa. He talked about American citizens.

Cr47t, not gonna lie man, your reading comprehension is a real enigma

 

I brought up Europe and Africa noting that refugees from these countries are engaging in terrorist activities there. 

 

If you read the entire post, you'd see where I'm trying to go

Of course, you can't ever "fully vet" someone. There's always a possibility that anyone could be a terrorist in disguise. For all you know the person sitting next to you on the train could be a terrorist. The chances of someone being killed by a refugee is 1 in 3.6 billion. It's not luck that's kept it from happening in the US it's a statistical improbability. Also, there haven't been refugee terrorist attacks in Europe, that's just straight up false. 

You cherry picked one line about not being able to fully vet and focus only on that.

 

Those nations refuse to cooperate with the US on getting files on people wanting to come here. And people from those nations have been involved in terrorist attacks lol. As for refugees, there has been an uptick on refugees engaged in rape and other crimes which some might consider terror. Certainly the victim would.

 

The point is these people do not assimilate well