SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Federal lawmakers are investigating how a former Iraqi insurgent fighter was able to lie about his identity and still get through America's 'extreme' vetting process.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions to find out why the terror suspect's pending arrest was allegedly spiked just over a week before the election. Trump had run on a tough-on-terror platform and had been critical of President Obama's refugee policy.
"When [Joint Terrorism Task Force] and the U.S. Attorney's office for the Western District of Texas sought to prosecute this refugee, the local law enforcement and prosecutors allegedly 'met resistance' from officials within the National Security Division's Counter Terrorism section in Washington DC," Committee chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said in a March 6 letter to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:11PM (18 children)
Yeeeeah, if anything, it felt like a swipe at the previous administration, as the usual reply to "we need EXTREEEEME vetting" is "we already have it". The vibe I get here is "no we don't", with the word "extreme" in scare-quotes and everything. Of course, I haven't RTFA, so I may be mistaken and your silly persecution complex may be justified.
(A single example of someone not caught by the byzantine, multi-year, soul-draining ordeal you call "vetting process" is, of course, useless. No matter how EXTREEEEME you vet, someone will sneak in.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @04:43PM (17 children)
Without defining how the new vetting would be more "extreme" than before, there is little use in comparing administrations and turning this into a partisan debate.
Bad guys lie and cheat; that's not news.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:34PM (11 children)
Indeed. can someone--anyone--tell me what "extreme vetting" means to them in the context of what Trump promised to the voters. AIUI, a refugee has to be first screened by the UNHCR before they are passed on the the US Dept of State for consideration for resettlement in the USA. Then the real fun begins for the prospective resettled refugee. They have to undergo vetting by something like half a dozen US TLAs, which includes at least half a dozen interviews, biometric scans, fingerprinting, criminal background checks, etc. The entire process typically takes 18 to 24 months, and that is if everything goes smoothly; I wouldn't doubt that by the end of the process they are on a first name basis with their case managers. Frankly, it looks to me like refugees coming to the USA undergo more rigorous screening than I did to get my security clearance to work for the US DoD. So, can anyone tell me what more the vetting process should include to make it "extreme", other than attaching a cute little buzzword onto the process?
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:17PM (10 children)
tell me what "extreme vetting" means to them in the context of what Trump promised to the voters.
An unconstitutional ban on Muslims entering the country.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:40PM (7 children)
Some constitutional rights apply to all people, some to people on US soil, and some to US citizens. (read carefully; check supreme court decisions)
There is probably no right to enter. Supposing there is, the constitution has a change process.
It's wishful thinking to imagine that importing the 3rd-world won't make us a 3rd-world country. A country is more than a chunk of land with some laws. Culture matters. When your culture involves tossing LGBT off of buildings and stoning women who report rape with less than 4 witnesses, you don't belong in the civilized world. These people mostly don't integrate. Rape culture is real... just not in the USA unless we invite it to immigrate.
Proper vetting: Eat a bacon cheeseburger while we watch your brain in an MRI scanner or SQUID.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:42PM (5 children)
The first ban was already ruled unconstitutional.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:55PM (2 children)
By the (frequently overruled) clowns of the 9th circuit.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @03:33AM (1 child)
> By the (frequently overruled) clowns of the 9th circuit.
Error. Yet another right-wing half-truth.
The 9th circuit is not over-ruled any more than other circuits.
They just handle more cases than the other circuits, so they have more cases that end up in front of the SCOTUS.
So yes it is true that in absolute numbers they are the most over-ruled. But in terms of percentage of decisions they are not.
And its the latter that matters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @04:13AM
I'm surprised you didn't also point out that the first ban was, in fact, not (yet) ruled unconstitutional by the 9th circuit. No such ruling has yet to be made. The 9th circuit kept the temporary restraining order imposed by Judge James Robart of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington in place. At most this means that the 9th circuit court agrees with Judge Robart that the plaintiffs are likely to win their case and that continuing the travel ban would cause irreparable harm if allowed to continue. A ruling on constitutionality has not yet been made.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @10:16PM (1 child)
Yep
It's absolutely embarrassing and shameful to be an American these days. Absolutely disgusting for this trash to gain power.
More like the land of the Amerinazis now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Thursday March 09 2017, @10:53PM
I love America now more than ever. Enjoy the grapes, they can be sour sometimes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @01:49AM
Well, true enough, as far as that goes.
In that case, maybe we should take the Statue of Liberty down and give it back to France? Perhaps they could find a country more worthy? And while we are at it, that plaque with the poem by Emma Lazarus should be taken down too. We don't do "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore" any more. I suppose many Americans just see that as too dangerous now.
Ironically, this has been said about most immigration waves coming to America. It was said about Germans back a little over a century ago; it was said about the Irish; it was said about the Japanese and Chinese; it was said about Italians and Jews. In fact, it's hard to think of any immigration wave that was not derided as people who "mostly don't integrate". Those past waves of immigrants are the ones who built this country and made it what it is today. Now imagine how impoverished our nation and our culture would be if all these other waves of immigrants had not been allowed in. This is what is at stake.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @04:02AM (1 child)
Since I always post as AC, unfortunately I can't mod you up +1, Funny. But I am still waiting for a (hopefully less glib) answer to my question. What more should (or can) be done that would make an already very arduous process more "extreme", in the sense of making it more rigorous (i.e., better)? I have yet to see any concrete proposals on how the process could be improved to make us safer here at home.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday March 10 2017, @05:44AM
Well they could start by banning immigration from countries that have actually committed terrorist acts on US soil. There's also the other AC who wants to ban immigrants from countries that toss people from buildings. But that would be bad for business, especially Trump's businesses.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:56PM (4 children)
First, the pre-screening: eat a bacon cheeseburger without hesitation
Second, get into the brain scanner. We show video of various things and see how your brain reacts. Some things: rabbi, imam, woman in burka, woman in bikini, man in bikini, dog, pig, cow, sheep, goat, a mixed group of unrelated men and women in beachwear, men kissing, koran, bible...
If you react like a member of any religious/ethnic/linguistic/caste/class group that tends to isolate itself when in western society, you're out. Go away.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @08:25PM (2 children)
OK, so you are not a fan of the first Amendment. So, tell us, which of the other amendments would you like to see ripped out of the bill of rights? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you see the second amendment as sacrosanct. But all those others...not so much. More and more, I am becoming convinced that there are no more true patriots left in this country. Really, I'm surrounded by a bunch of closeted fascists who would just love to enslave all those around them. And they likely see it as the ultimate blessed utopia...for themselves. I guess America really does deserve Donald Trump after all.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @09:05PM (1 child)
Suppose your religion requires you to toss virgins into volcanos. We don't let you do this, even though it limits your religious expression.
The same goes for tossing homosexuals off of buildings, stoning women who get raped but don't have at least 4 male witnesses, killing people who leave your faith, and killing your own daughter if she spends time with boys.
People who desire these things will lie about it. This is in fact explicitly part of their faith. Worse yet, people who have weak faith (not into the above horrors) frequently have kids who go all in.
Now, back to the limits of the 1st amendment. The supreme court has held that national security can take priority. This is such a case. It should also be obvious that a "faith" which fundamentally rejects our constitution is undeserving of constitutional protection.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @01:24AM
Look, you blithering fuckwit, the original premise was to demand that people "eat a bacon cheeseburger without hesitation" at the border in order to prove that they are not a threat. Call me weird, but I really don't think that abstaining from eating pork is a danger to me personally. On the matters of throwing virgins into volcanoes, tossing homosexuals off of buildings, stoning women who have been raped, et al., I'm right there with you. And you might be surprised to learn that quite a few muslims agree too. But just believing and practicing things different from what you believe and practice is not doing you any harm. It looks to me like you are demanding that anyone who comes into the country must do things exactly the way you do and believe exactly what you believe. This quite clearly makes you a fascist. Get help to cure whatever it is that is ailing you. Do it now.
Oh, good grief! Exactly why are you demanding others respect the constitution when not even you respect it? Physician, heal thyself!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @12:05AM
If you react like a member of any religious/ethnic/linguistic/caste/class group that tends to isolate itself when in western society, you're out. Go away.
Guess we'll be needing a new Vice President, then, eh?