A very good sentence

by on February 6, 2017 at 7:59 am in Current Affairs, Law, Travel | Permalink

“Unless the goal is to have an outright travel ban forever, and we should take the president at his word that that’s not the goal, then let’s just have calmer heads prevail and conduct the security analysis that was going to be conducted during these 90 days.”

Here is the WaPo article, citing Leon Fresco, the deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Immigration Litigation in Obama’s Justice Department.

1 Jan February 6, 2017 at 8:06 am
2 A Black Man February 6, 2017 at 10:23 am

It’s disturbing how you guys have turned immigration into virtue signalling. It says something about you and your coreligionists that you are so desperate for grace that you are willing to embrace the most absurd fads. The very people that are allegedly part of your coalition are the most damaged by wholesale immigration. The Muslims you want to import will be throwing guys like you off buildings at the first opportunity.

I’ve walked away from modern liberalism because it increasingly looks like a suicide cult.

3 Heorogar February 6, 2017 at 10:37 am

Bingo!

4 Decimal February 6, 2017 at 10:39 am

‘you guys’

5 Jan February 6, 2017 at 10:40 am

Can’t say I agree with that. Rather than virtue signaling, it’s a translation of policy to real world experience for people you might even know.

Also, I’m not sure what is being targeted here is “wholesale immigration” as if it is simply walking back an open borders policy.

6 aMichael February 6, 2017 at 11:04 am

Are you telling me that because there are terrorists and psychos among Muslims from war torn countries, we shouldn’t let any of them in? Doesn’t that seem extreme? You seem to think that this is what all of these refugees want to do. If so, why aren’t more people thrown off roofs in the U.S. by refugees?

7 A Black Man February 6, 2017 at 11:11 am

These infantile outbursts are why I increasingly find Progressives to be repugnant. You are a toddler throwing a hissy fit because the mean man hurt your feelings.

America has no moral obligation to admit anyone.

8 anon February 6, 2017 at 11:14 am

Please, make an adult argument that this is the one area where a new US President can save the most US lives.

Or admit it is empty fear mongring based on innumeracy.

9 Thomas February 6, 2017 at 11:19 am

The adult argument has been made over and over again. Pew research polls show what the majority of Muslims think about women and gays and the role of religion in governance. Your women’s march headlined an advocate for Sharia law. What possible response can you make to this?

10 TMC February 6, 2017 at 11:21 am

How about that it’s responsible to review the vetting process for a small number of countries that have been identified by both sides of the aisle as having poor vetting infrastructures associated with them.

11 anon February 6, 2017 at 11:39 am

TMC, it would have been responsible to review those policies, in detail, when starting public debate on them. It is way too late after being sworn in.

It would have been a good transition team effort. At the very latest.

12 aMichael February 6, 2017 at 11:44 am

Infantile outbursts?

Answer the question. Or are you afraid that your beliefs won’t hold up under scrutiny?

13 Jan February 6, 2017 at 12:16 pm

Thomas’ point is enlightening, and yes partially true. It reveals that the concerns of some (most?) opponents of immigration from these countries are basically cultural. For those of them who understand the evidence, their opposition is not fundamentally about thinking there are going to be lots of terror attacks if we let refugees in. It’s more about discomfort with being around others who have different beliefs or values than them–some of which really are profoundly different beliefs and values.

14 BC February 6, 2017 at 12:17 pm

@TMC, I believe that the point of the “very good sentence” is that, given the supposedly temporary nature of the travel ban, nothing about its suspension prevents the Trump administration from reviewing vetting processes. Sure, Trump might prefer that refugees be banned during the review. But, it’s strange to focus so many resources on fighting the court orders instead of focusing on reviewing vetting processes in the interim. The sentence before the very good sentence is, “It is perplexing why the government wouldn’t want to simply, at this point, maintain an orderly process in one court as opposed to fighting it out all across the country in different courts, and working its way to the Supreme Court.”

We’ve gone this far without a travel ban; we can survive another three months. In three months time, this will all be moot because Trump will have, supposedly, completed his security review.

15 aMichael February 6, 2017 at 12:29 pm

I can’t stop feeding the troll, but does American have a moral obligation to not kick people out who were born here as citizens? If so, why does it have this moral obligation? Why can’t we kick out the psychos among our citizenry?

16 chedolf February 6, 2017 at 2:02 pm

Jan: It’s more about discomfort with being around others who have different beliefs or values than them–some of which really are profoundly different beliefs and values.

We don’t want to import millions of new voters, with profoundly different beliefs and values, who will fight us at the ballot box for the rest of their lives. It’s at most only incidentally about “discomfort.”

The left cheers for diversity-enriched mass immigration because they want the demographic revolution to transform the political culture.

17 Jan February 6, 2017 at 3:13 pm

Chedof, thanks for injecting that realpolitik into this. I had forgotten that viewpoint. Sure many immigrants probably would become Dem voters, though the data I’ve seen is that the assumption that 1st and 2nd generation immigrants who eventually obtain citizenship and the right to vote are uniformly Dem voters is incorrect. I do think you have point in that Mitch McConnell and many legislators think primarily about elections first and other policy outcomes second. Immigrants overall hurt Republican prospects for electoral dominance. They apparently have very little confidence that they could appeal to many immigrants to vote for them.

I do want to point out, though, that neither me nor any friends of mine who generally support taking well-vetted immigrants and refugees (from any country) have ever talked about it in terms of it getting Dems more votes. That may be one effect, and it may be what is on the minds of some Dem politicians, but it’s not the THE reason we support it.

18 chedolf February 6, 2017 at 4:16 pm

Jan, they don’t vote “uniformly” Dem, just overwhelmingly.

Mitch McConnell and his crew think primarily about how donors will reward them during and after their terms in office. The elections are a means to an end. Look at how Eric Cantor got defenestrated right into a ridiculously lucrative investment banking job for which he had no professional qualifications. Trump demonstrated the obvious: There is massive restrictionist sentiment among GOP voters, but party leaders would rather take a loss than alienate cheap-labor donors.

I believe you and your friends don’t discuss the helpful (to you) political effects, but I see leftists nakedly celebrate this all the time.

19 Gabe Atthouse February 6, 2017 at 5:50 pm

@chedolf you obviously know absolutely nothing about investment banking if you think that understanding rules and regulations make one completely unqualified. Do you think they’re all quants or something? I imagine you’re terribly misinformed about what it is investment bankers do, and likely about the entire financial services industry. For an econ blog by a “libertarian”, there is staggering financial ignorance from the commentors.

20 chedolf February 7, 2017 at 3:12 pm

Cantor’s legal/policy staff understood rules and regs at least as well as he did, and none of them make $3.4 million at Moelis & Company. Please don’t pretend they hired him as a wonk.

21 8 February 6, 2017 at 12:11 pm

Should we admit more or less immigrants from groups that commit crimes at higher rates than average Americans?

You can’t stop at first-generation analysis either, since immigrants have children. Muslim refugees don’t really do much terror, if at all. Their children don’t throw gay people off roofs, but they do mow them down in gay clubs, blow them up during sporting events, shoot them at office parties and on Army bases. How much would you be willing to bet, and at what odds, that there will be zero Muslim terror attacks committed by refugees or their children over the next thirty years?

22 kevin February 6, 2017 at 1:53 pm

Your not using the same measuring stick! zero is very different then “higher rates than average Americans”

23 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 11:05 am

You know, it would help if people actually tried to understand what our current immigration laws actually are before they commented on the subject.

24 A Black Man February 6, 2017 at 11:07 am

It would help even more if you took your own advice.

25 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 11:15 am

As someone who actually immigrated from Canada, I am intimately familiar with our nations immigration laws.

26 WR February 6, 2017 at 11:17 am

+1

27 JWatts February 6, 2017 at 11:16 am

“You know, it would help if people actually tried to understand what our current immigration laws actually are before they commented on the subject.”

It’s a muddled mess. But Trump’s order, doesn’t significantly change our existing immigration laws. I can understand while people are against it and I can see why Trump issued it.

However, it’s mostly virtue signalling on both sides.

28 JWatts February 6, 2017 at 11:17 am

Meh, I shouldn’t have said “virtue” signalling. Which is just a buzz work.

It’s signalling on both sides.

29 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 11:26 am

No, it isn’t. There are real people, human beings, who were and are being harmed by this.
If you had a legal permanent resident’s visa and happened to be caught traveling while this happened, this sort of thing could easily have cost you at least money, if not your job, or prevented you from attending a conference or traveling for work of family reasons. There’s a reasons why universities are involved – they are trying to get grad students and professors back to their work and back to being able to attend conferences to present papers.

30 JWatts February 6, 2017 at 11:44 am

So, there are people effected by every Executive Order.

Obama signed the “Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts” on January 30th, 2009. Which was a implicit hand out to existing contractors for the US government.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-02-04/pdf/E9-2484.pdf

It essentially guaranteed their jobs by locking them in. It directly effected far more people for a far longer period, than the 90 day ban on travel from 7 countries.

How much outcry did it generate? Do you even remember it?

31 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 12:05 pm

That’s neither here nor there. An order that directly harms a class of people that other people often personally know is going to cause more outcry than one that benefits a class of workers discreetly.
There are people who had family, friends, and colleagues trapped in the international terminal of airports. It’s not “signaling” for them to show up to protest on behalf of the real human beings they actually know who are being harmed right now. It’s not “signaling” for friends of friends to show up. It’s not signaling for people who just know what they are going through, having been through the immigration system, to show up and protest. About 13.3 % of the US population is an immigrant. Most of those people will “get it” when they see a person on TV stuck in an airport terminal, being detained, because they come from the wrong country.
It’s called empathy.

32 WR February 6, 2017 at 12:22 pm

@Hazel Meade, funny how you and the Left aren’t crying for the Cubans, human as everyone else, who recently lost their special immigration status. It’s almost as if you don’t really care about the immigrants, it’s all about screwing over the White man.

33 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 12:37 pm

Who says I’m not crying for Cubans? I think Cubans should have the right to apply for asylum as much as anyone else from an oppressive regime, and indeed I think our asylum process is probably too restrictive. If it were up to me, immigration would be vastly easier for everyone.

34 JWatts February 6, 2017 at 1:28 pm

” It’s not “signaling” for them to show up to protest on behalf of the real human beings they actually know who are being harmed right now.”

Hazel Meade, don’t be naive. A good chunk, if not almost all of those protesters, didn’t know directly know anyone affected. They were there explicitly to protest a Trump policy and it was planned before Trump was even in office.

“Now We Know: Those ‘Spontaneous’ Anti-Trump Airport Protests Weren’t Spontaneous At All

But these protests weren’t spontaneous at all. They were, in fact, the result of months of careful planning by hard-core left-wing activist groups.

Suebsaeng notes that “professional organizers had been waiting and planning for this type of mass, direct action — ready-made to go viral on social media — even since, well Nov. 9.” These professional organizers, he says have been “anticipating and mapping out their battle plans for Trump’s orders on deportations, bans, and detention.”

The executive director of the Arab American Action Network told Suebsaeng that “we had been laying the groundwork for this for a long, long time.”

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/now-we-know-those-spontaneous-anti-trump-airport-protests-werent-spontaneous-at-all/

35 msgkings February 6, 2017 at 2:25 pm

Trump’s been laying the groundwork throughout his campaign in a very vocal manner. His opponents knew what was coming, why shouldn’t they prepare their opposition?

36 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 2:43 pm

A lot of those protestors may already be activists involved with immigration reform efforts for reasons that are not signaling – such as personal experience with the immigration system.
In general, I think the people “signaling” aren’t going to go to the effort to take time off work to go to the airport to protest. There are almost certainly people signaling , but they are on social media, they aren’t actually boots on the ground activists. “Signaling” generally refers to generally cost-less expressions of virtue in public forums, not actually spending personal time and money protesting.

In any case, it’s just wrong to assume that a lot of the outrage is just “signaling” given that it’s a policy that has a significant harmful effect on human lives, and a lot of people are aware of that because of their personal experiences with immigration law.

37 JWatts February 6, 2017 at 11:16 pm

Yes, those are good points. Staged protests are not the same as signalling. So, I’ll concede the point.

38 TMC February 6, 2017 at 11:25 am

Canada has not been identified as having vetting weaknesses, so that’s not a very good example. What other government systems do you suggest in which we ignore known deficiencies?

39 AlanW February 6, 2017 at 11:53 am

What known deficiencies are you referring to? The Obama order was related to a specific threat and took measures to address that threat. Has the Trump administration addressed specific weaknesses or said what additional measures they feel are appropriate?

40 TMC February 6, 2017 at 1:07 pm

The countries effected, the list generated by the Obama administration, have deficiencies in their governments ability to provide us with valid background information for us to vet them by. Citizens of XX make claims to enter the US, and we verify these claims with their country of origin. 7 of the possible 200 countries cannot/do not reasonably answer these questions.

This is a known defect in our immigration handling. Trump has closed a defect, temporarily in order to evaluate alternatives. A completely reasonable thing to do. In 90 days there may be new rules to get these 7 countries up to standards the rest of the world lives by.

41 joshua February 6, 2017 at 1:54 pm

“7 of the possible 200 countries cannot/do not reasonably answer these questions.”

So why does that require shutting down the whole program for the other 193 as well?

42 TMC February 6, 2017 at 8:11 pm

Doesn’t. That’s why it only shut down those 7 countries.

43 joshua February 7, 2017 at 11:48 am

Um, yes it does… have you read the statement? The Executive Order suspended ALL refugee settlement from ALL countries for 120 days. It ALSO suspended ALL immigrants including but not limited to refugees from seven countries for 90 days.

Here is some of the relevant text:
“The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days.”

“I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12)…would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days”

I’m surprised by how many people are still unaware of this and think everybody is just freaking out over nothing. Must not be reading the same news sources… Or maybe you just took Trump at his word when he said he was just being similar to Obama in 2011…

44 JShots February 7, 2017 at 2:05 pm

Joshua, that is very much the exact concept that I’ve seen circulating on conservatives news sites – that this is exactly like what Obama did in 2011 (or various times in 2015 pertaining to Crimea…or some other tiny example). And obviously it’s not, it completely ignores the nuance that this is a blanket ban on individuals from these seven countries, and not pertaining to specific incidents or subsets of people. Which, to be honest, is the most annoying part. You don’t even really HAVE to provide real evidence that historically people from these countries have committed or not committed X amount of terror attacks in the U.S. to justify an opinion that you think we should be temporarily banning these immigrants; you just need to rationally explain or justify that the current events in these countries are such that we believe persons from these countries right now represent an abnormal risk to U.S. citizens (I personally believe they don’t). For example, a possible non-evidence based argument: “As ISIS collapses (at least militarily), intelligence tells us they will step up efforts to inflict harm outside of the region, yada yada abnormal risk”. I just don’t understand why Trump insists on these bogus answers. Honestly, I think he really has no clue or not personally given any thought to it, so just regurgitates some thought he recalls from some meeting or news article somewhere…

45 byomtov February 6, 2017 at 12:10 pm

OK. Here’s some advice.

Stop referring to “virtue signaling.” It immediately sends the message that you have nothing really to say and are just relying on whatever the right-wing phrase of the month is.

As the rest of your argument confirms.

46 JWatts February 6, 2017 at 1:32 pm

“OK. Here’s some advice. Stop referring to “virtue signaling.””

Hmmm, that seems weird since I explicitly stated: “Meh, I shouldn’t have said “virtue” signalling. Which is just a buzz work. It’s signalling on both sides.”

47 Dean February 6, 2017 at 2:41 pm

Of course it is signaling. EVERYTHING is signaling. That doesn’t mean there aren’t real issues to discuss.

48 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 3:06 pm

No, everything isn’t signaling. Your tribe is signaling whenever they express anything. My tribe, by contrast, sincerely believes in everything we say and do.

Because Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe.

49 Patrick February 6, 2017 at 7:28 pm

Trump’s sales pitch for his Muslim Ban was 1) a faith based conviction that there MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG, and 2) an insistence that we needed to shut everything down while we “figure out what’s going on.” And it was insanely popular because 3) it signaled hostility to Islam to people who spend way too much time claiming that we need to 4) “get tough” on Muslims.

All of which makes the endless conservative whining about “virtue signalling” all the more ironic, since the above is nothing but virtue signalling, from people for whom sin is virtue.

50 prior_test2 February 6, 2017 at 8:09 am

‘and conduct the security analysis that was going to be conducted during these 90 days’

Please, such alternatively factual thinking from the old order. That ‘security analysis’ was finished long before the executive order. Likely even before the first public reporting on the Bowling Green Massacre just a few days ago.

51 dan1111 February 6, 2017 at 8:57 am

Who knows what Trump actually plans to do? Your read on it is plausible, but we’ll have to wait to find out if you’re right.

52 A Black Man February 6, 2017 at 10:28 am

Trump appears to be acting preemptively. It’s clear that Progressive judges are seeking to carve out a constitutional right to enter the United States. The burden will be on the government to “prove” the person seeking entry is a threat to public safety. By forcing the issue now, this odious idea can be killed off before it flowers into something dangerous.

Trump’s game plan seems to be to force the action in order to get people to the table where he has the edge. In this case, it could mean getting Congress to get off its arse and pass immigration reform that sharply reduces legal immigration and aggressively limits illegal immigration. Because that is wildly popular with the public, it becomes the safe escape route for the Republicans seeking to get the issue off the table.

53 Jan February 6, 2017 at 12:20 pm

There is absolutely no vetting already in place to assure the person seeking entry, after years of applications and process, is not a threat to public safety. Right? Here is the basically open borders process for refugees pre-Trump: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states

54 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 3:10 pm

LOL, another theory of how Trump is playing 12D chess, strategizing brilliantly.

People who support him just can’t face what’s obvious– that he is just being incompetent, trying to please his base by fulfilling the promises he made to them in sound bytes. And being totally ignorant of the fact that the law doesn’t work by sound bytes. The law needs to spell out specifically what needs to be done, who needs to do it, and exactly how to do it in a way that doesn’t cause great chaos like this order did.

55 A Black Man February 6, 2017 at 4:56 pm

This is called projection.

56 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 6:12 pm

Yes, when Yours Is the Only Virtuous Racial or Political Tribe, it always seems like the Enemy Tribe is projecting, or signaling, or only holding the position they hold because they are partisan. Because you need reasons to block yourself from considering the arguments and ideas of the Enemy Political Tribe. Otherwise, how would you insure that you will safely remain a member of the Only Virtuous Political Tribe?

57 peri February 6, 2017 at 5:56 pm

“It’s clear that Progressive judges are seeking to carve out a constitutional right to enter the United States.”

I don’t know that there’s any strategy involved, but I believe you’ve identified the next big thing.

58 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 6:13 pm

LOL. Ridiculous. Of course they are not seeking to carve out a constitutional right to enter the United States for non-citizens. Did Breitbart or Fox or Drudge tell you that?

59 peri February 6, 2017 at 7:25 pm

“The detailed enumeration of congressional powers in Article I of the Constitution does not include any power to restrict migration as such, even though it does include the power to make laws concerning the “naturalization” of foreigners and “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” The Naturalization Clause does not create a power to prevent foreigners from entering the country. It merely allows Congress to set conditions for the grant of citizenship… But there is no general enumerated power giving Congress the authority to ban the entry of people simply because they are foreign nationals.”

Nah, I don’t really think of Breitbart or Fox as Progressive mouthpieces (well, maybe Fox is, but then I’m an eco-conservative, so I would think that). I got the above from … what appears to be a sister blog to this one:

https://openborders.info/blog/immigration-and-the-us-constitution/

60 anon February 6, 2017 at 9:41 am

NPR ran a long report, talking to actual screeners, in the very detailed current process. They essentially said that while Trump’s description of border security has some resemblance to the pre-2001 world, it has no connection to what has been put in place since.

So, Trump put an EO in place, not based on what border security is, but based on his campaign rhetoric of what it was.

Your “good sentence” says let Trump halt travel from 7 countries, until he does the homework he should have done a year or two ago.

(Trivia: Syrians are actually the most documented immigrants, maybe ever, became Assad made everyone keep a detailed “family book” of identification.)

61 Bob from Ohio February 6, 2017 at 10:30 am

“everyone keep a detailed “family book” of identification.”

No chance of those being forged or faked, I guess.

62 mavery February 6, 2017 at 10:35 am

If you were going to forge entrance papers, why would claim to be Syrian?

63 TMC February 6, 2017 at 11:27 am

Because Syria would be the place to aid you with forged docs.

64 anon February 6, 2017 at 10:58 am

The advantage of “family books” is that they create a network. Forging one doesn’t work, because it doesn’t match the others.

65 Slocum February 6, 2017 at 10:33 am

Fine. Let Trump discover that the vetting is already as stringent as he wants and let him even claim undeserved credit for ‘fixing’ it. Then we can return to the status quo ante and his supporters can feel safe and satisfied. Yes, it would still be a dumb, wasteful exercise, but if we end up with sanity restored, I can deal with it.

66 anon February 6, 2017 at 10:56 am

Possibly. And if one does ignore opportunity costs.

If your goal is to save American lives, this is a pretty b.s. waste of attention.

Insert irony that Congress has reduced the mental health checks for gun buyers.

67 Thomas February 6, 2017 at 11:26 am

This is the old “bathtubs kill more Americans” argument. It’s a fallacy. 1% of bathtubs don’t try to kill you, 10% of bathtubs wouldn’t assist the killer bathtubs, and 40% of bathtubs aren’t sympathetic to killing non-bathtubs.

68 TMC February 6, 2017 at 11:30 am

You also need to ignore that the airport protests have caused significantly more disruption that the ban ever can.

69 anon February 6, 2017 at 11:41 am

I see no reason to answer dumb claims like those.

Like airport protests are “mine” now.

70 Thomas February 6, 2017 at 6:26 pm

You see no reason to respond to an argument that addresses your failure to understand statistics?

71 aMichael February 6, 2017 at 11:06 am

You’re assuming it’s going to result in a process that’s at least as good as the previous one. I wouldn’t bet on that.

72 Heorogar February 6, 2017 at 10:47 am

Every day I wax more deplorable and more overjoyed that Hillary isn’t POTUS. I voted Trump and will do it again in 2020.

Re: “Bowling Green.” I was at work two blocks away from the WTC on 9/11, and was back there one week later and experienced for months the fires, smoke and dust. A year or two later, there was a Pakistani (Zazi Najibullah) immigrant street coffee/donut vendor from who many colleagues bought their morning coffee. He wasn’t a terrorist. No, he wasn’t a terrorist because the NYPD arrested him before he could blow up a subway car.

Let them all in. Americans deserve to be massacred.

73 Jan February 6, 2017 at 10:56 am

From Cato: For instance, the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year while the chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is an astronomical 1 in 10.9 billion per year. By contrast, the chance of being murdered by a tourist on a B visa, the most common tourist visa, is 1 in 3.9 million per year. https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa798_1_1.pdf

Down with refugees, down with illegal immigrants, right?

74 WR February 6, 2017 at 11:24 am

“This particular tiger has not killed anyone, so the probability of him killing you if you jump in his cage is 0.”

75 Justin February 6, 2017 at 4:30 pm

I guess if you have already determined they are “Tigers”, then your argument must seem valid to you..

76 JWatts February 6, 2017 at 11:25 am

“the chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is an astronomical 1 in 10.9 billion per year.”

FAKE NEWS

That’s obviously wrong and you have to be innumerate not to have noticed that.

The population of the entire US is only 319 million in 2017. That statistic would imply that only 1 person was murdered by an illegal immigrant in the last 30+ years.

There are roughly 25,000 criminal aliens in jail for homicide in the US currently.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/illegal_aliens_murder_at_a_much_higher_rate_than_us_citizens_do.html

So, can you stop posting these obviously made for Face Book statistics.

77 Tony K February 6, 2017 at 1:53 pm

Are all aliens refugees?

78 Jan February 6, 2017 at 3:17 pm

Haha, Cato is the Facebook of liberal fake statistics!

Didn’t even read the report did you? Call it fake news and win!

Terrorism is what you are afraid of right? It’s what Trump says all the time.

79 JWatts February 6, 2017 at 4:31 pm

“Haha, Cato is the Facebook of liberal fake statistics!

Didn’t even read the report did you? Call it fake news and win!

Terrorism is what you are afraid of right? It’s what Trump says all the time.”

Wow, you manage to get every part wrong. First, I didn’t say it was liberal. Second, I specified why the comment you quoted was so obviously wrong. Third, this wasn’t about terrorism, it was about being ” murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant”.

Congratulations! That’s a perfect score.

80 Jan February 6, 2017 at 4:43 pm

Hereogar’s comment was 100% about terrorism and that’s the info I linked to. That’s what the whole report is about and what the stats are based on. You jumped in with a completely different about general murder which was not relevant.

Howl fake news some more and be sure not to read the source.

Oh, and be sure to tell your little friends at Cato their executive summaries can be taken out of context by the illiterate masses.

81 JWatts February 6, 2017 at 11:19 pm

“You jumped in with a completely different about general murder which was not relevant.”

I directly quoted your post: “while the chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is an astronomical 1 in 10.9 billion per year. ”

Those are the words you posted.

82 Chip February 6, 2017 at 11:49 am

You’re creating thought experiments when we have lab results.

Europe’s experiment with migration from the Muslim world has been a significant net cost to national security, the treasury and social capital. Either the French banlieues, armed soldiers at museums and a Malmö emptied of Jews are good things or they aren’t.

And yes it’s okay to discriminate against a belief system.

83 Jan February 6, 2017 at 10:58 am

Just remember what your voting for: idiotic symbolism, driven by hatred and fear rather than facts.

84 Jan February 6, 2017 at 10:58 am

*you’re

85 Post-Truth Politics February 6, 2017 at 3:14 pm

Real complex life is overwhelming for people. Voting for idiotic symbolism, driven by hatred and fear rather than facts is the new custom. That’s why the election turned out as it did. Because of the new Fox/Breitbart/Drudge way of the modern U.S. Post-Truth Politics

86 JWatts February 6, 2017 at 4:35 pm

I think you left out the idiotic symbolism part of voting for Hillary Clinton as the first Female President. But if you were to include that and the attempts of MSNBC/Slate/Vox/NYTs to Post Truth their way to victory, then you have indeed captured the US Presidential election of 2016’s zeitgeist.

87 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 6:17 pm

Yes, since Yours Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe, you need to believe that HRC’s sole qualification for the presidency was that she was female.

You could fact check the statements of MSNBC/Slate/Vox/NYT. And you would fine that they are generally quite good although not perfect, and are tons better than Right Wing publications and TV. But then you may be one of those people who do not fact check, because you believe DT and his alternative facts to be the final arbiter of all truth.

88 Gerrad February 6, 2017 at 8:36 am

“… we should take the president at his word…”

no, he is merely the President. Instead, the entire nation should instantly follow the personal opinion of some little judge in Seattle.

Exactly where in the Constitution does a Seattle Federal District Judge get the authority to issue a “nationwide” injunction … on any case or issue ?

There is NO such authority for any Federal District Judge. Their authority is limited to their formal district jurisdiction.

It may seem that if the Federal government is acting wrongly– a court should tell it to stop acting wrongly against everyone in America… not just the specific parties who sued in a specific court jurisdiction. But this emotional instinct fails to consider that not everyone agrees the Federal government is acting wrongly— and ‘one district judge’ should NOT try to decide the issue for the whole country ! That is not the function or strength of district courts. Resolving matters once and for all for the whole nation is a power we invest principally in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Illicit ‘Nationwide Injunctions by federal District Judges is dangerous judicial-activism… an issue that SCOTUS has been ducking for a long time.

89 Nice Comment, Champ February 6, 2017 at 9:01 am
90 Heorogar February 6, 2017 at 10:55 am

Bingo! He doesn’t have access to one-millionth of the information/intell that are in possession of President Trump and the national defense/homeland security branches of the Federal government.

Plus, the so-called judge has no basis in law and is pushing his (and millions of liberal idiots – redundant) myths/opinions/superstitions – no basis in law (Plato: Opinion is not truth.).

91 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 3:19 pm

Yes, since you, Heorogar, firmly believe that all liberals are idiots, and that Yours Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe, than you couldn’t possibly be believing in lies and superstitions from Breitbart, Fox, Drudge etc., could you? You couldn’t possibly be the idiot, could you? Since you religiously accept on faith that Yours Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe.

BTW, he is not a “little” judge. Rumor has it that he has much larger hands that DT does.

92 aMichael February 6, 2017 at 11:08 am

It’s called separation of powers, bub. I think there’s some document that Republicans used to really admire that spells it out along with writings about the intent of that document by people who created it.

93 TMC February 6, 2017 at 11:36 am

So having the chief executive enforce current law is disrespecting separation of powers?

94 aMichael February 6, 2017 at 11:46 am

Obviously, some judges disagree that this is just enforcement of current law. We’ll see how it comes down in the Supreme Court. I don’t have a strong opinion on whether the executive order is constitutional or not, but our system was purposely created to have many checks on power. This is how it plays out. I’m very comfortable with that.

95 Jay February 6, 2017 at 5:17 pm

Yea, me too.

96 albatross February 6, 2017 at 1:25 pm

Under what circumstances should we take a politician at his word, again?

97 Post-Truth Politics February 6, 2017 at 3:16 pm

If it’s DT, never. He seems to be unpredictable, even to himself.

98 Lee A. Arnold February 6, 2017 at 8:41 am

What is the evidence that DHS was not already “checking people who come into the country very carefully”, as Trump twittered?

Is it Trump’s repeated assertions during the campaign that we don’t know “what the hell is going on”? This is an insult to military and security professionals who have been working on this all along. Now Trump’s action disrupts secret channels of info, puts their contacts at risk.

There is an imaginative & intellectual failure people who believe that the U.S. does not know “what the hell is going on” — not being able to imagine how the terror threat has been handled, all along, by serious professionals charged with the serious duty of finding out “what the hell is going on”.

Then there is emotional hatred too: in believing that Obama (or any other President, it doesn’t matter who) would not have been doing the utmost to find out “what the hell is going on”.

And, as if this “reality-TV” charade were not big enough, Trump the Great is finally going to find out “what the hell is going on” — in 90 days?!

99 Lord Action February 6, 2017 at 8:58 am

Well, the Tsarnaev brothers come to mind. If I recall correctly, they entered on tourist visas and later claimed political asylum. Their vetting seems to have been a comedy of errors.

But that aside, vetting is not a binary thing. If you could reliably identify the future shooters and bombers, that would be great. But I don’t think it can be done. So there’s a question of how sensitive you make the test and how many type 1 errors you commit to avoid making a type 2 error. The costs of type 2 errors are much higher than the costs of type 1 errors, so you clearly want to lean one way. But how much? Reasonable people can differ as to how much.

100 Lee A. Arnold February 6, 2017 at 9:26 am

Did the allies take losses even after they began to win WWII? The Tsarnaev brothers (and 5 other domestic U.S. incidents involving foreign-born, in the last eight years) proves what? That U.S. security people aren’t learning from this?

In the last eight years, 7 OTHER incidents (a total of 13, in all) were U.S.-born (including Ft. Hood, Orlando, & one of the San Bernardino shooters). But eighty (80) other incidents that the public knows about, failed — they were foiled and apprehended.

The jihad is a global movement of a very small percentage of Islam that turns to religious violence due to despair or consciousness of their own sin (i.e. in not living up to ideals).

Giving young people another reason to hate the west, just creates more jihadis. It violates one of the first rules of counterinsurgency warfare.

In addition, from a military and security point of view, a ban on Muslims, even a temporary ban, puts U.S. citizens and soldiers abroad at greater risk; it prevents development of humint in Muslim countries; it suggests to legal US Muslims that they cannot trust DHS & FBI if they come forward with domestic intel to foil more attempts; and it makes it more difficult for foreign allies (like, Europe) to coordinate publicly with the U.S.

The solution to this problem is to shit-can the juveniles who are running the NSC. They think they are the only ones to understand the risk: this is the exact opposite of reality. Trump is a narcissist who’s trying to feed the emotions of his voting base to keep his TV rating up, and they are pouring dangerous poison into his ear.

101 y81 February 6, 2017 at 9:30 am

That’s not really responsive. What you appear to be implying is that you know for a fact that our current screening system strikes a perfect balance among the various considerations, and that no reasonable mind could study our current practices and end up differing with you. But expressed like that, your claim would be patently ridiculous, so instead you just resort to obscenities and juvenile insults.

102 Lee A. Arnold February 6, 2017 at 9:47 am

There is not, and will never be, a perfect balance. What the U.S., and its allies in this war, have is a very complicated process that can be studied by a reasonable mind without making the U.S. weak and stupid.

103 Lord Action February 6, 2017 at 9:36 am

You asked for evidence that we weren’t checking carefully. The Tsarnaevs are evidence we weren’t checking carefully.

I find the idea that being a little more sensitive to security risks among high-risk immigrants perpetuates jihad and makes it harder to develop spies a little far fetched.

104 Lee A. Arnold February 6, 2017 at 9:50 am

You avoid the main point that this is an ongoing war and learning takes place after incidents.

We can understand why and how people become jihadis, by reading the statements that they make or leave behind.

105 Lord Action February 6, 2017 at 9:56 am

Huh? I’m trying not to interpret this comment as crazy, but I can’t think of a reasonable way to read it. Could you restate your point?

106 Lee A. Arnold February 6, 2017 at 10:23 am

If you cite the Boston bombing as evidence that “we weren’t checking carefully”, then that was true, at that time. It doesn’t follow that NOW, security and intelligence are not looking at what can be done to stop the next attack of that particular provenance (because that had specific origin, channels, routes and methods). Thus, “this is an ongoing war and learning takes place after incidents.”

You also wrote, “I find the idea that being a little more sensitive to security risks among high-risk immigrants perpetuates jihad and makes it harder to develop spies a little far fetched.”

I have three objections to this, and I only wrote one. The main one is religious: 1. Jihad is perpetuated in young people by emotional/spiritual responses of various kinds, that could easily be worsened by a ban.

2. Also, you have equalized a total ban with “being a little more sensitive” — this appears to be according your OWN judgment of the degree of sensitivity, which can be an error in counterinsurgency. I think that both Mao and Galula pointed this out, but it’s been a while since I read them.

3. More important, developing spies requires their trust that they will be taken care of and extracted to safety if necessary. Now before joing up, they have to consider whether the U.S., from the top down, will just shut them (or their families) out. On an electoral whim. John LeCarre seems apropos here.

107 Bob from Ohio February 6, 2017 at 10:24 am

“In the last eight years, 7 OTHER incidents (a total of 13, in all) were U.S.-born (including Ft. Hood, Orlando, & one of the San Bernardino shooters). ”

I am sure the families of the dead appreciate how rare it was.

108 aMichael February 6, 2017 at 11:09 am

I think we should ban all guns because thousands of people were murdered by them last year. Isn’t this the essence of your argument applied perhaps to an issue that you suddenly think it shouldn’t be applied to?

109 WR February 6, 2017 at 11:31 am

“Giving young people another reason to hate the west, just creates more jihadis. It violates one of the first rules of counterinsurgency warfare. ”

We have to let them in. They’ll kills us if we don’t.

#cucklogic

110 Lee A. Arnold February 6, 2017 at 2:56 pm

Learn how to fight this war, then get back to us.

111 WR February 6, 2017 at 3:00 pm

“Learn how to fight this war, then get back to us.”

Make sure you don’t sprain your ankle getting off of your armchair.

#UnwarrantedSelfImportance

112 Lee A. Arnold February 6, 2017 at 3:52 pm

You are 15 years old?

113 Hmm February 6, 2017 at 9:49 am

The younger Tsarnaev came to the US in 2002 as a 9 year old. The older one came in 2004 at age 18, nine years before the bombing. What kind of vetting system would have discovered them?

114 Lord Action February 6, 2017 at 9:55 am

One that excluded their dad, or one that deported them after the older brother began to look like a serious threat in the years before the bombing, or one that simply excluded them based on statistics and their region of origin.

Is this a real question?

115 anon February 6, 2017 at 10:05 am

Something like “pre-crime?” Not science fiction at all. And presumably pre-crime should have caught Dylann Root right along with them.

116 Taeyoung February 6, 2017 at 10:31 am

Look, if immigrants evince hostility to their hosts, it’s not unreasonable to deport them. If they violate laws, it’s not unreasonable to deport them. Heck, if they evince hostility to American “ideals” (whatever those are), it’s fine to bar them from entry.

I travel to foreign countries all the time. I own a residence overseas. I have family overseas. I would never presume that I have a “right” to enter the country where I own a residence. I would never presume that I have a “right” to enter the country where my ancestors are buried. It is a privilege, and I understand they could revoke that privilege any time, for any reason. Because I have a basic respect for my hosts. It’s their country, not mine, and they have a duty to think of their people first.

Consequently, I honestly find it genuinely appalling when immigrants to the US engage in political activism on the question of immigration. Especially when illegal immigrants do. It seems grossly disrespectful. And on a purely selfish level, I worry that other countries, looking at the political mess immigrants create in the US and the EU, will take measures accordingly to make it harder for foreigners (including me) to enter their countries.

117 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 11:03 am

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to deport immigrants that have committed crimes – but It’s not clear that the Tsarneyevs did anything criminal prior to the bombing. If they did, it should be been easy to revolk their residency and send them back to Chechneya or whereever. But you can’t revolk someone’s residency because he says stupid shit on Twitter or facebook. Permanent residents are protected by the first amendment – so unless they actually swear alliegance to ISIS in a youtube video, they are free to talk shit on the internet.

As for illegal immigrants not protesting – that’s unfair considering the mess that legal immigration is in. There are lot of people who are only “illegal” because the immigration system is a kafkaesque nightmare that excludes lots of people who would otherwise be legal immigrants. For example, there are millions of “illegals” who have married US citizens and have US citizen children, but cannot normalize their status because US law requires them to return to their home country for a minumum of two years to apply for a green card, and maybe never get a legal visa in the end.

118 albatross February 6, 2017 at 1:29 pm

This is the real point, right? Screening immigrants (refugees or otherwise) can hope to find past associations with terrorist groups, but we also care about future associations. The best information we can find to predict those probably comes down to nationality, religion, and sex.

On the other hand, we’re still wrapping ourselves around the axle addressing a threat that’s tiny but very good at grabbing media attention. The actual damage done to the country by doing a worse job vetting refugees vs doing a better job is lost in the roundoff error of drunk-driving or medical error fatalities.

119 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 3:41 pm

he best information we can find to predict those probably comes down to nationality, religion, and sex.

At the same time, we don’t want to be a country that makes blanket judgments of individuals based on nationality, religion or sex. People should be judged on their merits and not excluded based on the statistical average for their ethnic group. Nevermind that it’s far from clear that people from Muslim countries are statistically more likely to harm citizens than others.

120 WR February 6, 2017 at 11:38 am

Easy, one that actually asked why the heck they deserved asylum.

121 Chris February 6, 2017 at 10:42 am

I guess the Tsarnevs are why we banned Russians? oh wait…

122 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 10:54 am

Didn’t they come here as children?
It was their parents who claimed political asylum, and their parents weren’t particularly religious. Tamerlan Tsarneyv was radicalized after becoming an adult in America.
Unless you want to have a blanket ban on Muslims based on the threat that their kids might become radical Muslims, I don’t see how any vetting whatsoever prevents this.

123 8 February 6, 2017 at 12:19 pm

That’s why a Muslim ban is coming.

124 msgkings February 6, 2017 at 12:25 pm

LOL no. Trump can’t even get this pint size one past the courts.

125 Brian February 6, 2017 at 1:23 pm

If we can’t have a Moslem ban specifically, then we just need a ban on all immigration until the SJW judges can be replaced by patriots.

126 msgkings February 6, 2017 at 1:28 pm

Oh is that what “we” “need”? LOL

127 lolz February 6, 2017 at 4:30 pm

@Brian

Come up from the basement, honey! Your tendies are getting cold!

128 Ricardo February 6, 2017 at 2:43 pm

The Tsarnaev brothers were children when they entered the U.S. What kind of “vetting” do you propose that would flag a 9-year-old as a security threat over the next 15 years?

129 dan1111 February 6, 2017 at 9:05 am

Not so long ago there was a prominent example of failed vetting:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/us/san-bernardino-attacks-us-visa-process-tashfeen-maliks-remarks-on-social-media-about-jihad-were-missed.html?_r=0

At the time, nearly everyone seemed to agree that there was room for improvement. Maybe all of the flaws have been fixed since then? Or maybe not.

I don’t support Trump, his rhetoric on this issue, or his executive order. Nevertheless, I do think the claim “our vetting needs to be improved substantially” is at least plausible.

You seem to assume that, because there were experts and high-ranking people involved, everything must have been done competently. This is a poor assumption.

130 Lee A. Arnold February 6, 2017 at 9:29 am

“All the flaws” will never be fixed. This is a counterinsurgency war on many different levels. It is “at least plausible” that you really ought to study this.

131 dan1111 February 6, 2017 at 9:50 am

I freely admit that I’m not an expert. But you appear to be speaking from a position of similar non-expertise, and making quite confident claims that don’t seem warranted.

132 Lee A. Arnold February 6, 2017 at 9:55 am

It’s easy to study this stuff. What kind of war do you think this is?

133 Jeff R February 6, 2017 at 10:35 am

A war it’s not really necessary for us to fight as long we don’t make the same mistakes France did re: immigration policy?

134 Lee A. Arnold February 6, 2017 at 11:10 am

It would be necessary for the U.S. to fight, even if immigrants were permanently banned.

135 WR February 6, 2017 at 11:41 am

“It’s easy to study this stuff.”

So you’re another Armchair General.

136 msgkings February 6, 2017 at 12:26 pm

And WR is obviously a big shot at the NSA

137 albatross February 6, 2017 at 1:34 pm

Lee:

I disagree. As best I can tell, at least 90% of the war on terror is a waste of time and money. The threat posed to the US by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists is pretty small, and is mainly addressed by being really careful whom we issue visas to. Most of the stuff we’ve done in the name of the war on terror has been, as best as I can tell, counterproductive.

We’ve still got a presence (albeit a smaller one) in Afghanistan and Iraq, we’re continuing to run drone assassinations and special-forces raids in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and probably a couple other countries I don’t know about. We’re doing a great job spending money (which probably explains some of the domestic support for these policies), but it’s really hard to see how the outcomes we’ve gotten from all this have made us better off or safer.

138 msgkings February 6, 2017 at 2:05 pm

@albatross: harsh judgment. Since 9/11 when we began the ‘war on terror’ there have been no other major foreign-initiated terror attacks in the US. Sure an occasional (US based) nutjob has grabbed an easily obtainable gun (thanks 2nd Amendment!) and shot up a club or an army base. But no more 9/11s and there have been many foiled plots. I’m actually pretty satisfied with counter-terrorism efforts since 9/11.

139 Lee A. Arnold February 6, 2017 at 2:58 pm

WR: “So you’re another Armchair General.”

Good point! How many real generals think this is a good idea? James Mattis?

140 Lee A. Arnold February 6, 2017 at 3:10 pm

Albatross: “at least 90% of the war on terror is a waste of time and money… threat posed to the US by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists is pretty small”

I can’t judge the amount of spending, but I strongly disagree. Any kid who is angry at his girlfriend can shoot up a whole school. We have entered a time when only a handful of people can kill thousands, maybe millions. History of western actions in Middle East for the last 100 years has given plenty of cause for grievance, anger, despair, hatred. We need a two-part effort on intelligence and small-scale use of force. Understanding how and why people turn to religion is part of it. Possible perps can arise worldwide, which makes it a new sort of global counterinsurgency effort to fight it. It may go on for another hundred years.

141 anon February 6, 2017 at 9:44 am

But again, wrong countries, you are still 3000x more likely to be killed in a domestic crime.

How the heck can a utilitarian view the ban as anything other than opportunity cost?

142 dan1111 February 6, 2017 at 9:49 am

I don’t support the ban, as noted above. I’m only saying that the claim that our vetting needs improvement seems plausible.

143 anon February 6, 2017 at 9:53 am

We have been doing continuing process improvement since 2001, in response to every discovered flaw. Of course that should continue.

But it was not political to say we had security. It was politically correct for too many to say we had none.

144 Jeff R February 6, 2017 at 10:36 am

Dude, come on. Look at the TSA and tell me our security policies are the best of all possible worlds with a straight face. Who do you think you’re kidding?

145 anon February 6, 2017 at 10:50 am

Do you even know what they are? Many people here claim that undocumented people get in. That is false. You have to pass all reviews, with all needed documentation, to get in. Any strike and you are out.

I feel like Tyler’s “good sentence” sets back conversation, because it preserves fictions that should have been shattered long ago.

Post 9/11 we have put a very extreme vetting system in place.

146 Lee A. Arnold February 6, 2017 at 11:14 am

The “good sentence” appears to be taken out of a mangled context. What Fresco could be saying is that the Trump Administration’s legal response to the stay doesn’t make sense, if their reason for the ban is a 90-day security review. WaPo needs better editing here.

147 Thomas February 6, 2017 at 6:32 pm

You are more likely to die in a car crash than be murdered in your home. That, and my complete lack of understanding of conditional probability, is why I walk across highways and don’t lock my doors!
#justAnonthings

148 Chris February 6, 2017 at 10:45 am

I guess that’s why we banned Pakistanis? Oh wait …

149 A Definite Beta Guy February 6, 2017 at 9:09 am

To a large degree, it’s political theater, but promising total vetting is obscene. It took a decade to find Osama Bin Laden with the whole world hunting for him, you actually think we have the capacity to screen hundreds of thousands to millions of refugees and verify none of them are a threat? And, in the US case specifically, that we can expand our admissions by an order of magnitude WITHOUT diminishing quality? Why can’t we vet the Syrian militia groups at all if we can vet all these refugees perfectly?

It’s pretty obvious when you’re getting sold beachfront property in Nevada. Occam’s Razor suggests government officials are saying “eh, good enough” in a lot of cases, and usually isn’t a huge deal because there’s not a TON of terrorists.

Yet.

150 Lee A. Arnold February 6, 2017 at 10:01 am

This sounds mostly like boilerplate objection to gov’t action, and I think that in the case of those professionals who are charged with the security of the country, it is especially uncharitable. In the bigger picture, Occam’s razor may be the worst guide to understanding strategy in counterinsurgency, because so much of the fight is roundabout.

151 A Definite Beta Guy February 6, 2017 at 11:26 am

Rejecting Occam’s Razor is a outrageously dangerous. You might argue it’s uncharitable, but we’re not obligated to believe outlandish claims about institutional perfection or government magic. Particularly when it comes to national defense. We obviously wouldn’t give Trump a “charitable” view if he promises he can stop incoming nuclear missiles with an obviously flawed missile defense system, particularly with our history of failures on this front.

There’s also nothing about COIN operations that says you need to permit immigration from the battlefront to your home nation. Extracting terps or informants is not in the same ballpark to general refugee admittance. What’s your argument here, exactly? That ISIS might recruit people on the basis of the bomb? I am pretty sure the bombs we drop solve most of that problem.

152 Lee A. Arnold February 6, 2017 at 3:20 pm

Nothing at all “outrageously dangerous” about rejecting Occam’s razor. Scientists reject it often (although economists, not often enough).

“ISIS might recruit people on the basis of the bomb?” — What bomb?

153 TheAJ February 6, 2017 at 8:57 am

Does anybody think that the Trump administration had any intent of seriously reviewing the vetting process over the 90 day period?

Even for a medium sized private-sector company, it takes much longer than 90 days to review, validate and change critical processes.

154 JWatts February 6, 2017 at 9:13 am

“… seriously reviewing the vetting process over the 90 day period?”

If you can’t conduct a serious review in 90 days, then your processes are corrupt. It may take longer to institute significant changes, but it doesn’t take a tremendous amount of time to re-examine your process and create a list of the probable weak points. Nor would it take very long to re-prioritize existing resources.

155 kevin February 6, 2017 at 9:27 am

I don’t disagree with you. But that’s why this is a ridiculous comment. Security analysis is done in 90 days–if something is found wanting we start letting immigrants back in immediately? No, if an issue is found it gets extended indefinitely while instituting changes. 90 days is a dumb key point to base whether this is a pertinent measure to take.

156 JWatts February 6, 2017 at 9:35 am

You’re assuming it’s monolithic. We’re talking about 7 different countries. I would assume at the end of 7 days, you make a decision on a country basis on which ones, can resume travel as is, which ones can resume with significantly more vetting and which ones to extend.

However, I don’t think this is really a deep matter on either side. It’s getting blown out of proportion due to partisan politics. It’s likely that had the Obama administration made a similar decision 2 years ago, that this would have been considered a minor political issue.

157 JWatts February 6, 2017 at 9:35 am

…end of 90 days..

158 kevin February 6, 2017 at 9:50 am

Yes, I assumed we vetted essentially the same way over all 7 countries. Is there some reason why vetting may be more effective in one of the countries vs. a different type of vetting in another? I can’t think of any, which is why I made the assumption.

159 Taeyoung February 6, 2017 at 10:41 am

Re: Kevin:

“Yes, I assumed we vetted essentially the same way over all 7 countries. Is there some reason why vetting may be more effective in one of the countries vs. a different type of vetting in another? I can’t think of any, which is why I made the assumption.”

The countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. They’re not all exactly on an even footing here. Iran is a hostile power, but an orderly one with a functioning government that actively sponsors murderous political activists in foreign countries (e.g. Hizbullah). Syria is a hostile power (kind of), whose government is regaining its footing, but lacks control over vast swaths of its own territory. Somalia has a kind of patchwork — Somaliland is stable and could probably provide reliable information, but Somalia as a whole could not. One could go on and on, but I think this is enough to see that the challenges presented by each of these countries is different. It’s easy to imagine that each of the seven countries might require a different approach to gain the necessary assurance, some more extensive and others less extensive.

160 dan1111 February 6, 2017 at 9:46 am

It’s possible that Trump has a legitimate, actionable 90 day plan, as JWatts indicates.

It’s possible that Trump has the intent to do something within 90 days, but isn’t going to be able to pull it off.

It’s possible that this is all a pretext for declaring it an intractable problem and proclaiming a longer-term ban.

There are a lot of possibilities with Trump.

161 prior_test2 February 6, 2017 at 9:50 am

‘There are a lot of possibilities with Trump.’

Though all possibilities where Trump decides against following his own interest for any reason are easily excluded, if the past is a guide.

162 TheAJ February 6, 2017 at 2:58 pm

> If you can’t conduct a serious review in 90 days, then your processes are corrupt.

This is assuming that they have magically never been reviewed before, or that shutting down all immigration is required to “review” the process. Its all optics, either attempt to look strong or just an attempt to reduce Muslim migration.

163 anon February 6, 2017 at 9:56 am

The goal, as testified my insiders, was not security.

It was/is to reduce the rate of Muslim settlement in the US.

164 8 February 6, 2017 at 12:24 pm

That increases security. You can quibble about the amount, but it absolutely increases security. We have 1400 years of history and modern examples on every continent that confirm it.

165 anon February 6, 2017 at 12:40 pm

Is it really good, on an econ blog, to say any large cost is justified by any small benefit?

I haven’t read every comment on this page, but I haven’t noticed any on blowback, negative effects of the ban on the war on terror.

It is like a childish dissonance that insulting 7 countries is fine, because we don’t need them, except oops we do. Front line countries in the war on terror, and including some that are allies.

Even “sometimes” allies need to be treated diplomatically.

166 anon February 6, 2017 at 1:15 pm

More on that blowback in this brief to the court.

https://twitter.com/mjschlanger/status/828615816807587840

167 Brian February 6, 2017 at 1:32 pm

“we don’t need them, except oops we do. Front line countries in the war on terror,”

If we just exclude the Moslems entirely, we won’t need a war on terror because it won’t be coming here. The entire war is caused by the blunder of inviting them in the first place.

168 Thomas February 6, 2017 at 6:36 pm

What’s the large cost? Oh, is this the “give muslims what they want or else they’ll murder you” argument?

169 RIGHTIST February 6, 2017 at 8:40 pm

@THOMAS

THE LARGE COST IS TO OUR LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS, YA LIBTARD! YEEEE-HAAAAAAWWWWWWWW!

#TRUMP2024

170 8 February 6, 2017 at 12:23 pm

No, I don’t think the vetting process review would take 90 days. After 90 days, the government is very likely, if there are security people in charge, to tell you vetting refugees from countries XYZ is impossible. Then the ban becomes semi-permanent until the situation in the country changes.

171 anon February 6, 2017 at 12:43 pm

If that is the answer Trump wants, it might be the answer his fresh appointments give him. But it is not the belief of career State Department officers. We know that

http://www.voanews.com/a/over-a-thousand-state-dept-personnel-officially-dissent-to-immigration-order/3700399.html

From the Voice of America no less.

172 TheAJ February 6, 2017 at 3:00 pm

If you already have a finding in mind that you are expecting to give to the people, than why not just go with that instead of all this smoke and mirrors hoopla?

173 patrick k February 6, 2017 at 9:00 am

I have no idea if Trump’s order is good or bad. I’ll leave that to the system to decide. What I am very confident about is that if this was an executive order from Obama or Clinton not a word would be said. The spin would be a 90 day suspension while security updates its procedures to face these challenging times. What is most disturbing about this is not the actual politics but that “politics” have become the sole driver in deciding reactions. By way of example, no one has said a peep about Obama condemning 100’s of Cubans in transit back to the gulag they thought they escaped from. An escape made on the existence of a policy that he casually wrote off with an executive order. Where is the outrage on that?

174 Axa February 6, 2017 at 9:53 am

Being sleeping since 1989? Cuba is not a gulag anymore, it’s just another Caribbean island with a rather authoritarian leader, enjoy mojitos and cigars https://www.jetblue.com/flights/cuba/

175 Chip February 6, 2017 at 11:57 am

Cool link, bro.

Meanwhile, here’s Human Rights Watch:

“The Cuban government continues to repress dissent and discourage public criticism. It now relies less on long-term prison sentences to punish its critics, but short-term arbitrary arrests of human rights defenders, independent journalists, and others have increased dramatically in recent years. Other repressive tactics employed by the government include beatings, public acts of shaming, and the termination of employment.”

176 Ricardo February 6, 2017 at 3:35 pm

Our new friend Russia has assassinated dissidents in other countries. Cuba is bad and nobody should deny it but it doesn’t appear significantly worse than countries with which the U.S. has or should have constructive relationships.

177 Axa February 7, 2017 at 6:13 am

Let’s see what Humans Right Watch says about Mexico:

During the administration of President Enrique Peña Nieto, Mexican security forces have been implicated in repeated, serious human rights violations—including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and torture—in the course of efforts to combat organized crime. The government has made little progress in prosecuting those responsible for recent abuses, let alone the large number of abuses committed by soldiers and police since former President Felipe Calderón (2006-2012) initiated Mexico’s “war on drugs.”

Or Peru:

“Security forces, responding at times to violent protests over mines and other large-scale development projects in Peru, continue to use live gunfire that kills and wounds civilians. Official investigations into the deaths and injuries remain inadequate. Judicial investigations into grave human rights abuses committed during the 20-year armed conflict that ended in 2000 remained slow and limited.”

As Ricardo said, Cuba is bad but this is not a black/white matter. The US has relationships with many governments that doesn’t care of actively violate human rights. I did not mention the easy one, Venezuela, because that’s cheating. Venezuela debt brokers and some creditors are in the USofA 😉

178 aMichael February 6, 2017 at 11:15 am

“if this was an executive order from Obama or Clinton not a word would be said.”

True, but so what? Democrats and Republicans are always more skeptical and willing to protest when the other side does it. That’s the way it’s always been. I also wish people were also mad about Obama’s order on Cubans coming to the U.S., but if it takes general disgust with Trump to protest, I’ll take that. Same with Republicans protesting Obamacare (but not other major interventions when the Republicans were in power, though Obamacare was a MUCH bigger social program).

179 albatross February 6, 2017 at 1:45 pm

A lot of the protest about the executive order was because of the way it was put out–with still-unresolved questions about how it was to be interpreted, and without giving even a 24 hour notice to prevent people from arriving in the US and then being detained because their visas had been more-or-less cancelled in-flight. That looks like incompetence to me, but it’s also possible that it was intentional–the ambiguity and court challenges and tear-jerking cases of people stranded at the airport got the executive order a huge amount of press it would otherwise not have gotten.

180 lonelylibertarian February 6, 2017 at 9:02 am

Lee,

You must not be paying attention…
The seven specific countries that were being restricted have virtually NO infrastructure that supports an in depth vetting of refugees or immigrants. That was confirmed by testimony of the specific department heads responsible for vetting them. Trump is asking for time to figure out how to make sure “bad people” don’t enter the country – something that I would like every President to do…

If no solution can be found that provides some level of assurance to the American people that those entering the country are not “bad people” I am all for a permanent ban on refugees and immigrants from these countries – and Saudi Arabia…

181 A Definite Beta Guy February 6, 2017 at 9:27 am

I glanced at the Visa Waiver Program, and Saudi Arabia actually has quite a low visa denial rate. This is quite different from Syria, where almost two-thirds of all visa requests are denied.

If you’re already rejecting 2 out of 3 people from a nation, it’s not unreasonable to suspect that you might be missing data on the third that would deny entry as well, and shut the whole program down.

If we want to expand this criteria, it shouldn’t include Saudi Arabia, but Afghanistan, and other nations with high rejection rates like Gabon and Armenia.

182 prior_test2 February 6, 2017 at 9:54 am

‘glanced at the Visa Waiver Program, and Saudi Arabia actually has quite a low visa denial rate.’

And I just glanced at the EIA, and Saudi Arabia has quite a high rating as a supplier of oil imported into America. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6

183 A Definite Beta Guy February 6, 2017 at 11:43 am

Why would we trust the government when they say they can vet 100,000+ Syrian refugees no problem, but we don’t trust them when they also vet Saudis and say they are okay?

184 kevin February 6, 2017 at 9:32 am

The only way to “make sure “bad people” don’t enter the country” is by not letting anyone in. There are already levels of assurance. But certainty is too high of a level to obtain with out the assurance of banning everyone.

185 WarNerdFan February 6, 2017 at 10:51 am

I find it interesting that you assert that Saudi Arabia ought to be on the list – very reasonable given exactly who conducted 9/11 – but you don’t follow this up by asking: *why* wasn’t Saudi Arabia on the list?

The fact that they left off Saudi Arabia really annoys me. One of the few things I was genuinely excited for with Trump was his stance on Saudi Arabia. Finally, after so many years of Washington sucking up to Riyadh, we were going to do something about those racist, sexist, Jihad-financing s-o-b’s.

But not only are the Saudis (and Qataris and Emiratis and Egyptians and Pakistanis…) not on the list, their huge regional enemy Iran is there. Never mind that Iranians have never conducted a terror attack on US soil – and that their religious ideology is considered heretical by those who actually do attack us! Never mind that fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis! Never mind that Iranian students are some of the brightest minds at our leading universities, and that blocking them will seriously hamper scientific progress!

My guess is simply that Saudi Arabia has got us by the balls – and I’m not just talking about oil, since Iran clearly doesn’t have the same leverage. Their intelligence services famously cooperate with us to identify terror threats – and by all accounts we have stopped real terror attacks with Saudi-provided information. Should they withdraw their “cooperation”, it could cause real chaos here. Note that by this logic, actually ending terrorism is *detrimental* to Saudi interests, because then there would be nothing to threaten us with. The logical play is to keep the threat there and to keep helping us thwart it (letting a few attacks through also helps to keep the US jumpy).

Note that what this suggests is that Iran was targeted *because* they are not a threat, not *despite* it.

Ok, I admit, I don’t have access to any information which could prove this. It’s just a conjecture, but as far as conjectures go I think it’s a likely one. It explains several things, like (a) why the US spends so much time mollifying the Saudis and demonizing the Iranians, despite the fact that both have oil (so the typical ‘it’s just because they have the oil’ logic can’t explain this), (b) why the Saudi intelligence services are so effective at blocking terrorist attacks against Saudi citizens (because they’re operating the terror networks, to some degree) even though, as a supposedly close US ally, they should be a major target, and (c) why jihadist actions by Saudi citizens all seem to benefit Saudi Arabia in some way (for example, by collapsing Syria, who were Iran’s big regional ally). Oh, and it also explains why Saudi Arabia isn’t on the list but Iran is.

And, anyway, Saudi Arabia has never been shy about pursuing their own naked interests, and implementing a strategy like this appears to be very clearly good for the Saudi interest.

So – if I’m right – what the Saudis are doing is creating the terror threats on one hand by embracing (and, to a large extent financing) radical Islamist ideology, while using the security services to keep these terrorists on a tight leash, like attack dogs. It works on multiple levels – (i) they can credibly claim to be our allies because their intelligence services give us information on these terror networks, (ii) they can threaten to withdraw the cooperation any time they like, and (iii) it aligns nicely with their other goal of exporting Wahhabism across the Islamic world.

For further context, I submit the War Nerd, who is much smarter than I am, and who suggested basically the same thing quite some time ago:
https://pando.com/2013/12/19/the-war-nerd-saudis-syria-and-blowback/
He mentions Saudi exports of Jihad and Jihadists and notes that it gets the most violent young men out of Saudi Arabia – another benefit – but he doesn’t discuss the potential of this tactic as a protection racket, which I think is a big part of the story.

PS. Blocking Iran is totally nonsensical if you believe the stated reasons for the ban – Iran isn’t in chaos like the others, and its ideology is literally at war with Al-Qaeda and company – but makes perfect sense if we assume heavy Saudi influence. Also, no major Saudi allies are on the list, with the possible exception of Sudan.

186 WR February 6, 2017 at 11:56 am

We all know (((why))) Iran is on this list. I don’t mind, the Likudniks are our allies now.

Saudia Arabia isn’t banned because the Saudis are American allies. Good people? No. But the current regime is a hell of a lot better than anything that could credibly replace them.

187 albatross February 6, 2017 at 1:57 pm

Personally, I’m kinda happy that Trump didn’t add blowing up our decades-long relationship with Saudi Arabia into the already-badly-managed executive order on immigration. It may be that we need to rethink our relationship with Saudi Arabia, or NATO, or whomever. But that needs to be done slowly and deliberately, thinking through every step, because once we blow those relationships up, they’re *gone*.

The scariest thing to me about Trump is exactly this idea that he might jump in and blow up some important international relationships, or make other irrevocable changes of similar gravity, without having fully understood the consequences of those decisions. That certainly fits his style on the campaign trail. It’s not that I think every arrangement we have is necessarily all that smart, or even that I think US foreign policy has been particularly well-run in the last couple decades. But I’d like the Trump administration to treat those existing arrangements like Chesterton’s fence, and really carefully understand why they’re there before dismantling them.

The executive order at least managed not to do that. It didn’t blow up relations with any countries we were close to before, and to the extent it ends up as a 90 day delay on immigration, it’s not making a lot of irrevocable changes.

188 Barkley Rosser February 6, 2017 at 9:20 am

Well, folks, while we have the Tsernaev brothers and the wife of the San Bernadino guy who got in and did bad, there has since 1975 not been a single immigrant from any of the 7 identified countries who has been involved in any sort of fatal terrorist attack, not one. But, heck, who cares about facts when you want to do a 90 day review of vetting procedures?

And as for “taking the president at his word,” why on earth should anyone anywhere be remotely so stupid? Even though he had crowds chanting about how Hillary was a liar, I challenge anyone reading this to name a single politician at any level of government in the entire history of the United States who has (or did in the case of dead ones) lied as frequently and repeatedly as Donald J. Trump. At a minimum during the campaign compared to the other official 22 presidential candidates he was always and easily found to be the most frequent and most brazen (“pants on fire” level) liar of the whole bunch, even beating out Ted Cruz, his only near rival. The man lies almost every time he opens his mouth, so why should any sane person “take him at his word,” why?

189 Lord Action February 6, 2017 at 9:27 am

“there has since 1975 not been a single immigrant from any of the 7 identified countries who has been involved in any sort of fatal terrorist attack, not one.”

Obviously you mean in the US, right? Because Europe has had a world of problems with this set of immigrants. Admittedly, their vetting seems considerably less serious than the weak but existent American vetting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-europes-migrant-crisis-became-an-opportunity-for-isis/2016/04/21/ec8a7231-062d-4185-bb27-cc7295d35415_story.html?utm_term=.1ca82ff72247

190 Lord Action February 6, 2017 at 9:28 am

Maybe I’m wrong and you meant your comment as a joke. If so, I apologize.

191 aMichael February 6, 2017 at 11:17 am

“Admittedly, their vetting seems considerably less serious”

Yes, and now your point is mute. For several of these terrorists, there was no vetting at all!

192 A Definite Beta Guy February 6, 2017 at 9:30 am

How many Americans have been killed by Russia and Germany respectively over the last 100 years? Which nation do you currently consider a bigger threat?

193 zan February 6, 2017 at 9:42 am

That’s a false analogy and you know it.

194 A Definite Beta Guy February 6, 2017 at 11:46 am

Roflmao, no it’s not. Don’t fight the last front. Past results do not indicate current threat levels. This is obvious.

195 TMC February 6, 2017 at 9:45 am

“I challenge anyone reading this to name a single politician at any level of government in the entire history of the United States who has (or did in the case of dead ones) lied as frequently and repeatedly as Donald J. Trump.”

Hillary and Obama are the most recent and obvious examples. And I think Trumps pretty bad.

196 anon February 6, 2017 at 10:00 am

But while I can cite PolitiFact to refute that, you just want us to take your word, right? And maybe 2 or 3 trolls who pop up to support you?

Troll army.

197 WR February 6, 2017 at 12:10 pm

Politifact is just another globalist activist group, biased against Trump. When Trump quote Hillary as saying she wanted open borders, they rated that as “mostly false” because, while she did say those exact words, that wasn’t what she meant. How did they know that? Hillary Clinton said so of course.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-wants-have-open-/

“Troll army.”

Takes one to know one.

198 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 3:23 pm

So if you don’t believe Politifact, where do you go to check facts? Breitbart? Fox? Drudge?

EVen if HRC said those exact words, if she elsewhere explained specifically what border policies she was in favor of, then that should be taken as her view on the subject.

But DT trolls can argue with you forever, nit picking every little thing, finding one example in a million that might support their view. Because they religiously accept on faith that Theirs Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe. And that all others are lying.

Must be nice to live in such a simple world.

199 WR February 6, 2017 at 6:53 pm

“EVen if HRC said those exact words, if she elsewhere explained specifically what border policies she was in favor of, then that should be taken as her view on the subject.”

The sheep will be led.

200 Barkley Rosser February 6, 2017 at 10:27 am

Sorry, TMC, but Hillary is on that list of 23 studied during the campaign and was far down the list of liars, if not at the bottom as most honest of them all. As for Obama, his lies have been very few and far between, probably a lower rate than the presidential average, and certainly nowhere near Trump levels. I mean he did once say when he was running that medical premiums would go down, although he later said that was a mistake, and he also said that nobody would be forced off their plan or their old doctor, and some were. And he did not keep his promise about that red line in Syria, although with the cooperation of Vladimir Putin they did manage to get Assad to give up most of his chemical weapons (not all), which was the issue at hand regarding that red line. He has said some lies. But Trump has been known to lie more times within a week than Obama has in his entire public career.

You are just spouting Fox News propaganda points, TMC. Get serious and go find one of our past presidents or presidential candidates, or even one of our most notorious corrupt big city mayors or bosses like the late Boss Tweed, and even they did not lie even remotely as much as Trump.. You would have been better off naming Ted Cruz, who at least in these recent studies was sort of in the same ball park as Trump, but still not quite as bad.

201 JWatts February 6, 2017 at 11:33 am

“…, if not at the bottom as most honest of them all.”

Hillary Clinton was caught in multiple, substantive lies with respect to the email scandal. An issue that directly effected matters of national security and the ethical behavior of a standing high official.

“You are just spouting Fox News propaganda points”

Mr. Pot meet Mrs. Kettle, Mrs. Kettle here is Mr. Pot. I’m sure you’ll both find you have a lot in common.

202 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 3:25 pm

False equivalence there. DT lied 69% of the time during the campaign, as documented by politifact. HRC got things wrong about 26 % of the time. Big difference there.

203 Barkley Rosser February 6, 2017 at 4:11 pm

Only a few times actually, JWatts,although for all the carrying on about it one can understand you might that think “multiple” is a large number. It is not, and in the end that whole email scandal was a giant zero. After all, Colin Powell apparently actually broke the law on this more than she did, but where was the outrage and multiple investigations of his conduct?

Sorry, you are just an deluded hypocrite.

204 JWatts February 6, 2017 at 4:39 pm

“Sorry, you are just an deluded hypocrite.”

Actually, I’m not. But I suspect you might be too partisan to be able to tell the difference.

205 Turkey Vulture February 6, 2017 at 10:10 am

Haven’t we been killing people in some of these countries recently, ostensibly because there are bad people there who might want to come here and hurt us?

If we have nothing to fear then our continued military action that kills people seems far more objectionable than a travel ban.

206 The Other Jim February 6, 2017 at 10:53 am

>our continued military action that kills people seems far more objectionable than a travel ban.

Sane adults everywhere realize this completely.

Those with Trump Derangement System feel otherwise. Sadly for us, they run a very large number of websites. Including this one.

207 FUBAR007 February 6, 2017 at 11:55 am

The Other Jim: Those with Trump Derangement System feel otherwise. Sadly for us, they run a very large number of websites. Including this one.

Then, why are you still here?

208 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 12:18 pm

People accuse me of Trump Derangement Syndrome, but I’m totally of the opinion that we should stop bombing Syria, along with other places.
Syria might not be in the mess it is in if not for our meddling. The entire Syrian refugee crisis is a product of Obama’s incompetence at foreign policy.
I also don’t mind letting Russia deal with that quagmire as it will distract them from their meddling in the Ukraine and the Baltics.

209 JWatts February 6, 2017 at 4:43 pm

“People accuse me of Trump Derangement Syndrome, …”

LOL, you’ve used some mighty strong language when it’s come to Trump. And he very clearly pushes your buttons. Which is understandable, because he’s brash, volatile, and given to verbal/twitter diarrhea. But it’s clear to me at least, that you aren’t particularly partisan.

210 TheAJ February 6, 2017 at 3:05 pm

At a minimum during the campaign compared to the other official 22 presidential candidates he was always and easily found to be the most frequent and most brazen

Politifact is crooked media, cuck.

211 babar February 6, 2017 at 9:29 am

if he had just paused entry for people from these seven countries and stopped there, there would have been far less uproar.

212 prognostication February 6, 2017 at 11:56 am

+1

Also Rudy Giuliani’s hilarious inability to be discreet.

213 Intersting1 February 6, 2017 at 9:29 am

Seems fairly redundant when it currently takes 2 plus years for refugees to get into the country.

214 JFA February 6, 2017 at 9:32 am

Maybe calmer heads should prevail, but where should those calmer heads be located: in the populace or the White House? The outburst have certainly focused mostly on the refugees, but the real concern has to do with those who already have visas or green cards (rejecting someone with a green card, are you kidding me?!). When the president says, “Yeah, I know the US government promised you entry and you have it in writing right there in your hand and perhaps having some continuation in the promises made by previous administrations is a good thing (and may be a necessary condition for the rule of law), but I’m gonna say ‘No’ anyway because a white nationalist former Breitbart editor told me to,” telling people to let ‘calmer heads prevail’ signals an inability to grasp the seriousness of the situation.

Maybe the reaction is driven by political mood affiliation, but when I see House and Senate representatives of both parties saying that this is bad, that is prima facie evidence that the reaction is more than just political mood affiliation.

215 Bob from Ohio February 6, 2017 at 10:27 am

“when I see House and Senate representatives of both parties saying that this is bad,”

How many GOPers? McCain and a few of the usual suspects.

Paul Ryan supports it. He is only Speaker of the House so its understandable his opinion does not matter.

216 JFA February 6, 2017 at 10:44 am

This is admittedly out-of-date (1/29/2017) but I assume you can also use Google to discover the unanswered questions the universe poses. 20 senators and house members is not a small number given how unified they were while Obama was in office. And it’s not as if all the other Republicans have come out in favor of it. 10 senators makes at least any congressional approval of further measures to restrict entry out of reach.

http://fortune.com/2017/01/29/donald-trump-immigration-ban-republicans/

217 Brian February 6, 2017 at 1:40 pm

A green card is not a promise of admittance. There is only one promise of admittance and that is US citizenship. No one else has a right to come into the country. All can be denied entry administratively at the border.

218 prior_test2 February 6, 2017 at 2:36 pm

‘A green card is not a promise of admittance.’

Nope – it is a promise of residency.After already being admitted, one should note.

‘No one else has a right to come into the country. All can be denied entry administratively at the border.’

Actually, this is not quite true, as foreign heads of state have a right to a visa to visit the U.N. This being a condition for having the U.N headquartered in NYC, in regards to the U.N.-U.S. Headquarters Agreement, though technically, the U.N. headquarters are not part of American territory.

219 Tarrou February 6, 2017 at 9:58 am

Security analysis is racism, as well as being fascism and Nazism.

220 anon February 6, 2017 at 10:03 am

No, security analysis is and has been standard operating procedure.

221 Bob from Ohio February 6, 2017 at 10:29 am

The only problems with the order is that it does not cover enough countries and is not permanent.

222 Jermaine February 6, 2017 at 11:05 am

+1

223 WR February 6, 2017 at 12:14 pm

+1

224 prior_test2 February 6, 2017 at 12:22 pm

Festung Amerika, right?

225 Brian February 6, 2017 at 1:41 pm

+1 again!

226 joshua February 6, 2017 at 2:14 pm

Isn’t this sort of logic the real “suicide cult” alluded to in an earlier comment? Given the lack of native-born children these days don’t we need more immigrants to keep up Social Security for you folks? Given the 200 of Fortune 500 companies started by first- or second-generation immigrants don’t we need more of them to keep creating jobs for the rest? Given that God told the Israelites they would be cursed if they oppressed the foreigner, maybe we should be careful about avoiding the same fate…

227 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Racial or Religious Tribe February 6, 2017 at 3:27 pm

But what if Yours Is the Only Virtuous Racial or Religious Tribe? Then you have to keep everyone else out, don’t you?

228 ohwilleke February 6, 2017 at 10:30 am

This sentence is actually very troubling because it is deceitful. Lots of the visas at issue expire in the 90 day period requiring applicants to start over in a multi-year vetting process. So, while it is superficially temporary, in fact, for may applicants, it is in practice permanent and one of the efforts of the administration to avoid the injunction itself was to state that it had actually cancelled most of the visas during the few days that it was in force allegedly making the case moot. This is one reason it took five judges to make the order stick.

The lawyer for the government knows all of this and is misleading the court by suggesting otherwise.

229 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 3:28 pm

Interesting point there.

230 JC February 6, 2017 at 10:39 am

Trump relies too much on lies to support his agenda and this strategy is not working, it can be effective while campaigning for the job but its efficiency has dropped drastically now he’s POTUS.

Right after the judge lifted the travel ban Trump twitted “people pouring in” but it’s not factual because not many refugees from Middle East entered the US in the last few years under Obama watch, vetting is strict already but Trump cannot say it because he preaches that “extreme vetting is for tough guys” and “Obama is weak on immigration” that’s why he can’t say the truth like Obama administration was under pressure from European allies to take in more refugees.

Trump can’t admit that Obama’s policy toward illegal immigrants was far from docile, deportation was setting records under Obama but Trump can’t say it because “lack of borders” was enabling the entrance of millions of Mexicans who eventually stayed in US without papers because Obama was too weak to deport them and “mass deportation” is long due.

Trump should stop thinking it’s “World’s Toughest Man” contest and refrain from picking up unnecessary battles back and forth. His bully attitude and uniformed policies has made him a global laughing stock, way far from the man who would make the world “respect America again”.

231 anon February 6, 2017 at 11:07 am

Trump thought that he could b.s. his way through, without even reading the EOs his fresh staff gave him.

https://twitter.com/PaulGowder/status/828415896683155456

232 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 3:31 pm

LOL, doesn’t even read EOs he signs, that were apparently written by others. “Why didn’t you tell me what it said? Do you think I read things that are not Tweets?” Talk about incompetence.

233 A Definite Beta Guy February 6, 2017 at 12:42 pm

Trump and his rhetoric really aren’t pertinent. It was mainstream conservative position before Trump even came around that we shouldn’t be admitting refugees from Syria (while Obama and the left supported increasing the volume of refugees admitted).

That’s why you have senior Republicans arguing against inclusion of green cards and implementation of roll-out, and objections to religious tests, but no fire and fury about suspension of refugees (other than ‘terps).

Europe is irrelevant in this. They are obviously idiots. Given our rejection and our vetting standards and the number of people they have already let in, they probably have hundreds to thousands of potential terrorists that they have absolutely no hope of tracking, and their domestic police services are already overwhelmed just tracking the domestic terrorists they ALREADY have.

Illegal immigrants are also a separate issue. Whatever their faults, the migrant workers and visa overstays are very unlikely to join Al Qaeda or ISIS.

234 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 3:32 pm

IT was the mainstream conservative politicians’ position to claim to be anti-immigration in order to get elected, and then to do nothing whatsoever to change the immigration system, once in office. They’ve been doing that for years.

235 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 10:50 am

By all means conduct the review or whatever in the 90s days while the order is suspended. By the time the courts get through with it the 90 days will have expired and it will all be moot.

236 J February 6, 2017 at 11:11 am

Institutional reform in the United States- even debate about it- is apparently a non-starter, but current events bring to mind that there are other countries, such as Britain and Canada, as well as a few US states, that have what is known as an “advisory opinion”. The government asks the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of a proposed legislation, after which the government can then make modifications to comply with the ruling (if necessary) before it ever becomes the law of the land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_opinion

237 Turkey Vulture February 6, 2017 at 11:46 am

Per Ambrose Bierce:

EXECUTIVE, n.
An officer of the Government, whose duty it is to enforce the wishes of the legislative power until such time as the
judicial department shall be pleased to pronounce them invalid and of no effect. Following is an extract from an old book entitled, “The Lunarian Astonished”, Pfeiffer & Co., Boston, 1803:

LUNARIAN: Then when your Congress has passed a law it goes directly to the Supreme Court in order that it may at once be known whether it is constitutional?
TERRESTRIAN: O no; it does not require the approval of the Supreme Court until having perhaps been enforced for many years somebody objects to its operation against himself–I mean his client. The President, if he approves it, begins to execute it at once.
LUNARIAN: Ah, the executive power is a part of the legislative. Do your policemen also have to approve the local ordinances that they enforce?
TERRESTRIAN: Not yet–at least not in their character of constables. Generally speaking, though, all laws require the approval of those whom they are intended to restrain.
LUNARIAN: I see. The death warrant is not valid until signed by the murderer.
TERRESTRIAN: My friend, you put it too strongly; we are not so consistent.
LUNARIAN: But this system of maintaining an expensive judicial machinery to pass upon the validity of laws only after they have long been executed, and then only when brought before the court by some private person–does it not cause great confusion?
TERRESTRIAN: It does.
LUNARIAN: Why then should not your laws, previously to being executed, be validated, not by the signature of your President, but by that of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?
TERRESTRIAN: There is no precedent for any such course.
LUNARIAN: Precedent. What is that?
TERRESTRIAN: It has been defined by five hundred lawyers in three volumes each. So how can any one know?

238 JWatts February 6, 2017 at 11:37 am

A plurality of American’s agree with Trump’s executive order: 49% For, 41% Against, 10% undecided

http://www.businessinsider.com/49-of-americans-agree-with-trumps-immigration-ban-2017-1

239 anon February 6, 2017 at 11:52 am
240 WR February 6, 2017 at 12:15 pm

Also cherry picked.

241 anon February 6, 2017 at 12:19 pm

If you have a poll of polls, tear it up, but as linked below, Trump knows the answer.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban-poll/

242 anon February 6, 2017 at 12:22 pm
243 anon February 6, 2017 at 12:01 pm

Actually, do you even know what Trump is tweeting this morning? That all bad polls are false. So, obviously he knows how most are heading. And obviously he can’t deal.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828574430800539648

244 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Religiously Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 3:35 pm

LOL “Any negative polls are fake news.”

Because he is God and only he can tell you the ultimate truth? Or what?

245 TMC February 6, 2017 at 1:35 pm
246 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Religiously Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 3:36 pm

The questions was worded “a ban that keeps refugees from all countries from entering the United States for the next four months until there is a better system in place to keep out individuals who are terrorist threats.” That seems to assume that we don’t have a long and complex vetting process already for refugees. But we do.

It makes a great deal of difference how a question is worded.

247 Trump voter February 6, 2017 at 11:54 am

People not being terrorists is a very low bar for immigration. Why should the US let anyone immigrate from backward countries? Legal immigration needs to be curtailed ASAP and birthright citizenship abolished. Refugee visas should only go to pro western political refugees and a very limited number to allies in war. Path to citizenship should take 20 years or more and require extensive service to the country.

248 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 12:12 pm

We don’t let anyone immigrate from backward countries. US immigration is already very strict. The abolition of birthright citizenship would lead to a permanent underclass of disenfranchised American born residents. If you want a recipe for revolution, be my guest.

249 WR February 6, 2017 at 12:18 pm

“The abolition of birthright citizenship would lead to a permanent underclass of disenfranchised American born residents.”

Not if they’re deported.

250 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 12:33 pm

So you’re proposing to deport people who were born in the United States and have lived here their entire lives?

251 msgkings February 6, 2017 at 12:41 pm

You need to ask? Welcome to Trumpland.

252 Turkey Vulture February 6, 2017 at 12:56 pm

If they were born after birthright citizenship was eliminated, they should be. The whole idea would be that there is nothing special about your place of birth. If they weren’t deported, but birthright citizenship was eliminated, THAT is how you potentially get a large potential permanent underclass: non-citizens who are also treated as something above illegal immigrants.

253 prior_test2 February 6, 2017 at 1:29 pm

‘If they were born after birthright citizenship was eliminated, they should be.’

Well, just imagine eliminating the United States, because it is one of the most fundamental tenets of American citizenship. We are a nation defined by principles, not by blood. Anyone can be an American, which is a rare reality in a world defined by various ethnic shibboleths and superstitions. There is a reason why the U.S. is one of the greatest nations to have ever existed (regardless of its flaws), and hard as it might be for some to grasp, it is not due to racial or religious purity.

254 Turkey Vulture February 6, 2017 at 1:40 pm

“Well, just imagine eliminating the United States, because it is one of the most fundamental tenets of American citizenship. We are a nation defined by principles, not by blood.”

Yes, that most elevated of principles that if you are born to a non-citizen ten feet before crossing the border, you are a non-citizen, but if you are born to that same non-citizen ten feet after crossing the border, you are a citizen. How would the United States ever survive if this were not our method of determining citizenship?

255 WR February 6, 2017 at 1:59 pm

@Hazel, msgkings gets it

@prior “We are a nation defined by principles, not by blood. Anyone can be an American”

Heard it before. Clinton said we deplorables were “not American.” Doesn’t matter that our ancestors have been fighting for this country for generations, in the revolution, in the civil war, in wwII, because we don’t believe in the latest nonsense dreamed up by the New York intellectuals, we’re “not American.” Certainly that was not what our founders believed in, and in the election the American people rejected it. Hail Trump!

256 Brian February 6, 2017 at 2:06 pm

“Well, just imagine eliminating the United States, because it is one of the most fundamental tenets of American citizenship. We are a nation defined by principles, not by blood.”

The idea of a nation of principles, not of blood was invented after WWII. It is not an American idea, but an invented basis for opposing communism among leftists.

To “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” is an American principle. Right from the founding.

257 prior_test2 February 6, 2017 at 2:15 pm

‘Yes, that most elevated of principles that if you are born to a non-citizen ten feet before crossing the border, you are a non-citizen, but if you are born to that same non-citizen ten feet after crossing the border, you are a citizen. How would the United States ever survive if this were not our method of determining citizenship?’

Actually, you are also a non-citizen if you are born to American citizens outside of the U.S. who are not American residents, as noted here – ‘A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provided that one of the parents had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth.’ https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-child-born-abroad.html

I’m sure you can find something outrageous in how the U.S. views the privilege of citizenship on a different basis than that used by those enamored of racial or religious purity. Nonetheless, it is quite possible for two American citizens to have a child that is not an American citizen due to the child being born outside of the U.S.

American citizenship is granted according to American law, after all, and is not based on the citizenship of the parents. Mainly because the U.S. is a nation of shared values based on our Consitution, and not blood ties.

258 msgkings February 6, 2017 at 2:18 pm

@WR: we’re all getting it, good and hard

259 prior_test2 February 6, 2017 at 2:19 pm

‘The idea of a nation of principles, not of blood was invented after WWII.’

The people who created the 14th Amendment would probably enjoy hearing more about your alternate reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

260 prior_test2 February 6, 2017 at 2:24 pm

‘Hail Trump!’

No thanks, we already had our National Day of Patriotic Devotion.

But you are welcome to – just don’t use the lazy arm position when doing it, it tends to look a bit flippant.

Boot clicking is only appropriate when the boots are highly polished, by the way.

261 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 2:49 pm

If they were born after birthright citizenship was eliminated, they should be.

Do you think it would be moral and humane to “deport” someone to a country he has never lived in, and may not even speak the language of?
Do you think that the other country would even be obliged to accept such a deportee? What sort of country would America be if it took people born and raised here and consigned them to the stateless oblivion based solely on the crimes that their *parents* committed in coming here without the proper permission slips? Is that the idea of liberty and justice for all that America is supposed to represent?

262 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 2:52 pm

Yes, that most elevated of principles that if you are born to a non-citizen ten feet before crossing the border, you are a non-citizen, but if you are born to that same non-citizen ten feet after crossing the border, you are a citizen.

What about children born to “illegal” aliens who have been residing here for 10 years? Should they be denied citizenship too?

263 Turkey Vulture February 6, 2017 at 3:06 pm

What do other countries without birthright citizenship do? Are they all immoral and inhumane? The policy is most prevalent in the Western Hemisphere, where a legacy of being minimally-populated areas with non-pervasive government made it to where, practically speaking, birthright citizenship made the most sense. But that it was the most sensible policy in 1865 doesn’t mean it is the most sensible policy today.

The idea is to minimize the number of people in the situation by removing the incentive to illegally be here in the first place. If you vigorously enforce the immigration laws and eliminate birthright citizenship, the number of children being born here and living here for long periods of time should be very small. And perhaps in many of those cases, humanitarian exceptions can be made without negating the larger incentive effect that we are seeking.

Most of the inhumanity you imagine is a function of screwed up incentives and imagining an extension of the US immigration status quo, where we basically allow long-term illegal immigration and the existence of a permanent underclass as a result.

264 WR February 6, 2017 at 3:07 pm

@prior, it is simply a fact that, in 1790, naturalization was restricted to White people only. Around the time the 14th amendment was passed, which was solely to mandate equal treatment for freed slaves, it was extent to Blacks as well. They could have gotten rid of racial restrictions entirely, but they didn’t. This prohibition survived until 1943.

But I understand the urge to revise. Oceania is at war with East Asia, Oceania has always been at war with East Asia!

265 prior_test2 February 6, 2017 at 3:26 pm

‘@prior, it is simply a fact that, in 1790, naturalization was restricted to White people only.’

Sure, and women were not allowed to vote either. And you do have the wisdom to pick your date carefully, considering what happened later – ‘The most important of these revisions occurred in 1855, when citizenship was automatically granted to alien wives of U.S. citizens, and in 1870, when the naturalization process was opened “to persons of African descent”.’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Law_of_1802

‘Around the time the 14th amendment was passed, which was solely to mandate equal treatment for freed slaves, it was extent to Blacks as well.’

Oops, you left out the 1855 change, granting American citizenship to women married to American citizens.

Currently, I am not aware of any nations called Oceania or East Asia, but in this alternate fact world, who cares, right? But remind me – who is supposed to represent the U.S. in this fictional scenario? After all, loving Trump seems to be less important than hailing him, if Trump’s supporters are providing an accurate view.

266 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 5:25 pm

Most of the inhumanity you imagine is a function of screwed up incentives and imagining an extension of the US immigration status quo, where we basically allow long-term illegal immigration and the existence of a permanent underclass as a result.

The reason we “allow” long term illegal immigration is because it would require a police state to prevent. Because we don’t have internal checkpoints where people have to present their papers for inspection. The police don’t have X-ray vision that can tell them exactly where all the illegal aliens are, and they don’t have people going door-to-door checking for birth certificates and passports, and if they tried there would be violent insurrections in parts of the country.
Again, I must point out that there are already millions of illegal aliens who have US citizen spouses and children who can’t even legalize their status under current law. You start bashing in doors with goons and dragging away people’s wives and mothers, people aren’t going to take that quietly.

267 WR February 6, 2017 at 6:58 pm

Hazel, the vast majority of countries in the world do not have birthright citizenship. So it’s not a theoretical situation, you can go on and on about MuhPoliceState, all people have to do is look East and see reality.

268 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 10:57 pm

The vast majority of nations aren’t as attractive places to live, or have various problems resulting from failure to assimilate immigrants. A very restrictive immigration policy would be nearly impossible to implement in the US – we already have a hard enough time enforcing the immigration laws that already exist, which are already very strict.

269 8 February 6, 2017 at 12:36 pm

US immigration is not strict in who it admits. The system is byzantine and punishes people coming through legal channels, it puts the greatest burden on people who follow the laws closely and do everything correct. But things like chain migration mean the system is not selecting for quality immigrants the way countries such as Canada do.

270 msgkings February 6, 2017 at 12:43 pm

The whole immigration and citizenship process should be reconstructed. But it’s hard to see how we do that when the issue is so charged and makes people lose their minds.

271 Turkey Vulture February 6, 2017 at 12:48 pm

Perhaps that two truest sentences that can be written about all of this.

272 albatross February 6, 2017 at 2:02 pm

+1

273 WR February 6, 2017 at 2:05 pm

“The whole immigration and citizenship process should be reconstructed. But it’s hard to see how we do that when the issue is so charged and makes people lose their minds.”

Agree 100%. Can you write up exactly what reforms you would like to see enacted. But …. you probably won’t. You hear the Moderates say this, but never draw up any plan. They know they can’t defend the current system, but the Left will call them racist if they propose anything substantially different.

274 msgkings February 6, 2017 at 2:15 pm

And your lot will call them un-American and race traitors if they propose something different than total ban on non-white immigrants. Hence my point about people losing their minds (on the left, right, and alt-right)

275 WR February 6, 2017 at 3:09 pm

“And your lot will call them un-American and race traitors if they propose something different than total ban on non-white immigrants”

Don’t let that stop you!

276 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 12:45 pm

People engaging in chain migration are following the legal process. They are sponsoring their family members, and it is very slow. Brother-sister sponsorship wait times are over 10 years. If you want to change the criterion for immigration that’s a separate debate, but you’re going to have a hard time convincing people that it’s ok that they shouldn’t be allowed to bring their immediate family over. I wouldn’t be adverse to placing some limits on *which* family members may be sponsored – like screening against radical Muslims. I’d also be happy to trade more restrictive family migration for more liberal employment sponsorship – which would generally bring in higher skilled people.

277 WR February 6, 2017 at 2:07 pm

“but you’re going to have a hard time convincing people that it’s ok that they shouldn’t be allowed to bring their immediate family over.”

No need to convince the immigrants. Just the voters. But we can’t do that. Trump has no path to 270…..

278 Trump Voter February 6, 2017 at 12:46 pm

Yes, chain migration needs to be halted as well. That would leave marriage, a small group of extremely vetted political refugees, allies in war, and highly skilled job based immigrants selected using a point system. For all of these, gaining citizenship should take much longer than now.

279 Turkey Vulture February 6, 2017 at 12:47 pm

“The abolition of birthright citizenship would lead to a permanent underclass of disenfranchised American born residents. If you want a recipe for revolution, be my guest.”

Most nations don’t have birthright citizenship, so there should be a lot more revolution in the world if this is true.

Eliminating birthright citizenship would be prospective, not retroactive. It would reduce the incentive to illegally immigrate in the first place, or to stay here if currently an illegal immigrant, plausibly reducing the size of the US underclass rather than increasing it.

280 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 3:03 pm

Well, France doesn’t have birthright citizenship, but then how well does France handle it’s immigrant population? You think that might have something to do with it’s Muslim problem? Same for other places. Lots of European countries lack birthright citizenship, but then don’t assimilate their Muslim minorities. Japan is not the nicest place to live if you’re not a Japanese national. I think America ought to be a good place to live for people of all races and cultures, and not be inherently oppressive towards “foreigners”. If you deny people who live in the country the ability for themselves or their children, grandchildren, and distant descendents, to ever become citizens you’re by definition creating a disenfranchised class. This goes against the basic democratic principles that America was founded on. If you’re just talking about people on tourist visas then that’s a different issue. if you’re born here to someone who lives here, whether they are legal or illegal, you ought to be a citizen. End of story. Otherwise we’re violating our sacred principles.

281 WR February 6, 2017 at 3:12 pm

“Japan is not the nicest place to live if you’re not a Japanese national.”

Really? My brother in law would disagree with that.

282 Turkey Vulture February 6, 2017 at 3:16 pm

Yes, France and other European countries screw up by trying to have (1) fairly open immigration and (2) no birthright citizenship. That may be a recipe for a permanent underclass too. But why not have (1) highly restricted immigration and (2) no birthright citizenship?

“if you’re born here to someone who lives here, whether they are legal or illegal, you ought to be a citizen. End of story. Otherwise we’re violating our sacred principles.”

No, that is absurd, if you’re extending the argument broadly. If you’re born here to an illegal immigrant mother, and she is detected and deported a month later, you say we have done a great injustice and violated sacred principles? Six months? A year? The child isn’t even retaining episodic memories of the land around it at this point.

You keep saying things like 10 years, because that’s the point where you feel the question has tipped in your favor. But that isn’t a likely outcome for more than a small handful of people if the nation (1) eliminates birthright citizenship and (2) vigorously enforces immigration laws. And as I say above, it seems plausible that we could grant humanitarian exceptions to deportation in those rare cases without substantially changing the incentives facing potential immigrants in the first place.

If a pregnant woman crosses the border illegally and gives birth, we would be violating our sacred principles to deport them immediately afterward? But if she doesn’t quite make it to the border in time, we are all good? That just seems like a very odd basis for a strong moral conviction, so I have to assume you mean something far more substantial than that.

283 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 3:26 pm

Presumably, there are going to be many illegal aliens who will come here, give birth, and continue to live here for many years afterwards. It is certainly a fact that this is true right now. Should those children, born to illegal aliens, raised in the US, be deported? Should they be denied the right to vote?

284 Turkey Vulture February 6, 2017 at 3:43 pm

I just don’t think it has to be the situation. I don’t see why a large number of illegal immigrants residing in the nation for long periods of time has to be the case, rather than being the practical upshot of policy choices. We could decide to prevent it from happening and largely succeed.

It seems like the reality existing now is a policy choice, a bi-partisan understanding whereby (1) the right gets some corporations cheap, underclass labor and (2) the left gets to gain people who it expects to eventually disproportionately vote for it (plus the cheap underclass labor, too). And it is heavily incentivized by the existence of birthright citizenship in the first place.

285 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 3:50 pm

But why not have (1) highly restricted immigration and (2) no birthright citizenship?

We already have highly restricted immigration. It’s virtually impossible to get a legal visa without either a graduate degree in a STEM field (Bachelors is possible, but may be difficult, depending on specialization), or by marrying in US citizen. Wait lists for brother-sister family sponsorships are over 10 years long. Only 65,000 are granted per year. Thus this idea that tones of people are engaged in “chain migration” is overblown. It takes decades to bring over one’s extended family, much less one’s entire village.

This is why we have so much illegal immigration – because it is simply not possible for the sorts of people who are coming across the southern border to immigrate legally. It’s not going to get any more restrictive than it already is.

286 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 3:55 pm

I don’t see why a large number of illegal immigrants residing in the nation for long periods of time has to be the case

Because we don’t live in a total surveillance state where people have to have internal passports to travel. Because we have a strong economy that will always attract large numbers of workers. Because we have a culture that provides people with opportunities to make something of their live, regardless of their origin.

Why is it so important to keep out immigrants anyway? They aren’t harming anyone by being here. All they are doing is working at low-skilled jobs, trying to earn a living and make a better life for themselves and their children. What’s so bad about that? Maybe that lowers wages somewhat for poorer Americans but so what? Why are poor Americans more entitled to work at shitty jobs and try to earn a living than anyone else? Why can’t you sympathize with the human aspirations of people who don’t happen to speak English and have the right pieces of paper?

287 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 3:58 pm

It seems like the reality existing now is a policy choice, a bi-partisan understanding whereby (1) the right gets some corporations cheap, underclass labor and (2) the left gets to gain people who it expects to eventually disproportionately vote for it (plus the cheap underclass labor, too).

And what does the cheap underclass labor get out of this? Only the right to live their lives, pursue happiness, and follow their dreams. Totally not worth considering.

288 msgkings February 6, 2017 at 4:01 pm

“It’s not going to get any more restrictive than it already is.”

Oh man, you are in for an educational 4 years.

289 Turkey Vulture February 6, 2017 at 4:14 pm

Illegal immigration is still immigration. If we have large amounts of it, we don’t have highly restricted immigration.

“Maybe that lowers wages somewhat for poorer Americans but so what? Why are poor Americans more entitled to work at shitty jobs and try to earn a living than anyone else? Why can’t you sympathize with the human aspirations of people who don’t happen to speak English and have the right pieces of paper?”

Because that is the basic premise of citizenship, that you care more about them than you care about the random world at large. More of my family and community is composed of poor Americans than poor anyone else, so I care more about them. I am human and don’t plan to become otherwise.

I can sympathize with a lot of things that I don’t think people should do, and that I think I and my family are better off if people don’t do. I can sympathize with a kid whose father is killed in a drone strike and wants to exact vengeance on us as a result. But that sympathy doesn’t mean I think we should let him come do it.

“And what does the cheap underclass labor get out of this? Only the right to live their lives, pursue happiness, and follow their dreams. Totally not worth considering.”

I have no obligation to fix the world’s problems. They are not my making. Some are inherent in existence. I am neither messiah nor prophet.

And obviously, all of your moralistic arguments prove far too much for this discussion, as they would support totally open-borders immigration and potentially a borderless world. That is fine if you believe it, I have some anarchist tendencies myself, but it is ultimately not my flavor of libertarianism.

290 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 5:17 pm

I can sympathize with a lot of things that I don’t think people should do, and that I think I and my family are better off if people don’t do. I can sympathize with a kid whose father is killed in a drone strike and wants to exact vengeance on us as a result. But that sympathy doesn’t mean I think we should let him come do it.

Because moving to another country, getting a job, and making a better life for yourself, is JUST LIKE blowing people up in a terrorist attack.
Really? You think it is morally wrong for people to move from one country to another to get a job?

Because that is the basic premise of citizenship, that you care more about them than you care about the random world at large.

We all came here from somewhere else, why should I care more about the people who just happened to get here first than the potential future Americans who presumably I’m supposed to instantly care more about the instant they get the right piece of paper? “We got here first” is not a morally compelling argument to me.

And here you are arguing that the supposed entitlement of the people who had the luck of having ancestors that got here first entitles them to implement an immigration policy that doesn’t even allow people to bring in their parents and siblings. What’s more immoral, taking a job that someone who got there first might have taken, or denying someone the right to live with their sister, brother, parent, or child? How much suffering are you willing to create so that poor working class white people don’t have to compete for jobs with immigrants?

291 Turkey Vulture February 6, 2017 at 12:09 pm

If people in these nations pose no particular threat to US security, we should really stop using our military to kill them.

Or maybe we really do have the perfect system already in place: the perfect vetting procedures for immigrants mixed with just the right amount of extra-judicial executions in their homelands. But it seems to me that the right equilibrium could conceivably involve more immigration restrictions and less killing. I’m amoral like that.

292 Hazel Meade February 6, 2017 at 12:14 pm

If people in these nations pose no particular threat to US security, we should really stop using our military to kill them.

That would definitely help, yes.

293 Turkey Vulture February 6, 2017 at 12:26 pm

I tend to think it would. I am far from settled on the issue, but my current view is something close to: even if we are almost entirely killing the “bad guys,” we are probably creating just as many new “bad guys” in the process. And I doubt we are actually being so precise. So we are probably hurting long-term US interests, apart from any moral questions which might be involved in killing people.

It seems like a far more consequential issue than immigration restrictions. If I offered two possible retaliatory options against, say, Saudi Arabia, I would think (1) a travel ban, would be perceived as less severe than (2) bomb them.

I think many people who were quiet about Obama’s drone war but who are appalled by Trump’s immigration order are betraying their partisanship, not principle. And they make up a lot of the noisy people. Not all, but a lot.

294 albatross February 6, 2017 at 2:05 pm

It would be shocking if we were really being very precise. The police arrest the wrong person often enough in the US–where they speak the language, understand the culture, have substantial support from the locals, and know there will be a prosecutor and later maybe a judge and jury overseeing what they’ve done. It’s hard to imagine that the error rate for our raids and drone strikes wouldn’t be at least ten times that of police raids.

295 Turkey Vulture February 6, 2017 at 2:23 pm

Yeah, I agree that this is likely the reality, which moves the needle more towards “we are making more enemies by blowing people up than we are eliminating through the blowing up process.”

296 Potato February 7, 2017 at 12:25 am

Yes, this is a fantasy of delusional liberals and libertarians. That the justice system has any bearing on how the predator program works. Jesus…fucking…Christ.

Yes we just think someone might be something Muslimy and then shoot a hell fire. Jill is right, end democracy. We don’t deserve real policy. Apparently no one is the virtuous tribe. We’re all retarded, and can only count to potato.

I can’t explain, without being a Hillary Clinton or scooter Libby, how fucking retarded you are with your assumptions. I’m not even mad that you clearly don’t have a security clearance, it’s that you’re so god damn stupid that you can’t imagine what targeting is. Yes hazel meade and Jill, we literally just rape and murder our way through the world!!! And that’s why they hate us! We retroactively cause terrorism by reacting to it.

ISIS deserves to win long term.

297 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 3:40 pm

Word.

298 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 3:42 pm

About “we are making more enemies by blowing people up than we are eliminating through the blowing up process.”

“any people who were quiet about Obama’s drone war but who are appalled by Trump’s immigration order are betraying their partisanship, not principle.”

There are many people who were against both. And even those who were against both who are more noisy as time goes on, are not necessarily being partisan. Maybe it took time to come to their conclusions.

But if Yours Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe, then everyone else must be insincere.

299 Ricardo February 7, 2017 at 12:15 pm

“I think many people who were quiet about Obama’s drone war but who are appalled by Trump’s immigration order are betraying their partisanship”

This is a false comparison. When someone applies for a visa, one of the things DHS checks is whether that individual shows up in any databases as a possible threat to national security. Likewise, any targeted military operations in other countries are based on intelligence that identifies which individuals are threats to the U.S. You seem to be trying to create the false impression that the U.S. is indiscriminately shooting at people in these countries and, therefore, we might as well indiscriminately ban people from these countries as well.

One of the main things to come out of 9/11 was closer cooperation and information sharing between immigration authorities and the FBI, intelligence community and military. We actually already have a system that seems to work reasonably well.

300 maxwell r davis February 6, 2017 at 12:15 pm

you mean the security analysis that has already been conducted many times, and at the end will simply be rebranded as “extreme” like it’s a 90s mountain dew ad? Seems like you’re (via someone else’s quote) justifying authoritarianism. He provided no proof that there were any issues on any level with our vetting process, and just jumped to it being inadequate.

301 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 3:45 pm

He had to do that, because he had to fulfill his promises to his base– promises which were based on the fear and anger he instigated by his lies. Using lies to stir up voters with fear and rage– telling them that the world is coming apart and his predecessors did everything wrong– these methods win elections. So these are what we have to deal with often in elected officials.

302 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 3:46 pm

Oh, and telling people that only he can fix the horrible system his predecessors came up with. That lie.

303 tony February 6, 2017 at 2:00 pm

As a liberal, I will try to do my best expressing why I disagree with Trump’s plan, and where my biases lay.

If America immigration would like to put in ‘belief checks’ for immigration, I would be all for them, but what exactly would those be. I think it is totally understandable that people in a country are not keen on letting in more people who don’t share their values. So what values are we going to make our benchmarks?

1. Separation of church and state is a must (this is effectively a forced repudiation of Sharia Law)
2. Equality of all religions under the law, giving none legal preference
3. Equality of the genders
4. Accepting of homosexuality and general equality before the law
5. Accepting of the democratic process as the way to settle disputes

As a liberal, I am fine with those standards for immigrants (ignoring for the moment how we could ever test for this). Now, if we made those the standards for immigration, how many social conservatives would howl, because many of these ‘value benchmarks’, are things they disagree with. At this point, it becomes not a uniform value system that we all must adhere to, but something more along the line of an implicit recognition that certain values are better than others in America.

But whose values? A brief look at history will document the following from American nativists:

1. Irish indistinguishable from African Americans (not at compliment at the time!)
2. Catholics unable to put allegiance of country before God (sound familiar)
3. Jews not welcome in this country for various reasons
4. Italian, Baltic and other ‘bad Europeans’ as polluting the purity of America
5. At one time ‘lazy’ immigrants from Latin America who are now ‘stealing jobs’ presumably while no longer being lazy?
6. Asians being ‘sneaky’ or some other similar denigration

So, from my point of view, I am supposed to trust that this time, really truly, Muslims entering the USA are fundamentally different from all the other groups denigrated in the past as being fundamentally different and unable to become ‘real’ Americans for whatever reason.

And right now, I am sure there are some white readers of this post who are nodding along saying, ‘yes, exactly’. Muslims are the latest in a long line of groups that have made America worse.

If there is a real discussion about the values needed to become an American, I am all for it, but a general ban on 7 countries feels more like a warmed over, ‘these people are incompatible with Democracy on a macro, non individual level. And as a history major, I have heard that rhetoric before.

304 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 3:48 pm

It’s a political strategy of “solving” the problems DT created in fantasy by stirring people up into fear and rage– through lies about how horrible our vetting system for immigrants supposedly was. It’s not any kind of realistic assessment of what we are doing and what we ought to do.

305 WR February 6, 2017 at 2:09 pm

“Irish indistinguishable from African Americans (not at compliment at the time!) ”

LOL. #FakeHistory

306 tony cohen February 6, 2017 at 2:43 pm

“Ignatiev notes that in the 19th century, Irish were sometimes called “niggers turned inside out” while black people were referred to as “smoked Irish.” His book displays antebellum-era political cartoons that treat both blacks and Irish with similar contempt.”

http://obrag.org/?p=34626

307 WR February 6, 2017 at 3:18 pm

Yeah I’ve heard of (((Ignatiev))) and his theories. But even he doesn’t go so far as to say that Irish were “indistinguishable from African Americans.”

308 tony cohen February 6, 2017 at 3:44 pm

WR, you are right to call me out on my use of ‘indistinguishable’. It was not the correct word, but if, to use the local parlance of this site:

‘people of Irish descent have undergone as massive status change from their historical origins’, would you disagree with that?

309 msgkings February 6, 2017 at 4:03 pm

Hey White Race, have you heard of (((Jesus Christ))) and His theories?

310 JSK February 6, 2017 at 4:07 pm

Could you take it easy on the antisemitism? (or: (((antisemitism))))
You sound somewhat reasonable but this ((())) stuff is just bad taste.

311 msgkings February 6, 2017 at 4:32 pm

The thing I still don’t understand about the ((())) crowd is what exactly is the goal there? It’s not like people don’t know who is Jewish, or which industries have a lot of Jewish people employed in them. OK, ((())) is Jewish, so what? It’s like putting {{{}}} around the names of anyone who is Hispanic. OK, yep, they are Hispanic. So what?

312 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Racial or Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 6:06 pm

I think it’s so that Alt Right people can point out the enemy over and over. And it helps to point out everyone who is Jewish, or whatever race they think is the enemy. Because it highlights them as different and worse than other people. And then when any of that race do any of the greedy, immoral, stupid, or incompetent things that all human occasionally do, the Alt Right can point that out and can pretend that other humans don’t do those things– only individuals of that ((( ))) enemy race do those things.

It’s similar to the suffix “tard” to denote a political tribe that is supposedly not as smart as your own tribe. Or having Putin hack the (((DNC))) and then revealing the (((DNC’s))) emails– and then pretending that the (((DNC’s)) business as usual is scandalous. The business of the RNC, being completely hidden and being without any parentheses around it, is then assumed to be as pure as the driven snow, since all evidence to the contrary is hidden.

313 msgkings February 6, 2017 at 6:16 pm

Nice story, but the ((())) is about Jews only. What’s the point? Presumably the anti-Semites already know who’s Jewish.

314 WR February 6, 2017 at 6:42 pm

“It’s not like people don’t know who is Jewish or which industries have a lot of Jewish people employed in them”

Yeah, quite a few people don’t know who’s Jewish. They watch their televisions and see a “debate” between three Jews and just assume they are ordinary white people. You want to point out which industries have a lot of Jewish people employed in them, please, be my guest, do so under your own real name. See what happens. Hispanics, you can see them. No need for any special symbol. Ignatiev is the poster child for this kind of crypsis, portraying himself as “White” and them calling himself a “traitor” to the White race while never mentioning his own ethnicity, an entirely irrelevant factor no doubt.

However, I can see how the symbol would be interpreted as in poor taste, as I am not antisemitic, and so I will no longer use it.

315 megamie February 6, 2017 at 2:45 pm

This conversation bores me

316 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 6:20 pm

On the immigration issue, as on others, Yours Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe. So, no matter what a member of the Enemy Tribe says, they are projecting, or signaling, or only holding the position they hold because they are partisan or hypocritical.

Because you need ways to block yourself from listening with an open mind, to the arguments and ideas of the Enemy Political Tribe. Otherwise, how can you insure that you can safely remain a member of the Only Virtuous Political Tribe?

317 WR February 6, 2017 at 7:00 pm

So, are you criticizing the Left too?

Or are you pretending to be objective so that four seconds later you can say “as an objective observer, I side with the Left?”

It’s a rhetorical question, no need to answer.

318 Mine Is the Only Virtuous Political Tribe February 6, 2017 at 7:40 pm

I do not uniformly side with the mainstream Left on every issue.

Sorry if I messed up your view of the world, where every conservative is a clone of the One True Conservative, with identical beliefs, and every liberal is a clone of the One True Liberal. Lots of people do not decide all of their views according to a list of what a particular party believes. You should try it some time. It won’t kill you, I promise.

319 WR February 6, 2017 at 8:43 pm

LOL, I’m very far from the One True Conservative. I’m alt-Light, truecon issues such as abortion, cutting taxes for the rich, I don’t support ’em. I assumed you are a One True Liberal based on your behavior here, if not, can you give me an example of something you disagree with the Left on?

320 The truth is uncomfortable February 6, 2017 at 8:04 pm

300+ Comments, and nobody mentions the elephant in the room, the reason why muslim terrorism exists in the first place, is because US/Saudi Arabia created, trained and financed its existence. False flags all of them…

321 Potato February 7, 2017 at 12:32 am

You’re not even worthy of the term idiot. Are the Jews in on this conspiracy also? What about the Templars? Or…GASP…the Masons?

Stop trolling and go back to your mom’s basement. I’m sure she will bring the hot pockets down shortly.

Trolling can be clever or just idiotic.

322 The truth is uncomfortable February 7, 2017 at 5:11 am

the truth is uncomfortable, i know. But if you knew anything about history, you wouldn’t call me a troll, just check what the CIA did since 1950’s…

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: