Про решение Supreme Court за travel ban в пользу Трампа написали многие. Хочу лишь уточнить, что решение было принято единогласно, 9:0, безо всяких особых мнений.
"To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f)"
It was supposed to be a temporary suspension, not an indefinite ban, to allow time for improving screening of "fellow bloggers". You can invite him to visit, but it might take State Department a while to conduct proper background check of somebody from Iran, especially since there is no US embassy in Tehran since 1979.
Why do these iranian citizens suddenly need extra background check scrutiny? They were coming the the US before and nothing seriously bad happened in the past. Why ban these visits now?
I'm a Pastarian, which from the point of view of traditional Islam makes me guilty of apostasy, which in turn is punishable by death. I don't know about you, but I really don't want people with such beliefs to come over and behead me.
So how many people were killed by these attacks in the last 20 years?
Then compare it with the number of people killed by the US in the last 20 years. Which of these two numbers seems more "serious" to you?
> which in turn is punishable by death
Who, in your mind, is going to bring that punishment on you? Does that theory of yours have practical confirmations in reality?
> but I really don't want people with such beliefs to come over and behead me.
I agree - let's not allow into the US anyone who wants to behead people. But what does it have to do with the vast majority of Iranians and citizens from other banned countries?
Your argument about number of people killed by the US is called whataboutism.
If you are saying that Iran specifically does not belong on this list, that might be a valid criticism. Not all countries there pose equally high risk, and some notorious ISIS strongholds are absent. But the list was created by the previous administration. Executive order we are discussing just references it.
I don't want this ban to become permanent, as you know it should expare in a few months. We need to be sure hat all visitors and immegrants passed complete background check and will respect current U.S. law.
1) Why do we need _complete_ background check on everyone? 2) If we need it - why not just run these background checks to our satisfaction (without ban)?
Let POTUS and government decide what american citizen need. More then 50% support travel ban. If you don't like it - don't vote for Trump next election.
Я никак не пойму о чем весь этот спор. Эмиграционный офицер имеет (и всегда имел, по крайней мере последние лет 20) право завернуть любого не-гражданина на границе без объяснения причин. Почему это вдруг стало неконституционным за последний год? Въезд в страну для не-гражданина - это привилегия, а не право. Право надо заслужить чистым бэкграундом, "чистым" проживанием страны 3-5 лет, принятием присяги (без фиги в кармане) и натурализацией.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-26 11:35 pm (UTC)From the court interpretation it looks like not.
That means that neither you nor I can invite a fellow blogger from, say, Ukraine to visit us.
That limits our freedom a little, don't you think?
Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 12:02 am (UTC)Ukraine is not on the list.
Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 12:12 am (UTC)If I meet a fellow blogger from Iran - why I cannot invite him to visit?
Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 12:54 am (UTC)It was supposed to be a temporary suspension, not an indefinite ban, to allow time for improving screening of "fellow bloggers". You can invite him to visit, but it might take State Department a while to conduct proper background check of somebody from Iran, especially since there is no US embassy in Tehran since 1979.
Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 08:39 am (UTC)They were coming the the US before and nothing seriously bad happened in the past. Why ban these visits now?
Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 11:01 am (UTC)I'm a Pastarian, which from the point of view of traditional Islam makes me guilty of apostasy, which in turn is punishable by death. I don't know about you, but I really don't want people with such beliefs to come over and behead me.
Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 01:18 pm (UTC)So how many people were killed by these attacks in the last 20 years?
Then compare it with the number of people killed by the US in the last 20 years.
Which of these two numbers seems more "serious" to you?
> which in turn is punishable by death
Who, in your mind, is going to bring that punishment on you?
Does that theory of yours have practical confirmations in reality?
> but I really don't want people with such beliefs to come over and behead me.
I agree - let's not allow into the US anyone who wants to behead people.
But what does it have to do with the vast majority of Iranians and citizens from other banned countries?
Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 01:29 pm (UTC)If you are saying that Iran specifically does not belong on this list, that might be a valid criticism. Not all countries there pose equally high risk, and some notorious ISIS strongholds are absent. But the list was created by the previous administration. Executive order we are discussing just references it.
Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 03:08 pm (UTC)Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 12:06 am (UTC)Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 12:14 am (UTC)2) If we need it - why not just run these background checks to our satisfaction (without ban)?
Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 12:56 pm (UTC)Trump need time to hire new staff to do it.
Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 01:23 pm (UTC)Why not? Police in authoritarian countries is usually more thorough.
Besides, there are lots of other sources of information available.
> Trump need time to hire new staff to do it.
So now we should limit our freedom (to invite friends) because Trump is slow?
Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 01:33 pm (UTC)Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 03:09 pm (UTC)Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 03:11 pm (UTC)Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 03:16 pm (UTC)Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 03:22 pm (UTC)If you don't like it - don't vote for Trump next election.
Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 03:40 pm (UTC)Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 03:45 pm (UTC)Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 03:58 pm (UTC)Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 03:42 pm (UTC)This is one example when pure democracy significantly underperforms and lobbying (by business) helps to alleviate the problem.
Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 03:46 pm (UTC)Churchill
Re: Bona fide relationship
Date: 2017-06-27 04:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-06-28 05:18 pm (UTC)