yostrov: (Default)
Американский Наблюдатель ([personal profile] yostrov) wrote2017-06-26 06:00 pm

9:0

 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.
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)

Bona fide relationship

[personal profile] dennisgorelik 2017-06-26 11:35 pm (UTC)(link)
Do you and I have bona fide relationship?

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

[personal profile] malobukov 2017-06-27 12:02 am (UTC)(link)
List of countries: Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen.

Ukraine is not on the list.
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)

Re: Bona fide relationship

[personal profile] dennisgorelik 2017-06-27 12:12 am (UTC)(link)
Why should we ban visitors from these countries?

If I meet a fellow blogger from Iran - why I cannot invite him to visit?

Re: Bona fide relationship

[personal profile] malobukov 2017-06-27 12:54 am (UTC)(link)
"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.
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)

Re: Bona fide relationship

[personal profile] dennisgorelik 2017-06-27 08:39 am (UTC)(link)
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?

Re: Bona fide relationship

[personal profile] malobukov 2017-06-27 11:01 am (UTC)(link)
Some seriously bad things have happened. In the US, the most recent attack took place in 2016, perpetrated by Somali refugee Abdul Razak Ali Artan.

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.
Edited (typo) 2017-06-27 11:02 (UTC)
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)

Re: Bona fide relationship

[personal profile] dennisgorelik 2017-06-27 01:18 pm (UTC)(link)
> Some seriously bad things have happened.

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

[personal profile] malobukov 2017-06-27 01:29 pm (UTC)(link)
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.
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)

Re: Bona fide relationship

[personal profile] dennisgorelik 2017-06-27 03:08 pm (UTC)(link)
So now Obama is guilty that Trump's administration is banning visitors?
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)

Re: Bona fide relationship

[personal profile] dennisgorelik 2017-06-27 12:14 am (UTC)(link)
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)?
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)

Re: Bona fide relationship

[personal profile] dennisgorelik 2017-06-27 01:23 pm (UTC)(link)
> Because we don't trust police in those countries

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?
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)

Re: Bona fide relationship

[personal profile] dennisgorelik 2017-06-27 03:09 pm (UTC)(link)
Because Obama failed at what?
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)

Re: Bona fide relationship

[personal profile] dennisgorelik 2017-06-27 03:16 pm (UTC)(link)
If you need these background checks - you can run them yourself. Why should I spend my money on such mostly useless activity?
paserbyp: (Default)

Re: Bona fide relationship

[personal profile] paserbyp 2017-06-27 03:40 pm (UTC)(link)
...I remember Josef Stalin teach us that doesn't matter how you will vote and matter who and how calculate votes...
paserbyp: (Default)

Re: Bona fide relationship

[personal profile] paserbyp 2017-06-27 03:58 pm (UTC)(link)
…specially when elections vote close to 50-50...
dennisgorelik: 2020-06-13 in my home office (Default)

Re: Bona fide relationship

[personal profile] dennisgorelik 2017-06-27 03:42 pm (UTC)(link)
> More then 50% support travel ban.

This is one example when pure democracy significantly underperforms and lobbying (by business) helps to alleviate the problem.
paserbyp: (Default)

Re: Bona fide relationship

[personal profile] paserbyp 2017-06-27 04:01 pm (UTC)(link)
…also, Churchill liked great "democrat" Stalin… so, Churchill could be easily wrong here try to dancing with devil...
sun_jr: (Default)

[personal profile] sun_jr 2017-06-28 05:18 pm (UTC)(link)
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.