yostrov | 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.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

dennisgorelik

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?

From:

malobukov

List of countries: Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen.

Ukraine is not on the list.

From:

yostrov

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.

From:

dennisgorelik

Why should we ban visitors from these countries?

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

From:

dennisgorelik

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)?

From:

malobukov

"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.

From:

dennisgorelik

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?

From:

malobukov

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) Date: 2017-06-27 11:02 am (UTC)

From:

yostrov

Because we don't trust police in those countries
Trump need time to hire new staff to do it.

From:

dennisgorelik

> 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?

From:

dennisgorelik

> 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?

From:

malobukov

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.

From:

yostrov

For now we should limit our freedom (to invite friends) because Obama failed.

From:

dennisgorelik

So now Obama is guilty that Trump's administration is banning visitors?

From:

dennisgorelik

Because Obama failed at what?

From:

yostrov

run these background checks to our satisfaction

From:

dennisgorelik

If you need these background checks - you can run them yourself. Why should I spend my money on such mostly useless activity?

From:

yostrov

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.

From:

paserbyp

...I remember Josef Stalin teach us that doesn't matter how you will vote and matter who and how calculate votes...

From:

dennisgorelik

> More then 50% support travel ban.

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

From:

yostrov

Yes, the process is very important.

From:

yostrov

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Churchill

From:

paserbyp

…specially when elections vote close to 50-50...

From:

paserbyp

…also, Churchill liked great "democrat" Stalin… so, Churchill could be easily wrong here try to dancing with devil...

From:

sun_jr

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.