Shot in the Dark

Dilemma

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Trump tried to implement an anti-terrorist vetting law passed by Congress and initially implemented by President Obama.  The courts have struck it down repeatedly.
Even if we did have aggressive vetting, would it help? Europe has vetted thousands and many of the recent attacks were carried out by persons on the watch list.  The authorities don’t have enough manpower to watch all the suspects.
It seems to me the obvious solution is to limit the number of new potential terrorists entering the country, but that’s exactly what the court don’t let the President do.
So stop admitting anybody.  Moratorium.  Complete halt.  Equal to all.  Give us a cooling-off period, for recent immigrants to assimilate and for us to root out sleeper terrorists here at home.
Joe Doakes

Posted

in

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

11 responses to “Dilemma”

  1. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    Not only impossible, but impractical. While the logic is solid, the implementation is impossible without declaring martial law. What about reunification of families? What about job transfers? Alas, while we are in some regards an island, we cannot cut ourselves off from the rest o the world. Globalization genie is out of the bottle and there is no way to stuff it back in.

  2. Mammuthus Primigenius Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenius

    Sponsorship with hard penalties for failure to follow admission conditions. No one gets in unless there is a person or entity in the US willing to become legally responsible for that person’s support & behavior.
    Since the open borders types assure us that immigrants always pay their fair share and don’t commit crimes, they should have no problem accepting this rule.
    Right?

  3. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    MP, that rule is already law. At least it was gazillion years ago when we were admitted as refugees. Just enforce it!

  4. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    Come to think of it, if only we enforced laws already on the books, we would not be having this discussion or having to issue bans, etc.

  5. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    We still might need to have travel bans. Enforcing current law would eliminate a large portion of gangs like the Nortenos and MS-13, but that does not eliminate any issues that might be caused by refugees. Plus, every criminal has a first crime, and hence you can, and ought to, do something about groups disproportionately likely to commit crime.

  6. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    JPA, maybe family reunification should be rescinded? Maybe go back to the immigration law as it was when JFK was President? What would be the harm TO THE NATION * in that system?

    * Not harm to individuals – there always will be sob stories and hard cases – what would be the harm to the nation?

  7. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    JD, so you are OK with getting back to policies that will result in the history of HMS St. Louis to be repeated?

    Like I said before, your logic is sound but impractical.

  8. nerdbert Avatar
    nerdbert

    I think you misunderstand the reality on the ground. As far as the legal immigrants here go ICE has essentially no duties. But as far as fraud, support and federal law enforcement, that responsibility falls to the FBI. And locally the FBI is pretty undermanned, so they won’t even consider investigating any sort of alleged fraud or abuse unless it crosses $1M at a bare minimum (or at least so I hear from the agents).

    Could we enforce and investigate better? Certainly, but it will cost. FBI agents aren’t cheap, nor do they grow on trees given the standards to be an agent. And what they have to do in terms of investigation is much harder than the equivalent ICE function since they’re working with folks who are legally in the country and have many more Constitutional protections, while all ICE has to do under Trump is show that they’re here illegally. It is far, far better to demand “extreme vetting” and to demand proof positive of good citizen prospects for migrants/refugees rather than to go with the current standard of “no red flags.” Yes, we’ll be more picky, but I’d argue that given the realities once those folks land in this country legally that it’s the smart call to make.

  9. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    JPA, if you’re talking about a policy of limiting the number of refugees allowed into the country, then yes, I favor that policy and so does every politician in every party in every nation on earth. There are nearly a billion people living in conditions that would make them eligible for refugee status and no, I don’t want them all to come here.

    Do you want them all to come here? If so, tell me how you’re going to pay for it.

    If not, then you and I agree on a limitation policy but we’re drawing the line in different places. That’s not a moral dilemma, it’s a quibble.

    I used to argue the United States was like a lifeboat – we have a limited amount of excess capacity to accommodate refugees before they swamp the boat. But that imagery implies a rescue is coming and from what I see, nobody is coming to our rescue. Nowadays, I argue the United States is like a medieval fortress besieged by barbarians. Every refugee we let in reduces the defenders’ rations and increases the likelihood of a Trojan horse attack from within.

    Moratorium, until we get our country back on its feet. Then, immigration that benefits the nation, not the immigrants.

  10. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    There are nearly a billion people living in conditions that would make them eligible for refugee status

    And 99% of them will be economic refugees. Being born in a hell hole sucks, but thinking you have a right to just pick up and invade a sovereign country is wrong. We were real refugees. We were stateless. We had no passports and Soviet Union was not going to let us back in – we had to pay for the privilege of being stripped of the Soviet citizenship. And when we were looking for a home, US had a quota. It did not matter if we were real refuges or not, once the quota was filled, people were turned away and had to try to get into other countries. Oh, and BTW, it did not matter to the US that we were stateless, we still had to prove we were personally persecuted to be given refugee visa. To get into Canada, you had to have a guarantor and sign paperwork you will not be a burden on the state.

    So, if you are indigenous people fleeing a hell hole, is quite different from being a real refugee that no one wants. And I think that is the quibble, JD. The difference between refugees and immigrants. I violently agree with your last sentence. But I also want to make sure we do not have a repeat of HMS St. Louis when genuine refugees are concerned, wherever they are from. And even then, only with extreme vetting like when we came over.

  11. Mammuthus Primigenius Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenius

    justplainangry on June 29, 2017 at 9:30 am said:
    MP, that rule is already law. At least it was gazillion years ago when we were admitted as refugees.
    Oh, yes. In 1988 I was sponsor to my brother’s wife. He met her overseas while he was in the Peace Corps. It wasn’t just a matter of “sign here.” I had to accept responsibility for repaying any public benefit she received (if any), and I had to show tax returns to prove that I could support her.
    I suppose it’s different these days, thanks to both D’s and R’s.
    Powerline links to this WaPo piece:
    ‘Love Thy Neighbor?’
    When a Muslim doctor arrived in a rural Midwestern town, “it felt right.” But that feeling began to change after the election of Donald Trump.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-a-midwestern-town-that-went-for-trump-a-muslim-doctor-tries-to-understand-his-neighbors/2017/07/01/0ada50c4-5c48-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?utm_term=.837420490ae9

    This is what it looks like when the elites write for the other elites, and not the people. It has that “sahib talking to other sahibs about the locals” vibe.
    I didn’t vote for Trump, but I think that he is a fine alternative to the Clinton Grift Dynasty. I have two degrees, a fair number of legal immigrant relatives (whom I admire greatly),and I live in a state and in a zip code that is far less than 50% white.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.