In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Extreme vetting
Don McManus
Member Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭
Trump's original ban on 27 January was to last 90/120 days so they could fix the system.
We are now right at the 120 day mark, and the administration is challenging the 9th circuit's blocking of the second travel ban.
They have had the time requested to evaluate and implement new policies, so are these new policies in place, or are we just restricting laptops?
We are now right at the 120 day mark, and the administration is challenging the 9th circuit's blocking of the second travel ban.
They have had the time requested to evaluate and implement new policies, so are these new policies in place, or are we just restricting laptops?
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Brad Steele
Brad Steele
Comments
Parts of it were indefinite anyway.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Maybe the thought is since both the original and the second have been restricted by the courts there is, in effect, presently no ban and there has been no opportunity to evaluate and implement new policies?
Parts of it were indefinite anyway.
My understanding was that the ban was necessary to keep 'bad hombres' out while new policies were being developed and implemented. I do not see how the lack of a ban would slow down or impair this development of new policies in any way.
If anything, the continuing traffic could be utilized in that incoming immigrants/visitors/workers could be catalogued and categorized so as to help with the structuring of the vetting, targeting etc.
Brad Steele
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Best to get the legal matters straightened out first, or the leftist hamster wheel will just keep spinning.
It is hard to imagine that after courts managed to concoct a way to stop obviously allowed executive action in the form of a moratorium that any enhanced vetting measures would not face the same non-legally based court decisions.
Best to get the legal matters straightened out first, or the leftist hamster wheel will just keep spinning.
I don't see the legal connection. By definition, enhanced vetting would supplant any travel ban, and would have an entirely different set of legal considerations. One would think enhanced vetting would be universal, and would therefore be immune to any challenges of religious or racial preference or profiling. Recent event have shown that we can be at risk from someone with British Passport as well as one from one of these selected countries.
The travel ban was only temporary to keep us safe until the vetting process could be put into place. If the threat is real, there is no excuse to not have that process ready to implement or at least present as soon as is possible.
I would hope that the review and recommendation process is well along, but absent any news other than court appeals for a travel ban that would have already expired, I am beginning to wonder if it has been all talk and no action to date.
Brad Steele
When someone is knocking at your door. Do you not look and check out who they are?
long but interesting read on these evil barbarians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
It is hard to imagine that after courts managed to concoct a way to stop obviously allowed executive action in the form of a moratorium that any enhanced vetting measures would not face the same non-legally based court decisions.
Best to get the legal matters straightened out first, or the leftist hamster wheel will just keep spinning.
I don't see the legal connection. By definition, enhanced vetting would supplant any travel ban, and would have an entirely different set of legal considerations. One would think enhanced vetting would be universal, and would therefore be immune to any challenges of religious or racial preference or profiling. Recent event have shown that we can be at risk from someone with British Passport as well as one from one of these selected countries.
The travel ban was only temporary to keep us safe until the vetting process could be put into place. If the threat is real, there is no excuse to not have that process ready to implement or at least present as soon as is possible.
I would hope that the review and recommendation process is well along, but absent any news other than court appeals for a travel ban that would have already expired, I am beginning to wonder if it has been all talk and no action to date.
Ya think?!? #128521;
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
It is hard to imagine that after courts managed to concoct a way to stop obviously allowed executive action in the form of a moratorium that any enhanced vetting measures would not face the same non-legally based court decisions.
Best to get the legal matters straightened out first, or the leftist hamster wheel will just keep spinning.
I don't see the legal connection. By definition, enhanced vetting would supplant any travel ban, and would have an entirely different set of legal considerations. One would think enhanced vetting would be universal, and would therefore be immune to any challenges of religious or racial preference or profiling. Recent event have shown that we can be at risk from someone with British Passport as well as one from one of these selected countries.
The travel ban was only temporary to keep us safe until the vetting process could be put into place. If the threat is real, there is no excuse to not have that process ready to implement or at least present as soon as is possible.
I would hope that the review and recommendation process is well along, but absent any news other than court appeals for a travel ban that would have already expired, I am beginning to wonder if it has been all talk and no action to date.
There is no legal connection to the court decisions and legal underpinnings given US 1182. Yet the injunctions were issued. The EO should have been immune. It was not. The amendments to 1182 in 1965 didn't seem to apply to Carter's Iranian deportation and ban in 1979. Why now? Politics. Not the Law.
For myself, I am wondering if those who are working so hard to impede anything from this administration give a tiny crap about risks to the US from those with British passports or anything else. It sure doesn't appear so. It ought to be obvious that tying up the administration is the silly sheet we have seen cannot avoid but delaying work on important issues. Yet they persist.
Why the hell bother vetting anyone from ragheadland when you lick the boots, kiss the * of and sell weapons to the biggest group of Islamist terrorists on the globe, the Wahhabi whack-balls running Saudi Arabia?????
long but interesting read on these evil barbarians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
Add to that that our politicians have always allowed everybody and their brother John Doe Foreign National to own U. S. Property, and you can see where it all started.
Why the hell bother vetting anyone from ragheadland when you lick the boots, kiss the * of and sell weapons to the biggest group of Islamist terrorists on the globe, the Wahhabi whack-balls running Saudi Arabia?????
long but interesting read on these evil barbarians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
Add to that that our politicians have always allowed everybody and their brother John Doe Foreign National to own U. S. Property, and you can see where it all started.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
It is hard to imagine that after courts managed to concoct a way to stop obviously allowed executive action in the form of a moratorium that any enhanced vetting measures would not face the same non-legally based court decisions.
Best to get the legal matters straightened out first, or the leftist hamster wheel will just keep spinning.
I don't see the legal connection. By definition, enhanced vetting would supplant any travel ban, and would have an entirely different set of legal considerations. One would think enhanced vetting would be universal, and would therefore be immune to any challenges of religious or racial preference or profiling. Recent event have shown that we can be at risk from someone with British Passport as well as one from one of these selected countries.
The travel ban was only temporary to keep us safe until the vetting process could be put into place. If the threat is real, there is no excuse to not have that process ready to implement or at least present as soon as is possible.
I would hope that the review and recommendation process is well along, but absent any news other than court appeals for a travel ban that would have already expired, I am beginning to wonder if it has been all talk and no action to date.
There is no legal connection to the court decisions and legal underpinnings given US 1182. Yet the injunctions were issued. The EO should have been immune. It was not. The amendments to 1182 in 1965 didn't seem to apply to Carter's Iranian deportation and ban in 1979. Why now? Politics. Not the Law.
For myself, I am wondering if those who are working so hard to impede anything from this administration give a tiny crap about risks to the US from those with British passports or anything else. It sure doesn't appear so. It ought to be obvious that tying up the administration is the silly sheet we have seen cannot avoid but delaying work on important issues. Yet they persist.
This is where Trump is missing the boat, IMO.
The sideshow that is the 9th Circuit did nothing to impede the work necessary to bring about what has always been stated as the end game. They have not hindered State or DHS from investigating and analyzing best practices regarding vetting. There is not and cannot be a pre-emptive injunction but the objections voiced, which seem to be centered around Trump's pre-election talking points, can be evaluated and circumvented if necessary when crafting the vetting program.
The obstructionists are out in full force to be sure. They have done nothing that would have prevented the role out of the enhanced vetting process/program in the time requested.
Where is it?
The threat has not changed. All that has changed is a virtually unrelated issue has been blocked, and rather than moving forward in the interest of safety as we were led to believe, this administration has chosen to ignore the goal and focus on the distraction.
Perhaps the goal of laying out a program of enhanced vetting in 120 days was harder than originally thought. It would be nice to know that someone is working on the problem rather than just wasting time on the legal case of the travel ban.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
It is hard to imagine that after courts managed to concoct a way to stop obviously allowed executive action in the form of a moratorium that any enhanced vetting measures would not face the same non-legally based court decisions.
Best to get the legal matters straightened out first, or the leftist hamster wheel will just keep spinning.
I don't see the legal connection. By definition, enhanced vetting would supplant any travel ban, and would have an entirely different set of legal considerations. One would think enhanced vetting would be universal, and would therefore be immune to any challenges of religious or racial preference or profiling. Recent event have shown that we can be at risk from someone with British Passport as well as one from one of these selected countries.
The travel ban was only temporary to keep us safe until the vetting process could be put into place. If the threat is real, there is no excuse to not have that process ready to implement or at least present as soon as is possible.
I would hope that the review and recommendation process is well along, but absent any news other than court appeals for a travel ban that would have already expired, I am beginning to wonder if it has been all talk and no action to date.
There is no legal connection to the court decisions and legal underpinnings given US 1182. Yet the injunctions were issued. The EO should have been immune. It was not. The amendments to 1182 in 1965 didn't seem to apply to Carter's Iranian deportation and ban in 1979. Why now? Politics. Not the Law.
For myself, I am wondering if those who are working so hard to impede anything from this administration give a tiny crap about risks to the US from those with British passports or anything else. It sure doesn't appear so. It ought to be obvious that tying up the administration is the silly sheet we have seen cannot avoid but delaying work on important issues. Yet they persist.
This is where Trump is missing the boat, IMO.
The sideshow that is the 9th Circuit did nothing to impede the work necessary to bring about what has always been stated as the end game. They have not hindered State or DHS from investigating and analyzing best practices regarding vetting. There is not and cannot be a pre-emptive injunction but the objections voiced, which seem to be centered around Trump's pre-election talking points, can be evaluated and circumvented if necessary when crafting the vetting program.
The obstructionists are out in full force to be sure. They have done nothing that would have prevented the role out of the enhanced vetting process/program in the time requested.
Where is it?
The threat has not changed. All that has changed is a virtually unrelated issue has been blocked, and rather than moving forward in the interest of safety as we were led to believe, this administration has chosen to ignore the goal and focus on the distraction.
Perhaps the goal of laying out a program of enhanced vetting in 120 days was harder than originally thought. It would be nice to know that someone is working on the problem rather than just wasting time on the legal case of the travel ban.
You fail to realize that there is no "good" news about President Trump in any National publication. As long as the progliblefties are writing the stories (and that's what they write, "stories"), there will never be any coverage of the good things done by Him.