Jump to content

39 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Posted

We should all be super excited for randomly banning people from 5 countries, while not actually making our country any safer.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/

 

But of course this has everything to do with safety...and facts...so many facts to back up the ban....huge facts...we just seem to have misplaced them.

 

I could maybe have a discussion on the merits of temporarily halting immigration from specific countries in the interest of national security. But those countries would have to actually be sources of immigrant terrorists in the USA. None of those on this "travel ban" list have been.

Meanwhile, there are several other countries that have. So the fact that those other countries aren't the target screams ulterior motives or conflicting priorities (The countries that actually do contribute to terrorists are more friendly with us and we don't want to offend, perhaps?).

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline
Posted

Several bickering posts have been removed.  Please return to the topic.

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Wales
Timeline
Posted
  On 12/5/2017 at 5:55 PM, bcking said:

We should all be super excited for randomly banning people from 5 countries, while not actually making our country any safer.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/

 

But of course this has everything to do with safety...and facts...so many facts to back up the ban....huge facts...we just seem to have misplaced them.

 

I could maybe have a discussion on the merits of temporarily halting immigration from specific countries in the interest of national security. But those countries would have to actually be sources of immigrant terrorists in the USA. None of those on this "travel ban" list have been.

Meanwhile, there are several other countries that have. So the fact that those other countries aren't the target screams ulterior motives or conflicting priorities (The countries that actually do contribute to terrorists are more friendly with us and we don't want to offend, perhaps?).

Expand  

Agree there are a lot more than 5.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Posted
  On 12/5/2017 at 5:57 PM, Boiler said:

Agree there are a lot more than 5.

Expand  

There are certainly countries you could advocate for looking at. None of these countries would be on my Top 5 list. These countries have not contributed towards a single death on US soil. The fact that it is these countries and NOT the countries actually responsible not only make the whole thing completely ineffective, but it also heavily suggests that there is a reason for not targeting those other countries.

 

My guess (Just a guess) is that the countries that are actually big players in terms of terrorists coming to the USA are stronger political allies (Saudi Arabia, for example). Putting a ban on them would be much more difficult and would be met with international resistance and would hurt us economically. At the same time though, Trump is obsessed with "winning", even if the "win" is rather meaningless. So he picks 7 weak countries that he can ban to show that he is successful at making us "safer" even though those countries aren't the source of risk in America.

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Russia
Timeline
Posted
  On 12/5/2017 at 6:02 PM, bcking said:

There are certainly countries you could advocate for looking at. None of these countries would be on my Top 5 list. These countries have not contributed towards a single death on US soil. The fact that it is these countries and NOT the countries actually responsible not only make the whole thing completely ineffective, but it also heavily suggests that there is a reason for not targeting those other countries.

 

My guess (Just a guess) is that the countries that are actually big players in terms of terrorists coming to the USA are stronger political allies (Saudi Arabia, for example). Putting a ban on them would be much more difficult and would be met with international resistance and would hurt us economically. At the same time though, Trump is obsessed with "winning", even if the "win" is rather meaningless. So he picks 7 weak countries that he can ban to show that he is successful at making us "safer" even though those countries aren't the source of risk in America.

Expand  

I thought it had more to do with being able to insure the validity of documentation from these countries?  I also thought it was the last administration that did the initial investigation?

Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Wales
Timeline
Posted
  On 12/5/2017 at 6:02 PM, bcking said:

There are certainly countries you could advocate for looking at. None of these countries would be on my Top 5 list. These countries have not contributed towards a single death on US soil. The fact that it is these countries and NOT the countries actually responsible not only make the whole thing completely ineffective, but it also heavily suggests that there is a reason for not targeting those other countries.

 

My guess (Just a guess) is that the countries that are actually big players in terms of terrorists coming to the USA are stronger political allies (Saudi Arabia, for example). Putting a ban on them would be much more difficult and would be met with international resistance and would hurt us economically. At the same time though, Trump is obsessed with "winning", even if the "win" is rather meaningless. So he picks 7 weak countries that he can ban to show that he is successful at making us "safer" even though those countries aren't the source of risk in America.

Expand  

laotzu1-2x.jpg

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Posted
  On 12/5/2017 at 6:05 PM, Boiler said:

laotzu1-2x.jpg

Expand  

I'd prefer it to be a step in the right direction.

 

This whole "travel ban" deal seems like a sidestep at best. It won't make us safer, and it won't change the fact that we aren't going to ban people from countries that we trade with and make money from.

Posted (edited)
  On 12/5/2017 at 6:04 PM, Bill & Katya said:

I thought it had more to do with being able to insure the validity of documentation from these countries?  I also thought it was the last administration that did the initial investigation?

Expand  

The executive order is entitled

 

"Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States"

 

Rather grandiose language for this, if you ask me. There has been only one foreign terrorist entry from all 7 countries, and that resulted in injuries, no deaths.

 

The Obama administration came up with the list of countries, but never so far as to suggest to ban everyone from those countries. Those countries were subject to increased vetting. During that time, of course, those countries continued to be low on teh list of countries that actually send terrorists into the USA. 

 

Trump clearly changed the scope and escalated it further, without any evidence that it was needed. Those countries have continued to have a extremely low impact on our "safety". The ban hardly makes us any safer (if at all). It won't stop terrorists from coming in if they wanted to. From historical evidence the terrorists won't even need to jump through any additional hoops since they don't seem to ever originate from those countries in the first place.

Edited by bcking
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Russia
Timeline
Posted
  On 12/5/2017 at 6:26 PM, bcking said:

The executive order is entitled

 

"Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States"

 

Rather grandiose language for this, if you ask me. There has been only one foreign terrorist entry from all 7 countries, and that resulted in injuries, no deaths.

 

The Obama administration came up with the list of countries, but never so far as to suggest to ban everyone from those countries. Those countries were subject to increased vetting. During that time, of course, those countries continued to be low on teh list of countries that actually send terrorists into the USA. 

 

Trump clearly changed the scope and escalated it further, without any evidence that it was needed. Those countries have continued to have a extremely low impact on our "safety". The ban hardly makes us any safer (if at all). It won't stop terrorists from coming in if they wanted to. From historical evidence the terrorists won't even need to jump through any additional hoops since they don't seem to ever originate from those countries in the first place.

Expand  

But wasn’t that the point of the whole EO, to pause immigration from these countries until the increased vetting could be implemented? I agree, there are probably more countries that should be on the list, but I imagine the vetting has also been improved.

Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Posted
  On 12/5/2017 at 6:37 PM, Bill & Katya said:

But wasn’t that the point of the whole EO, to pause immigration from these countries until the increased vetting could be implemented? I agree, there are probably more countries that should be on the list, but I imagine the vetting has also been improved.

Expand  

What evidence existed that they weren't vetted well enough before?

 

Were terrorists "falling through the cracks"?

Posted
  On 12/5/2017 at 6:39 PM, bcking said:

What evidence existed that they weren't vetted well enough before?

 

Were terrorists "falling through the cracks"?

Expand  

We don't know yet.

 

 

Click Spoiler for signature timeline.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Posted
  On 12/6/2017 at 4:26 AM, jayjayj said:

We don't know yet.

Expand  

That argument could apply to literally anything, or keeping to the scope of this topic - literally any country.

 

Perhaps Canada will be responsible for the migration of hundreds of deadly terrorists. They haven't so far, but we don't know yet what will happen in the future. Maybe they already have but the terrorists are just biding their time?

 

Should we can Canada? Perhaps our vetting isn't good enough. We just don't know yet.

Posted
  On 12/6/2017 at 4:29 AM, bcking said:

That argument could apply to literally anything, or keeping to the scope of this topic - literally any country.

 

Perhaps Canada will be responsible for the migration of hundreds of deadly terrorists. They haven't so far, but we don't know yet what will happen in the future. Maybe they already have but the terrorists are just biding their time?

 

Should we can Canada? Perhaps our vetting isn't good enough. We just don't know yet.

Expand  

Except Canada isn't a failed state.

 

 

Click Spoiler for signature timeline.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Wales
Timeline
Posted
  On 12/6/2017 at 4:31 AM, jayjayj said:

Except Canada isn't a failed state.

Expand  

3CA254EB00000578-4169526-image-a-35_1485

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...