a reply to: Indigo5
Well...you seemed to have answered your own question then?
I already knew the answer before I asked it. I was interested in your response... and apparently with good reason.
So here I finally get some actual insight into your thinking process. You know absolutely nothing about the vetting process or how it works
internally, but you somehow have convinced yourself that it could be figured out by listening to those who have been questioned. That further
indicates that you believe the vetting process to be a couple questions asked to a VISA holder before sending them on through. That is the extent of
knowledge one could infer from thone being questioned.
Here's a little smidgen of truth for you to be amused at: no foreigner holds a US VISA. VISAs are issued by the country of citizenship. When one
applies for a VISA, they are initially vetted by their own country. Their destination country then reviews the vetting process and stamps the VISA as
approved. Then there is a vetting process at the point of entry. Most of this is done behind the scenes; if I wanted to travel to France, for
instance, I would have to get a VISA from the US State Department. I would then have to contact a French Embassy to have my VISA approved. Finally,
when I arrived in France, I would be subject to additional checks, searches, questions, etc. Now, if the US State Department checks my records, which
I assume would include arrest records, court records, FBI/CIA records, etc., and finds nothing of consequence, France is not going to spend their time
repeating that. They will, I assume, verify my records in France if any exist. When I get to France, their border agents will check me, my baggage,
probably ask a few questions, gauge my response, and hopefully let me in.
The point is that it all starts with the US State Department. The destination country must rely on the originating country's vetting process, since
they do not have direct access to another country's records.
The 7 countries specified have already been identified as having either poor vetting procedures for their VISA program, or unstable governments that
are unable to fully vet citizens. There is no such trust between them and other countries, so the vetting process is not secure. Trump has decided, as
the person legally in charge of immigration, and based on recommendations from advisors intimately familiar with the vetting process, that this is an
unacceptable risk and needs to be improved upon. In the interim, he has decided not to honor VISAs from countries which have a poor vetting
That is the job of the President. Congress has been given the Constitutional authority to oversee immigration. Congress has vested power to enact and
enforce immigration procedures to the President, subject to broad guidelines. The Supreme Court has declared many times over that states do not
automatically have legal standing in immigration matters.
But, hey, one judge has decided, screw all that, I don't like how it works because... Trump.
One appellate court has decided that one judge should be able to override the Executive and Legislative branches, as well as the Constitution. And now
here you are: cheering it on, all the while demonstrating over and over you know nothing about law, immigration proceedings, executive orders, the
vetting process, the Constitution, national security, separation of powers, or even current events. Because... Trump.
Deny ignorance; do not embrace it.