17-35105 State of Washington v. Trump 3:00 PM 2/7 Oral arguments to the 9th circuit

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

No, I cannot answer it myself. You can't answer it either. That is classified information available only to select members of the CBP, the President, and a few high-level officials.

Well...you seemed to have answered your own question then?

Do you think you might garner some insight into the process via published interviews with recent immigrants from those regions and the material they were asked to submit and the number, who and when they interviewed with or what agencies they interacted with or how long it took them?

This is about it red...I have no intention of doing your thinking for you nor your research.

This EO has failed...It is being aborted by the Trump administration after being found constitutionally offensive by multiple courts now...and largely on the precise grounds I cited in this thread and you derided and denied as being valid.

a reply to: Indigo5
Thats because no court has cited your reasons for their actions.

a reply to: Indigo5

Nope.. just the stuff in your post.

a reply to: Indigo5

The DOJ has done no such thing. Why do you insist on lying and spreading false information? The DOJ just filed a motion with the 9th circus to delay Judge Robarts hearing pending the outcome of the en banc 9th circus hearing.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5
Thats because no court has cited your reasons for their actions.

Just the last page I quoted the VA ruling...Plus excerpted the 9th Circuit ruling before that..

I think I will leave you to your denial tantrum..

Reality can show you where this EO is heading...

You can shout at the television...no need for me to be a stand in for your rage at reality..

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 process.

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.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Sorry you wasted a wall of text...

I stopped reading on the second sentence where you told me what I am thinking...

a reply to: Indigo5

Understandable, since most of your positions indicate you stopped reading too soon, too.

TheRedneck