Actually, 9th Circuit Judges, 72 Terrorists Have Come From Those 7 Banned Countries
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Actually, 9th Circuit Judges, 72 Terrorists Have Come From Those 7 Banned Countries

  1. #1

    Actually, 9th Circuit Judges, 72 Terrorists Have Come From Those 7 Banned Countries

    Actually, 9th Circuit Judges, 72 Terrorists Have Come From Those 7 Banned Countries
    .
    By: Joseph Curl,
    .
    President Trump has been blasted in the media for having the temerity to protect Americans with a temporary travel ban on immigrants from seven of the worst terrorist hotbeds in the world.
    .
    And San Francisco's Ninth Circuit court of appeals ruled against Trump's travel ban, saying, "The government has pointed to no evidence... that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States."
    .
    But it turns out that 72 people from those seven countries have been convicted on terrorism charges since Sept. 11, 2001, according to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies.
    .
    "Thirty-three of the 72 individuals from the seven terror-associated countries were convicted of very serious terror-related crimes, and were sentenced to at least three years imprisonment," wrote director of policy studies, Jessica M. Vaughan. "The crimes included use of a weapon of mass destruction, conspiracy to commit a terror act, material support of a terrorist or terror group, international money laundering conspiracy, possession of explosives or missiles, and unlawful possession of a machine gun."
    .
    Another 17 claimed to be refugees from the counmtries in question -- Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Syria -- three came diguied as "students," and a whopping 25 went on to U.S. citizens.
    .
    The number of convicted terrorists from each country is: Somalia, 20; Yemen, 19; Iraq, 19; Syria, 7; Iran, 4; Libya, 2; Sudan, 1.
    .
    The data from which the center based its report was originally released in 2016 by the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
    .
    Vaughan wrote in her report that the terrorists had spread out across the U.S. "These immigrant terrorists lived in at least 16 different states, with the largest number from the terror-associated countries living in New York (10), Minnesota (8), California (8), and Michigan (6). Ironically, Minnesota was one of the states suing to block Trump's order to pause entries from the terror-associated countries, claiming it harmed the state. At least two of the terrorists were living in Washington, which joined with Minnesota in the lawsuit to block the order."
    .
    Vaughn also wrote: "President Trump's vetting order is clearly legal under the provisions of section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which says that the president can suspend the entry of any alien or group of aliens if he finds it to be detrimental to the national interest. He should not have to provide any more justification than was already presented in the order, but if judges demand more reasons, here are 72."
    .
    Trump on Friday defended his travel ban, saying on Air Force One that he is confident his administration will prevail.
    .
    "We will win that battle. The unfortunate part is that it takes time statutorily, but we will win that battle. We also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand new order," Trump said.
    .
    Read More:
    .
    Actually, 9th Circuit Judges, 72 Terrorists Have Come From Those 7 Banned Countries | Daily Wire
    .
    My Thoughts:
    .
    The lawyer from the DOJ should have had this info to rebut the 9th circuit judges when he was giving his statements.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    May be, the next time the President signs an EO, he makes sure that a lawyer actually looks at it? The EO as signed does contain language that makes it unconstitutional, as I explained already. Existing law, such as 8 U.S. Code § 1182, can not be used to justify violating another law, such as the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

    May be, the next time the President lets someone defend his EO, he makes sure that the lawyer is actually prepared for it? Signing EOs when your administration is not up and running is outright foolish. Who is supposed to implement the EO and defend it if it gets challenged? The government agencies implementing it had no time to prepare, creating chaos at US airports. The government lawyer defending it had little to no time to prepare.

    As for President Trump's statements about winning this battle, this is simply not going to happen. The decision of the 9th Circuit contains language that no President wants to challenge in front of SCOTUS in the first place. SCOTUS won't take it up in its current state anyway and the EO times out by the time this will make it to SCOTUS. The "See you in court" tweet was meant for his followers that simply don't know better. From the news reports over the weekend, it seems that President Trump is rewriting the EO.

    As for the justification for the EO that 72 terrorists have come from those 7 countries, other terrorists have come from other countries and many terrorists were self-radicalized while in the US. The ban was an inception of then Presidential Candidate Trump, when he had zero classified briefings about national security. It is a solution in search of a problem.

    While one can argue if better vetting needs to be done for any type of immigrant (refugee or not), President Trump's policy is about a campaign promise and not about making this nation safer. This nation's safety didn't just change on January 20, making it an urgent need to push though this policy. Moreover, the policy has a 90/120 day timeout on the ban, meaning 3 weeks have already passed without the Trump administration being fully operational and improving the vetting process. What is that supposed to accomplish, other than making President Trump's followers happy and pissing off President Trump's opponents?

    Lastly, President Trump's terse Twitter responses and off-hand remarks are not helping either. The President of the United States needs to explain to the People of the United States what exactly he is doing and why, either in front of the press or later in court. He hasn't done any of this, because this would clearly show the holes in the EO.

    PS: It looks like the enforcement of President Trump's EO at Canadian airports may actually violate Canadian laws and the US-Canadian agreements for the US CBP operation at Canadian airports. People that have not flown to countries like Canada or Ireland don't know this, but when you fly back, you clear US Customs and Immigration at the foreign airport, such as in Vancouver or Dublin. US CBP operates on foreign soil using bilateral agreements. The EO is likely violating those bilateral agreements and Canadian laws, possibly Irish and EU laws too.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Three Pinocchios by the WaPo on this one: Stephen Miller’s claim that 72 from banned countries were implicated in ‘terroristic activity’

    The list does include some people who were convicted of providing material support, such as money or personnel, to groups that are designated as terrorist organizations, such as al-Shabab and al-Qaeda. But it also includes people who were convicted of passport fraud, visa fraud and making fraudulent claims to federal investigators. About two dozen people on this list were not charged with any crimes relating to providing material support to known or suspected terrorist activities or organizations.

    Others were believed to be tangentially related to terrorism groups abroad, but did not face terrorism charges. Regardless of the direct or tangential ties that investigators believe each individual may have to terrorist activities, these charges need to be proven in a court of law. Suspected or potential terror links involving these 72 individuals do not confirm Miller’s claim that they were “implicated in terrorist activity.”

    Moreover, some people on this list entered the United States — many of them naturalized — decades before they were charged with any of the crimes. That makes Miller’s use of this list to defend Trump’s executive order quite questionable. We award Three Pinocchios.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    Since I don't pollute my eyes/brain with twaddle from WaPo any more than a passing glance when someone posts something from there, I have no clue what "Three Pinocchios" even means. Three out of a possible what, 4? 5? 10? Seems to me if you're gonna call somebody a liar, it's either pass/fail, truth/lie. Quibbling over nuances of "truth" is not trying to get at the real truth at all, it's simply trying to lead readers by the nose to a preconceived conclusion who don't have the good sense or requisite degree of discernment to figure out for themselves when they're being lied to.

    I'm perfectly willing to accept that Trump et al have lied, and are lying, about the genesis of the EO, but it's gonna take something more substantial than a nuanced evaluation that does include involvement in terrorist activities and/or support to convince me, when all the WaPo author wants to quibble over is whether or not those activities or that support rises to the level of the individuals themselves being "terrorists."

    Based solely on his own words and actions concerning issues that are important to me, I'm no fan of Trump. I don't think I could make myself any more clear on that point. I have followed closely, and even defended, your take on this controversy, but have to say the above does absolutely nothing to buttress your position(s). WaPo is the worst source of "truth" on the planet, and have been since shortly after Woodward and Bernstein accepted their Pulitzer for the Watergate series back in what? Like '74? '75? Somewhere in there.

    Trump is stepping all over himself trying to figure out what restrictions he has as President. I think it's even possible that he's surprised to find that he has any that are enforceable from the other two branches. Obviously, his team ain't none too coordinated in that regard either. His fans will defend him to the death it appears. Like Trump himself said, he could walk out on 5th Avenue and shoot somebody dead and his fans would still vote for him.

    His detractors will never let a single innocuous action pass without challenge, whether big or small. It's the Alinsky Way dontcha know.

    The exceedingly few of us who have tried to remain objective by separating and commenting on the crux of each individual controversy that comes up, can do ourselves no favors by citing WaPo as a source for anything worthy of consideration. They are definitely in the crowd that complies with the Alinsky Way.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Since I don't pollute my eyes/brain with twaddle from WaPo any more than a passing glance when someone posts something from there, I have no clue what "Three Pinocchios" even means. Three out of a possible what, 4? 5? 10? Seems to me if you're gonna call somebody a liar, it's either pass/fail, truth/lie. Quibbling over nuances of "truth" is not trying to get at the real truth at all, it's simply trying to lead readers by the nose to a preconceived conclusion who don't have the good sense or requisite degree of discernment to figure out for themselves when they're being lied to.

    I'm perfectly willing to accept that Trump et al have lied, and are lying, about the genesis of the EO, but it's gonna take something more substantial than a nuanced evaluation that does include involvement in terrorist activities and/or support to convince me, when all the WaPo author wants to quibble over is whether or not those activities or that support rises to the level of the individuals themselves being "terrorists."

    Based solely on his own words and actions concerning issues that are important to me, I'm no fan of Trump. I don't think I could make myself any more clear on that point. I have followed closely, and even defended, your take on this controversy, but have to say the above does absolutely nothing to buttress your position(s). WaPo is the worst source of "truth" on the planet, and have been since shortly after Woodward and Bernstein accepted their Pulitzer for the Watergate series back in what? Like '74? '75? Somewhere in there.

    Trump is stepping all over himself trying to figure out what restrictions he has as President. I think it's even possible that he's surprised to find that he has any that are enforceable from the other two branches. Obviously, his team ain't none too coordinated in that regard either. His fans will defend him to the death it appears. Like Trump himself said, he could walk out on 5th Avenue and shoot somebody dead and his fans would still vote for him.

    His detractors will never let a single innocuous action pass without challenge, whether big or small. It's the Alinsky Way dontcha know.

    The exceedingly few of us who have tried to remain objective by separating and commenting on the crux of each individual controversy that comes up, can do ourselves no favors by citing WaPo as a source for anything worthy of consideration. They are definitely in the crowd that complies with the Alinsky Way.

    Blues
    Three out of five. There is no such thing as pass/fail, truth/lie in politics. Some of the information that Stephen Miller provided was highly accurate, some of it was an outright lie, some of it was made to fit the narrative. Here is one example:

    Mohamed Albanna, native of Yemen and a U.S. citizen for 27 years at the time of his 2002 indictment, was convicted of money laundering. At the time of his indictment in Buffalo, the special agent in charge of the U.S. Customs Service there said authorities “had no evidence to link the money transfer to any terror-related activity.”
    This guy was a U.S. citizen since 1975 and was convicted of money laundering with no link to terror-related activity.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast