cab21 Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 So I am wondering what the Trump Administration thinks there is as far as holes in the vetting process that would need to be fixed in the next 90 days to indefinite? so far what i have read about the vetting process is that it seems extensive with multiple checks and balances. so I wonder what is supposed to be fixed about the system as it seems there is a lack of details about the problem and the solutions that are supposed to fix the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rventurelli Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 Believe it or not, during Obama's administration, the security services were not allowed to look at the persons social media websites. There could be in their regular, real name Facebook account "death to America!" and they could still be admitted.There is always the possibility as well that President Trump will just say "well, we still have no way to verify their information, so let us extend this ban for one year more this time." Which in my opinion is the best solution to begin with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksdave Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 Nothing to see here, move along... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-terrorists-came-from-7-muslim-countries-trump-targeted/article/2614582 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted February 12, 2017 Author Share Posted February 12, 2017 70 out with of houndreds of thousands in 15 years seems statistically that it is a low number 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksdave Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 70 out with of houndreds of thousands in 15 years seems statistically that it is a low number What level of terrorist infiltration do you prefer as a target? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 What level of terrorist infiltration do you prefer as a target? this a assumes a lower level is possible all these terrorists were caught before they actually did acts of terror, the terror crimes include a list of crimes that include trying to leave the country to join terror organizations in other areas of the world, which i don't think makes sense to call that a threat to america. at the cost of violating the rights of entire populations based on nation of origin, have a vetting program that proves people guilty before blocking them, and allow the vetting to find if a person is guilty using any lawful means that does not violate individual rights. if it can be proved that another method has a lower level, what is that method, with the method not violating individual rights such as a complete travel ban? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksdave Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 if it can be proved that another method has a lower level, what is that method, with the method not violating individual rights such as a complete travel ban? I'm not familiar with the individual's right to travel from one country to another, can you explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greywithana Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 this a assumes a lower level is possible all these terrorists were caught before they actually did acts of terror, the terror crimes include a list of crimes that include trying to leave the country to join terror organizations in other areas of the world, which i don't think makes sense to call that a threat to america. at the cost of violating the rights of entire populations based on nation of origin, have a vetting program that proves people guilty before blocking them, and allow the vetting to find if a person is guilty using any lawful means that does not violate individual rights. if it can be proved that another method has a lower level, what is that method, with the method not violating individual rights such as a complete travel ban? What are these "individual rights" you speak of and where are they enumerated or agreed upon? I do not agree that non-citizens have anything resembling an "individual right" to enter a country of which they are not a citizen. "Entire populations" cannot possible have an "individual right" to enter another sovereign nation. That would more rightly be called an invasion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rventurelli Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 70 out with of houndreds of thousands in 15 years seems statistically that it is a low number Someone hands you a packet with 100 M&M's, you know three of them to be poisoned... How many will you eat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted February 19, 2017 Author Share Posted February 19, 2017 Someone hands you a packet with 100 M&M's, you know three of them to be poisoned... How many will you eat? well the situation is that they don't know how many, if any are poisoned, and they test for poison. if you know three are poisoned, seperate the three that are poisoned and eat the 97 if you don't know which three are poisoned, test for poison, they already do " test for poison. if they each get tested, and three poisoned ones are found, then the rest would not be poisoned. if it's said there is no way to test for which three are poisoned, then don't eat till you figure it out. I'm not familiar with the individual's right to travel from one country to another, can you explain? UPB wise, if someone is invited to the private property of a individual in another country, is it not universally preferable that the person be allowed to accept the invitation baring any moral violation? what would be immoral about traveling to private property that you are invited to? is there a moral argument against the behavior of travel voluntarily and voluntary trade? What are these "individual rights" you speak of and where are they enumerated or agreed upon? I do not agree that non-citizens have anything resembling an "individual right" to enter a country of which they are not a citizen. "Entire populations" cannot possible have an "individual right" to enter another sovereign nation. That would more rightly be called an invasion. I was thinking about Ayn Rands theory of rights, I am not talking entire populations when i say indiviual rights, i am talking about individuals. say we are going with stephans UPB, is there any argument that it's immoral to to voluntarily trade? if a entire population, which is just a sum of individuals, was invited to someones private property, under what moral grounds do you stop every individual indefinitly? everyone is already screened for health, and if they are hostile, and if they have a criminal record, and goes through interviews and background checks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greywithana Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 say we are going with stephans UPB, is there any argument that it's immoral to to voluntarily trade? if a entire population, which is just a sum of individuals, was invited to someones private property, under what moral grounds do you stop every individual indefinitly? I confess, being relatively new here, I'm still working though UPB and cannot speak confidently on the topic directly, so please correct any of my assumptions or assertions if they are incorrectly representative. So, if we're calling this voluntary trade, in this scenario what are they trading? The simplest argument perhaps is that they are simply buying some part of your privately held land from you. In pure UPB, as long as there is no initiation of force, from what I understand, this would be morally neutral. But if you sell land to a number larger than the land can sustain effectively, I think this could be construed as a kind of initiation of force in their usage of local resources. In a society that lives directly off the land, this would be a problem. But, we don't live under UPB. We have a nation with laws and a centralized governing body. The efficacy of this setup is debatable, but it is the way our communities are organized. I haven't read enough of UPB to know if or how it addresses community vs individuality. Are there moral responsibilities toward the community? Is community identity a resource or property? It cannot be "stolen" per se, but it can be forcibly altered. Would settling 20 Germans into a village of 200 Chinese change the community identity? What about 50? 100? 200? What level is acceptable to avoid forcibly changing the community identity? There are many issues with immigration, some more significant than others. The chief among them, in my opinion is an integration problem. If people want to emigrate to a county, any county, shouldn't they want to integrate into that country's society? While there are many that do and work hard to achieve that end, what we're seeing now across the EU is exactly the opposite. At some point, immigration of individuals that cut swaths out of our cities like we're seeing with no-go zones in some European countries needs to be considered an invasion and a foreign occupation. Guerrilla tactics overtook the rank and file methods of warfare in the last few centuries. We're now starting to see fairly large-scale invasions being executed guerrilla-style using refugees as a weapon against our feelings instead of traditional siege weapons. Could it be that demographics alteration is the new imperialism? I realize I've strayed from the topic at hand since the discussion is primarily about vetting for possible terrorists. Personally, I'd rather not worry about vetting at all and just completely discontinue immigration for the foreseeable future. But this isn't a reasonable stance given how our economy works at the moment. But if the following are true: ISIS has stated that they intend to infiltrate refugee groups in order to sneak terrorists into countries that are more difficult to reach. There isn't a foolproof test to determine who is currently a terrorist or even who may be radicalized in the future or who may influence natural citizens into becoming radicalized. We can help far more refugees right where they live than we can through immigration. It seems logical to me to: Stop accepting refugees. Work with allies to create safe zones inside the refugees' own countries. Work toward providing support and assistance so that they can rebuild their country. What all this really comes down to, to me, is trying to answer the question, "Is it morally justifiable to prevent a wrong from ever occurring?" For me, the answer is yes as long as we are manipulating the opportunity. There's a temptation to treat questions of this nature like a time-travel paradox. We're a long way from Minority Report, but where is the line? Should we wait until murder has occurred to act if there's a chance to simply avoid the circumstances under which it would have been possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Horse Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 "Are you from X?""No.""You speak the local language of X, your accent can be placed from sub-region of X.""I'm from Y""When are you coming here from Y?""Fleeing violence from Y.""Y is peaceful, safe and has a culture much similar to your own.""....""Rejected, next." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts