Deaths confirmed after Manchester Arena blast reports

[yuna628 9,915]

25 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

Ignoring the problem is not a solution, the so called Muslim ban was only going to be a delay on visa applications but it didn't take long for someone to run to a judge. Why would anyone not even want a basic extra level of security built in?

 

Not 100% but I'm not going back through every post but someone said it's not an immigration issue because the bomber was born in the UK. His parents were immigrants and after getting sorted in the UK they bought a house back in Libya and primarily stayed there so their kids had plenty of access to be converted. Also with UK citizenship they had freedom of travel back and forth. 

 

The Imam in his community said the bomber had become distant and was pro isis  and argued with the imam , no reports were made they kept it within their community. In another thread I said a lot of them choose to stay separate from our communities, they do not want to integrate.   

 

 

Except the Muslim ban was not merely a delay on visa applications of individuals newly applying overseas - had it been restricted to that there would be little to no legal footing to argue before a judge. It affected LPRs, visa holders that already had visas issued, and those with legal right to be here. Additionally as was discussed previously it was also going to affect applications of individuals who were already vetted inside the US whether recently or for years - from K1s seeking to adjust, those needing an EAD or green card, to ROC, to citizenship applications. That little detail alone escaped many reporters covering the story. If security was the main driving issue, why leave countries with known terrorist ties still available to enter?

 

The terrorist's parents entered the UK in the late 80s early 90s and made their life there. And for much of his life he seemed like the average aimless nobody as many are. The kids spent the majority of their lives growing up in the UK. There were many reports made about the attacker, by relatives and those within the community as far back as five years ago and as recently as this year. There is a large Libyan community in Manchester, many acknowledge problems, and many have indeed gone to the authorities who have done little. Those instances don't get reported though it seems. People actually trying to help the problem doesn't make 'exciting news'.

Edited May 25, 2017 by yuna628

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Just now, Mr&Mrs G. said:

You would need someone more familiar with your constitution to answer that one, but they did seem to find the right judge each time they went to court.  

 

But if a basic temporary ban is going to be challenged how will any stronger measures be passed?

There has to be a way to do it legally, but our court system tends to let things drag on and on. I agree with stronger vetting. 

[IAMX 3,055]

6 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

You would need someone more familiar with your constitution to answer that one, but they did seem to find the right judge each time they went to court.  

 

But if a basic temporary ban is going to be challenged how will any stronger measures be passed?

Easy answer: Would be a much longer and arduous process going through a circuit re-hearing (in front of a panel), then going through the appellate court, then to the Supreme Court, which would happen regardless of who wins or loses. 

 

It was by far as faster process, especially since Trump overtly believed there was a serious threat allowing these people into the country, to scrap the appeals and make another one.

 

But now that things have died down, I really want to see him appeal it, I have no doubt he'd prevail in SCOTUS. The executive authority to place country bans on travel, especially temporarily as Trump did, is unambiguous.. it's directly in the Constitution.

Edited May 25, 2017 by IAMX

[smilesammich 10,727]

41 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Serious question. What do you suggest being done to stop the radical Islamic terrorists? Nuke all Muslim countries off the map? Round up all known Muslims in the US and execute them? Lock them up? Put them in internment camps? Ban the religion? What do you think can be done to stop the problem? 

if you get legit answers to these valid questions, i'm going to need a safe space..cause no one ever answers me when i ask the same thing. 

[Boiler 48,098]

3 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

There has to be a way to do it legally, but our court system tends to let things drag on and on. I agree with stronger vetting. 

What would stronger vetting entail?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Just now, smilesammich said:

if you get legit answers to these valid questions, i'm going to need a safe space..cause no one ever answers me when i ask the same thing. 

I'm interested in hearing some realistic ideas. No surprise that the usual suspects have no input. 

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

Except the Muslim ban was not merely a delay on visa applications of individuals newly applying overseas - had it been restricted to that there would be little to no legal footing. It affected LPRs, visa holders that already had visas issued, and those with legal right to be here. Additionally as was discussed previously it was also going to affect applications of individuals who were already vetted inside the US whether recently or for years - from K1s seeking to adjust, those needing an EAD or green card, to ROC, to citizenship applications. That little detail alone escaped many reporters covering the story. If security was the main driving issue, why leave countries with known terrorist ties still available to enter?

 

The terrorist's parents entered the UK in the late 80s early 90s and made their life there. And for much of his life he seemed like the average aimless nobody as many are. The kids spent the majority of their lives growing up in the UK. There were many reports made about the attacker, by relatives and those within the community as far back as five years ago and as recently as this year. There is a large Libyan community in Manchester, many acknowledge problems, and many have indeed gone to the authorities who have done little. Those instances don't get reported though it seems. People actually trying to help the problem doesn't make 'exciting news'.

So what your saying is if he gave everyone who was going to be affected time to get to the USA then the temp ban wouldn't have been challenged?  Sorry I don't believe it, the temp ban would have been challenged no matter what.

 

 

[spookyturtle 9,466]

2 minutes ago, Boiler said:

What would stronger vetting entail?

Stronger vetting. 

[Boiler 48,098]

Just now, spookyturtle said:

Stronger vetting. 

Checking Facebook, Waterboarding etc etc

[Boiler 48,098]

2 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

I'm interested in hearing some realistic ideas. No surprise that the usual suspects have no input. 

I gave you 2.

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

Just now, spookyturtle said:

No surprise that the usual suspects have no input. 

That's not really fair because there are the "usual suspects" from both sides active on the forum and those that supported the blocking of the temp ban never offered a solution either. 

 

The subject matter is very sensitive and it will take both sides to solve it.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Just now, Boiler said:

Checking Facebook, Waterboarding etc etc

Exactly. Maybe use a blowtorch too. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

49 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Serious question. What do you suggest being done to stop the radical Islamic terrorists? Nuke all Muslim countries off the map? Round up all known Muslims in the US and execute them? Lock them up? Put them in internment camps? Ban the religion? What do you think can be done to stop the problem? 

admitting there is a problem would be a good first step 

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, Boiler said:

I gave you 2.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Just now, Mr&Mrs G. said:

That's not really fair because there are the "usual suspects" from both sides active on the forum and those that supported the blocking of the temp ban never offered a solution either. 

 

The subject matter is very sensitive and it will take both sides to solve it.

The usual subjects are in it for the bashing.