We keep hearing “9/11 changed everything” to justify all the things that have been done in our name.
It seems to me that the sub-set of people on the “No Fly List” also wanting to purchase a gun would be fairly small. Surely there is a way to handle an extra background check process on a case-by-case basis.
If we want Syrian refugees not to resettle in North America, sorry we lose. Too bad, they’re coming anyway:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/trudeau-syrian-refugees-canada/420039/
In the video of Trudeau helping the one family with little twin girls, looks like their mother speaks good English. I suspect many of the families recommended for resettlement in North America have family members who are English speakers.
ISIS may have a passport printer.
Sweet video of Syrian refugees being welcomed to Canada, including lots of little kids:
http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2680244051/
It turns out that Syrian refugees are not a big political issue in Canada. Trudeau is bringing in 10,000 by the end of the year, and a total of 25,000 by February. Some only found they were coming to Canada this week.
Looks like the Donald will need to start working on his northern fence.
They walked out of that airline terminal as permanent residents of Canada, on track to become citizens. Which I’m pretty sure means they can come and go across the border when they want to.
The fact that guns are a second amendment right does not mean that using the no fly list to ban the purchase of guns is unconstitutional. While banning guns totally would fail, the second amendment like most rights have limits on them when it comes to issues like public safety. Thus while NYC, for example, cannot ban gun sales, it can restrict the right to carry a weapon, and in NJ gun purchasing laws are very strict, they require a full background check (not the quick check gun dealers do now) with fingerprints and the whole nine yards, and that is legal, despite what the NRA thinks, because weapons can be regulated, as any right is and can be.
The argument about the No Fly list itself is whether it is accurate, given that there are a lot of false positives, and that is an issue with the no fly list itself. The ACLU has a problem with the no fly list because it is full of errors, and they are fighting to get the process of vetting names fixed, like notifying people who they think are on the list, and giving them a decent chance of clearing it up. By the way, arguing that the no fly list cannot be used to restrict guns is like saying cops cannot arrest people because they will sometimes arrest someone simply for having the same name as a wanted criminal, both involve probably cause issues. I sympathize with the no fly list being a pain in the butt, but that doesn’t mean it cannot be used to ban gun sales, if a person is on the list wrongly, then if they want to buy a gun they will have to get it cleared up, the way that today someone who has a red flag in the background check because of a mistake with names can clear it up, or someone applying for credit whose credit background has false entries in it gets denied and has to clear it up, the fact is that guns are a second amendment right ends where public safety is involved. If the no fly list is imperfect, it is better to inconvenience someone then to let some piece of garbage buy guns to shoot up someplace. I agree that the no fly list needs to be cleaned up, it in of itself has some big issues with it, but for now it is the best we have.
Its also similar to the credit reporting agencies. Mistakes happen there a lot. And it is up to the person trying to get the credit to get it fixed in order to get what they want.
Yes, that’s exactly what it means!
My H was there on Thursday night. We are a part of a small group who is sponsoring a Syrian family and he was so happy to be a part of the arrival process. The Syrians are incredibly grateful and happy to be here. Many have some English language skills but not all. Interpreters were present for those who needed that assistance. Winter clothes were distributed, paperwork was completed, food was served (a mix of foods familiar to them, as well as North American food), there was a playroom and toys for the children, and a space for them to conduct prayer.
A few families flew into Vancouver on Thursday. One woman and two of her uncles hadn’t seen their father/brothers in several years. Another man hadn’t seen his two sons in 15 years. Very heartwarming reunions. I’m very proud that we are helping these people who have lost everything. A new start in a welcoming country is something that most of them have been hoping for, after living in refugee camps for up to four or five years.
The next planeload arrives today in Montreal.
Another perspective on Trump’s proposal from another bunch of legal scholars:
http://news.yahoo.com/no-consensus-legality-trumps-idea-muslim-ban-141104278–election.html#
Summary: SOTUS is known for its reluctance to take on anything that would fall into the territory of a “political question” and to mess with anything that seems to involve restricting a constitutionally defined power of another branch. Since immigration cases involve an element of both of these issues, courts usually punt or rule against the plaintiffs in such cases, but none of the cases so far had any religion questions mixed in. That would open up a whole new can of worms.
How wonderful. Watching the videos of the new Canadians being welcomed home brought tears to my eyes.
And, in this season (for many Americans) of giving, hope and love, I kept thinking, we could be that country too. We could be the country we tell ourselves we are.
Me, too. But at the same time, I think we need to recognize that Canada and the United States play different roles in world affairs, and in a lot of ways, Canada has the easier role.
That’s true, but I don’t see how it prevents us from taking in Syrian refugees.
In good news, Way to go, Archdiocese of Indianapolis.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/news/ct-syrian-refugee-family-indiana-20151208-story.html
The state of Indiana said they didn’t want any Syrian refugees. Archbishop Joseph Tobin said, too bad, we are following our church teachings, assisting refugees is an “essential part” of the Catholic Church’s identity. They welcomed a Syrian refugee family to Indianapolis this week.
unfortunately, that question doesn’t include any solutions. The other questions in the link do show support for background checks though.
They also show that the majority (58%) have a favorable view of the NRA.
And according to the NYTimes/CBS, support for an “assault weapon” ban is at a 20 year low: https://assets.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/documents/2644724/poll.pdf
If we actually wanted to accept Syrian refugees, we could have accepted some of those several thousand Christian refugees that were trying to get here earlier in the year, that were denied by the administration. We still could. If you want to find a group of people who are among the most highly persecuted in Syria, that would be the Christians.
I would bet you there would be tremendous support for that, with little fear that terrorists were hiding within the group, and less worry about assimilation. It is an obvious solution, if the purpose is that we want to help refugees. However, I suspect there is a political point in there somewhere, and that supersedes helping the people that we can.
What’s the political point of Canada taking 25,000 refugees, busdriver?
I am not referring to Canada, cf. I’m referring to the fact that I believe there is a political point in refusing to take Christians, specifically (in the US). Whether it is because they are Christians, or differentiating between taking people of different religions, I believe there is a point.
And I think that if the US declared they would accept 10K Syrian Christian refugees, because they in particular are persecuted, that there would be no pushback on that. We would at least be able to help one of the most desperate groups. Going to happen? No way.
But I AM referring to Canada. If Canada is taking in 25,000 Syrian refugees because it’s the right thing to do, then why can’t we take in 25,000 refugees because it’s the right thing to do?
I’m an atheist. I don’t see why the US government ought to have a preference for Christians over Muslims, and I think it would be illegal to have such a preference. We already have plenty of Christians here. I see no need to stock up. We should just take a bunch of refugees from the camps, without reference to their religion. Which is what we are doing.
Except my point is that I believe there would be no objection if they were Christians. You can agree or disagree about whether that is right or not, but my point is that it would happen if they were Christians. I don’t know if it will happen otherwise. And one can hardly deny that they are in great need. Don’t read about the Muslim countries being in a hurry to accept them.