Pages

Jump to bottom

120 comments

1 Lidane  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 8:47:32am

CNS News as a source? Really?

2 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 8:52:52am

I included a link directly to the DHS report. Is that a good source?

3 RanchTooth  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 8:55:20am

Buck… Read the report. The list of countries, where Israel appears, is Appendix D.

In addition to the Terrorist Watchlist screening, ICE [Immigration Customs and Enforcement] uses a Third Agency Check (TAC) to screen aliens from specially designated countries (SDCs) that have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members (see appendix D for a list of SDCs).The purpose of the additional screening is to determine whether other agencies have an interest in the alien. ICE’s policy requires officers to conduct TAC screenings only for aliens from SDCs if the aliens are in ICE custody. As a result, ICE does not perform a TAC for the majority of its population of aliens, which includes those incarcerated or released under supervision. Figure 2 shows the portion of aliens from SDCs who ICE held in detention.

Figure 2: Population of Aliens From SDCs 3

As of September 30, 2009

Nondetained Aliens – 105,359 (not subject to TAC)

Detained Aliens – 1,521 (subject to TAC)

4 RanchTooth  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 8:59:23am

re: #2 Buck

I included a link directly to the DHS report. Is that a good source?

This isn’t some official proclamation by the Obama Admin the Israel is a terrorist supporting state… It is simply stating (and quite fairly) that there has been A LOT of turbulence in Israel and that because of that, there may be another connection to another agency within the US Gov’t that may be of interest. Don’t get all excited.

5 Randall Gross  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:00:00am

So if we detain an alien from Israel, a third agency check is required by ICE. That seems reasonable to me, and not grounds for outrageously outraged outrage buck.

6 RanchTooth  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:00:42am

re: #5 Thanos

So if we detain an alien from Israel, a third agency check is required by ICE. That seems reasonable to me, and not grounds for outrageously outraged outrage buck.

Yes, Please, and Thank You to my Immigration Officials.

7 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:04:00am

re: #3 RanchTooth

Buck… Read the report. The list of countries, where Israel appears, is Appendix D.

Yes, That is what I say in my post. I say that Israel is listed in Appendix D. I don’t understand your point.

In Appendix D the DHS is listing countries that it believes “have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.”

If you don’t think it is a big deal, that is on you. I certainly do.

8 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:05:42am

re: #5 Thanos

So if we detain an alien from Israel, a third agency check is required by ICE. That seems reasonable to me, and not grounds for outrageously outraged outrage buck.

So you believe that Israel is one of the nations that has a tendency “to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members”?

Really?

My how things have changed.

9 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:08:27am

re: #4 RanchTooth

This isn’t some official proclamation by the Obama Admin the Israel is a terrorist supporting state… It is simply stating (and quite fairly) that there has been A LOT of turbulence in Israel and that because of that, there may be another connection to another agency within the US Gov’t that may be of interest. Don’t get all excited.

Well, clearly we speak a different language. I wonder what side you were on when Arizona wanted to do a further “check” on spanish speaking people. Were you one of the people excited then?

10 shutdown  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:09:28am

re: #8 Buck

So you believe that Israel is one of the nations that has a tendency “to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members”?

Really?

My how things have changed.

Disclaimer: I have not read the report. Nonetheless, I will state an opinion (yay internet!). Israel’s airports and ports are points of embarkation for the population of the West Bank and Gaza for international travel. International travelers from outside Israel, the West Bank and Gaza may travel to these areas and transit directly to the United States. This might account for Israel’s inclusion in the report as disclosed.

11 RanchTooth  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:13:08am

re: #9 Buck

Well, clearly we speak a different language. I wonder what side you were on when Arizona wanted to do a further “check” on spanish speaking people. Were you one of the people excited then?

Would you support that for detained people? I sure would and do, and that’s exactly what this report is about. Detained Aliens from states with known terrorism. In the US, when you’re arrested, they’ll run you’re name through a database to see if you’re name pops up elsewhere, don’t they? Doesn’t matter what language they speak. If you have someone in custody and you have further reason to believe that they may be of interest, you should investigate. Once you’re detained (and convicted) you’ve lost certain rights.

12 shutdown  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:16:05am

And I updinged Buck’s post because he is voicing a reasonable concern, not being argumentative or wingnutty, and has started an interesting discussion here. He has documentation and a structured argument.

13 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:16:08am

re: #10 imp_62

Disclaimer: I have not read the report. Nonetheless, I will state an opinion (yay internet!). Israel’s airports and ports are points of embarkation for the population of the West Bank and Gaza for international travel. International travelers from outside Israel, the West Bank and Gaza may travel to these areas and transit directly to the United States. This might account for Israel’s inclusion in the report as disclosed.

As stated clearly in my post. Gaza and the West Bank are mentioned separately.

14 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:17:07am

re: #10 imp_62

Yeah, it’s kind of obvious to anyone not trying to whip up partisan outrage.

This applies only to someone who gets detained by ICE. The average person from Israel coming to the US is not going to be affected by this.

But if that guy is Islam Marai he’s going to be noted as a terrorist recruiter.

Oh noes.

15 shutdown  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:19:33am

re: #13 Buck

As stated clearly in my post. Gaza and the West Bank are mentioned separately.

But Gaza and West Bank have no separate points of embarkation. PLUS remember that Israeli Arabs, such as that nutter Raed Salah, about whom I posted yesterday, are residents of Israel. So as with most anything, the impact of the rule will be in its implementation.

16 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:20:35am

re: #11 RanchTooth

If you have someone in custody and you have further reason to believe that they may be of interest, you should investigate. Once you’re detained (and convicted) you’ve lost certain rights.

OK, then my question to you is, is it fair to include Israel in countries that would give you “further reason to believe that they may be of interest”? Why Not Great Britain? Today, I am not allowed to carry liquids on a plane because of a plot hatched in England. I have to take my shoes off when I go through security because of someone who was born in London, England.

17 shutdown  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:23:39am

re: #16 Buck

This is a valid point, but you are now starting a discussion about State Department bureaucratic processes. I would not wager a guess as to how the decisions are made, but I can easily interpret the one you are posting about as not being (overtly) anti-Israel or anti-Semitic.

18 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:24:35am

re: #14 Obdicut

Yeah, it’s kind of obvious to anyone not trying to whip up partisan outrage.

This applies only to someone who gets detained by ICE. The average person from Israel coming to the US is not going to be affected by this.

But if that guy is Islam Marai he’s going to be noted as a terrorist recruiter.

Oh noes.

Did the person you mention ever go to the USA and be identified as an Israeli? Also he has been convicted IN ISRAEL of attempting to set up a Hamas terrorism cell. That is not an example of Israel promoting, producing, or protecting terrorist organizations or their members. Just the opposite.
“Oh noes”!

19 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:27:07am

re: #15 imp_62

Salah was barred from leaving Israel, by Israel.

20 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:27:59am

re: #18 Buck

It is an example of Israel producing a terrorist. It’s an anti-Israeli terrorist, just like the US produced the Unabomber, an anti-US terrorist.

Do you think Israel has any problem with Israelis who are arrested here being checked over by other agencies to see if they have any extremist or terrorist connections?

I really don’t think you get the point of this policy.

21 RanchTooth  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:28:10am

re: #16 Buck

OK, then my question to you is, is it fair to include Israel in countries that would give you “further reason to believe that they may be of interest”? Why Not Great Britain? Today, I am not allowed to carry liquids on a plane because of a plot hatched in England. I have to take my shoes off when I go through security because of someone who was born in London, England.

Actually, that’s a great question for the ICE. I think all aliens who are detained should be put through the same process of being screened for the possibility of being shown to other agencies, if that is not already done. Perhaps they just give special scrutiny to these individuals. OH WAIT, THAT WHAT THIS IS.

22 shutdown  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:29:36am

re: #19 Buck

But that is not my point. The point is, there are many like him residents of Israel, free to travel, and justifiably on watch lists.

23 shutdown  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:31:09am

re: #21 RanchTooth

btw, do you have any plans to come to New York to get married? Drinks are on me…

24 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:32:49am

re: #21 RanchTooth

I think all aliens who are detained should be put through the same process of being screened for the possibility of being shown to other agencies

You think “all aliens” should be TACed and DHS says in this report, no. Only aliens from “specially designated countries”. I don’t think Israel should be on that list of countries. You think every country should be.

25 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:32:56am

re: #22 imp_62

But that is not my point. The point is, there are many like him residents of Israel, free to travel, and justifiably on watch lists.

And others who may not be on watch lists yet— potentially because we don’t want to spook them. Or for any number of other reasons.

Say that Israel, in its magnanimity, releases some Palestinian terrorists from jail if Hamas ever actually shows that Shalit is alive. Those terrorists might very well board a plane from Israel, and come to the US. How terrible it would be for them to get extra scrutiny! What an unfairness to Israel for us to keep watch on them!

26 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:34:16am

re: #20 Obdicut

“an example of Israel producing a terrorist”

I don’t think you understand how offensive that statement is.

27 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:37:20am

re: #25 Obdicut

Those terrorists might very well board a plane from Israel, and come to the US.

Actually, it is clear that Israeli policy would mean they are watched, and NOT allowed to fly from Israel. They might be deported, but then they would be coming from…..another country.

28 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:41:14am

re: #26 Buck

Buck, stop the purposeful misunderstanding of my statements.

He’s an Israeli. That he’s a terrorist is not the fault of or in any way the responsibilty of Israel. It’s all on his own damn head. But he is from Israel, just as the Unabomber is from the US.

Do you really think I was accusing Israel of ‘producing’ him in some willfull fashion? Or that I was accusing the US of doing so with the Unabomber?

Again, run this scenario through your mind: Israel releases some Hamas members from jail. For whatever reason, they’re not on the notoriously-faulty watch list. They arrive in the US from Israel. They’re picked up by ICE. Do you really think that scenario is impossible?

Hell, Luttif Afif was from Nazareth. If he was picked up by ICE, he would have said he was from Israel.

29 Lidane  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:51:00am

re: #2 Buck

I included a link directly to the DHS report. Is that a good source?

Only if you actually bother to READ the sources you cite. Which you never do.

Once again, you fail.

30 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:53:57am

re: #29 Lidane

Only if you actually bother to READ the sources you cite. Which you never do.

Once again, you fail.

Really? What did I say that was not true? Please… be specific.

31 RanchTooth  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:56:16am

re: #23 imp_62

I already live in DC =)

32 RanchTooth  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 9:58:44am

re: #24 Buck

You think “all aliens” should be TACed and DHS says in this report, no. Only aliens from “specially designated countries”. I don’t think Israel should be on that list of countries. You think every country should be.

I don’t think there needs to be a qualifier of being suspicious of someone that’s detained and not a resident of our nation. You want to prove Obama hates Israel.

33 The Ghost of a Flea  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:12:10am

re: #30 Buck

Really? What did I say that was not true? Please… be specific.

You’re making an inference based on your interpretation of the phrase “…specially designated countries (SDCs) that have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.” is a condemnation of Israel rather than a statement of fact that there are terrorists who are Israeli citizens.

Because, you know, there are.

You’re making decisions about how to parse the three verbs promote/produce/protect as an inclusive set rather than three distinct sets lumped together in Appendix D.

Israel does not promote terrorism.
Israel does not protect terrorism.

…but consider produce: you’re choosing to read the causal connotation of word produce rather than the origination connotation. This is an unsupported assumption on your part; the document makes no assertion that Israel has causally “produces” terrorists or terrorism. Contextually it is just as likely that the document reflects base-rate correlation: Israel is an origin point for terrorists (produce, version 2), but not actively facilitating them (produce, version 1).

Basically, within a void of interpretation you’ve chosen the version that permits you to be offended.

34 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:19:21am

re: #28 Obdicut

Luttif Afif? That is what you have? Seriously? Do you think I don’t know who that is? Completely not relevant (how did he arrive to his final destination? Do you think he had an Israeli Passport?) I really don’t think Israel is being classified here because of one of the Munich Olympic Village terrorists who died in 1972.

You don’t address that terrorists can come from any country. I gave two good examples of terrorists born in England. Yet England is not on the list. Why is Israel? They are very proactive is fighting terrorism.

This is not a simply a list of countries where terrorist might come from. That list would clearly be much longer.

35 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:20:03am

re: #32 RanchTooth

I don’t think there needs to be a qualifier of being suspicious of someone that’s detained and not a resident of our nation. You want to prove Obama hates Israel.

No, I was very clear in my post that “Obama hates Israel” was not my point.

36 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:23:55am

re: #34 Buck

I’m sorry, why are you claiming that this is about how someone arrives in the US?

37 Decatur Deb  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:24:53am

Israel has produced terrorists and terrorist organizations. Most of them are Arab. Some shoot up Arabs. Some burn prostitutes in Tel Aviv. Some shoot prime ministers.

38 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:26:48am

re: #33 The Ghost of a Flea

There are terrorists who are Japanese citizens. There are terrorists who are Chinese citizens.

This is CLEARLY not simply a list of countries where terrorist might come from. Look at the other named countries. This is not a list of countries that might be an origin point for terrorists. You leave out the phrase “shown a tendency”. It is very important.

“shown a tendency” is not the same as “does”. You want to parse this to the extreme, then you have to include that phrase.

Israel has not shown a tendency to promote terrorism.
Israel has not shown a tendency to protect terrorism.

and Israel has not shown a tendency to produce terrorism.

Unless you accept the idea that support for Israel produces terrorism.

39 Lidane  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:30:48am

re: #33 The Ghost of a Flea

Basically, within a void of interpretation you’ve chosen the version that permits you to be offended.

That’s true for everything Buck posts. It’s never about facts. It’s about the outrageous outrage.

40 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:33:14am

re: #36 Obdicut

I’m sorry, why are you claiming that this is about how someone arrives in the US?

Fine, you can tell me what “from these countries” means. Maybe the list should have said “citizens of these countries”. Or maybe, even when it is crystal clear, you want to paraphrase.

41 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:35:43am

re: #33 The Ghost of a Flea


Basically, within a void of interpretation you’ve chosen the version that permits you to be offended.

Is this DHS report really “a void of interpretation”? Are you saying that there are unclear? Are you saying it is poorly written?

In order to make the facts work for you, you tell me that this report (that I think is very clear) is “a void of interpretation”.

42 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:38:19am

re: #35 Buck

No, I was very clear in my post that “Obama hates Israel” was not my point.

Would I be correct if I said that the point of your post is “Obama is spineless/ too ready to negotiate/compromise on the issue of Israel” or do you have some other point you were trying to get at that I missed?

43 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:40:00am

re: #40 Buck

I assume ‘from these countries’ means either that they’re citizens of that country, or claiming to be, or have a point of origin there.

The thing is, I don’t even disagree that this is a dumb policy, like a lot of our homeland security stuff is. The watchlists are bloated and not updated well. The list of countries is easy to get around. It’s all highly criticizable.

But you chose to criticize it like this:

Even if that means treating Israel (and Israelis) as if they are the same as Hamas.

The way Hamas is treated: It’s listed as a terrorist organization, and members of Hamas are automatically on the terrorist watch list. It’s also not treated as a country, because it’s not.

The way members of Hamas are treated: They would not be granted Visas to the US, if it were known that they were Hamas members.

The way Israel is treated: It’s an ally that Obama staunchly defended in a recent speech.

The way Israelis are treated: Nothing special, except that if they’re arrested or detained by ICE, they have another check run to see if any other agency is interested in them.


You take a nugget of reality— that this is a stupid policy— and turn it into Obama treating Israel the same as Hamas, which is a ludicrous, stupid, obvious, and pathetic lie.

44 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:46:19am

re: #42 jamesfirecat

Would I be correct if I said that the point of your post is “Obama is spineless/ too ready to negotiate/compromise on the issue of Israel” or do you have some other point you were trying to get at that I missed?

No you would not be correct. If I want to say anything like that, I would.

It is my belief (and this is further evidence towards that belief) that Obama is making a shift in where the US stands in the region. No I am not saying he is standing with the Palestinians, that is silly. Or that he is an anti Semite, or hates Israel. However, I think this is more evidence that he is trying to move the US policy to the middle, to be more of a “neutral player” in the Israeli-Palestinian theater.

If you want to be in the middle, or think of yourself as neutral that is fine. In fact it plays well to the American sense of fairness. It sounds good to say “we are not taking sides and only want to help both sides.

However America long ago decided that it was not going to be neutral. To many of the Jews, including myself it is as simple as “you are either with us or against us” you can’t be both, you can’t be neutral. We have seen the effect of neutral in the past, and we didn’t like it.

45 jaunte  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:49:10am

re: #44 Buck

“Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.”
[Link: www.sciencedaily.com…]

46 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:49:55am

re: #44 Buck

No you would not be correct. If I want to say anything like that, I would.

It is my belief (and this is further evidence towards that belief) that Obama is making a shift in where the US stands in the region. No I am not saying he is standing with the Palestinians, that is silly. Or that he is an anti Semite, or hates Israel. However, I think this is more evidence that he is trying to move the US policy to the middle, to be more of a “neutral player” in the Israeli-Palestinian theater.

If you want to be in the middle, or think of yourself as neutral that is fine. In fact it plays well to the American sense of fairness. It sounds good to say “we are not taking sides and only want to help both sides.

However America long ago decided that it was not going to be neutral. To many of the Jews, including myself it is as simple as “you are either with us or against us” you can’t be both, you can’t be neutral. We have seen the effect of neutral in the past, and we didn’t like it.

Thank you for clearly stating the point you were trying to reach Buck.

Personally I see the way that Obama verbally slapped down the Palestine and told them that if they tried to become a state through the UN rather than negotiations with Israel he would withdraw US funding from them, is something of a strong argument against that particular view of reality, but I appreciate you taking the time to fully lay out your thought process behind why you found these developments important. (Non sarcasm)

47 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:51:05am

re: #43 Obdicut

You assume. Well that is your right to assume all over the place. It is my right to read the words as they write them.

The way Israelis are treated: Nothing special, except that if they’re arrested or detained by ICE, they have another check run to see if any other agency is interested in them.

Do you agree that they will be treated the same as if they were from Gaza? As Israel is on the same DHS list as Gaza.

You take a nugget of reality— that this is a stupid policy— and turn it into Obama treating Israel the same as Hamas, which is a ludicrous, stupid, obvious, and pathetic lie.

And that lie is that Israelis will be treated the same as if they came from Gaza (Hamas controlled Gaza). No lie.

48 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:56:04am

re: #46 jamesfirecat

if they tried to become a state through the UN rather than negotiations with Israel he would withdraw US funding from them, is something of a strong argument against that particular view of reality,

Actually is supports what I am saying. Again, read clearly that I do not think he is elevating them. In that speech he verbally slapped down BOTH the Palestinians and the Israelis. It is not an argument against, it is an argument FOR.

49 RanchTooth  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:56:12am

re: #44 Buck

Buck, I do not think this measly detainee policy can possibly reflect how this administration feels overall towards Israel and diplomacy in the Middle East. I am Jewsih too (god, you people know too much about me already) and do not see the logical progression. There is a lot of violence that happens in Israel, as you MUST know. So much terrorism. It would be in OUR best national security interests to take the second look at detainees who have Israeli citizenship. It doesn’t hurt just to look, and it doesn’t mar our relationship with Israel. If you think it does, please tell me how looking into imprisoned aliens implies that Obama is taking a neutral stance on the Israel issue.

re: #47 Buck

And that lie is that Israelis will be treated the same as if they came from Gaza (Hamas controlled Gaza). No lie.

Any poor treatment would only come from if something actually surfaced from an intra-bureau investigation. And besides, they’re detainees already. They have already lost some guaranteed rights as aliens as a condition of being detained.

50 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:56:52am

re: #47 Buck

Do you agree that they will be treated the same as if they were from Gaza? As Israel is on the same DHS list as Gaza.

So, are you admitted you lied about saying that Obama is, by this policy, treating Israel the same as Hamas?

Or still going to stick with that lie?


And that lie is that Israelis will be treated the same as if they came from Gaza (Hamas controlled Gaza). No lie.

And what would that treatment consist of, Buck?

An Israeli arrives in the US with a visa, vacations here, and leaves. What effect has this policy had on him?

51 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 10:59:05am

re: #44 Buck

No you would not be correct. If I want to say anything like that, I would.

It is my belief (and this is further evidence towards that belief) that Obama is making a shift in where the US stands in the region. No I am not saying he is standing with the Palestinians, that is silly. Or that he is an anti Semite, or hates Israel. However, I think this is more evidence that he is trying to move the US policy to the middle, to be more of a “neutral player” in the Israeli-Palestinian theater.

If you want to be in the middle, or think of yourself as neutral that is fine. In fact it plays well to the American sense of fairness. It sounds good to say “we are not taking sides and only want to help both sides.

However America long ago decided that it was not going to be neutral. To many of the Jews, including myself it is as simple as “you are either with us or against us” you can’t be both, you can’t be neutral. We have seen the effect of neutral in the past, and we didn’t like it.

re: #44 Buck

No you would not be correct. If I want to say anything like that, I would.

It is my belief (and this is further evidence towards that belief) that Obama is making a shift in where the US stands in the region. No I am not saying he is standing with the Palestinians, that is silly. Or that he is an anti Semite, or hates Israel. However, I think this is more evidence that he is trying to move the US policy to the middle, to be more of a “neutral player” in the Israeli-Palestinian theater.

If you want to be in the middle, or think of yourself as neutral that is fine. In fact it plays well to the American sense of fairness. It sounds good to say “we are not taking sides and only want to help both sides.

However America long ago decided that it was not going to be neutral. To many of the Jews, including myself it is as simple as “you are either with us or against us” you can’t be both, you can’t be neutral. We have seen the effect of neutral in the past, and we didn’t like it.

Also Buck nothing personal but the phrase “you are either with us or against us” will always rub me the wrong way. Because to me it begs the question “How much do we have to be with you to not be your enemy? Do I need to support you even when you make bad choices?”

52 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:04:01am

re: #50 Obdicut

You are trying to move the goal posts again.

Even if that means treating Israel (and Israelis) as if they are the same as Hamas

The DHS put Israelis on the same list as Hamas-ites. People from Gaza are, in the same was as Israelis are from Israel, from the ruling entity of Gaza, Hamas.

Does “Israelis will be treated the same as if they came from Gaza” make it feel better to you? Does it really change the meaning that much for you? Is that now the truth?

To me the policy is offensive.

53 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:05:23am

re: #51 jamesfirecat

re: #44 Buck

Also Buck nothing personal but the phrase “you are either with us or against us” will always rub me the wrong way. Because to me it begs the question “How much do we have to be with you to not be your enemy? Do I need to support you even when you make bad choices?”

That is a classic “straw man”, unless you can tell me what “bad choices” Israel made to lose this support?

54 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:06:50am

re: #49 RanchTooth

Any poor treatment would only come from if something actually surfaced from an intra-bureau investigation. And besides, they’re detainees already. They have already lost some guaranteed rights as aliens as a condition of being detained.

That is what the Arizona law was all about. Did you support it, or are you against it?

55 Spocomptonite  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:06:56am

Hey Buck, did you notice how every country in the middle east is in Appendix D?

Countries:
Afghanistan
Territories of Gaza West Bank
Algeria
Bahrain
Oman
Bangladesh
Pakistan
Djibouti
Philippines
Egypt
Qatar
Eritrea
Saudi Arabia
Indonesia
Somalia
Iran
Sudan
Iraq
Syria
Israel
Tajikistan
Jordan
Thailand
Kazakhstan
Tunisia
Kuwait
Turkey
Lebanon
Turkmenistan
Libya
United Arab Emirates
Malaysia
Uzbekistan
Mauritania
Yemen
Morocco

I think it’s weirder that Thailand, Turkey, and Malaysia made the list than Israel. This is just a list of countries that are conflict-prone whether externally with other countries or internally with themselves. And the consequences of being on this list seem to have pretty exacting conditions for occurring such that it won’t matter to most people traveling into the U.S. from these countries.

So, what’s the big deal?

56 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:07:29am

re: #52 Buck

Does “Israelis will be treated the same as if they came from Gaza” make it feel better to you? Does it really change the meaning that much for you? Is that now the truth?

Yes. That would be the truth, rather than your previous lie, that this treats Israel the same as Hamas.

It’s also untrue that all citizens of Gaza are Hamas-ites, obviously.


To me the policy is offensive.

But why? What about it offends you? If an Israeli is detained for being in the country illegally or otherwise gets picked up by ICE, they will be checked to see if any other agency has an interest in them. Why is this offensive to you? Please be specific.

57 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:10:36am

re: #53 Buck

That is a classic “straw man”, unless you can tell me what “bad choices” Israel made to lose this support?

Israel as of this moment hasn’t made any bad choices to loose my support. However if for example Israel made a deal with Palestine to grant them statehood that both sides agreed to, and then proceeded not to live up to their end of the deal for whatever reason that would be a bad choice.

Israel is better than Palestine, and while I don’t predict them becoming worse any time soon, the best defense against such a thing happening is to always be aware of the possibility of it taking place.

If you want one thing in particular at the moment that they have actually done that I’ve been less than wild about… I’ve yet to hear a good explanation for the settlements they’ve been erecting on the west bank, though I say that being perfectly aware that I don’t keep my ear to the ground in regards to Israel’s politics as well as I should, so if you would like to explain to me the purpose for them I would be more than happy to listen and come away correct/better for the experience.

58 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:12:12am

re: #50 Obdicut

And what would that treatment consist of, Buck?

An Israeli arrives in the US with a visa, vacations here, and leaves. What effect has this policy had on him?

An Israeli Citizen, during a visit to the USA, is accused of a crime. Accused mind you, not convicted. While in custody they are treated differently than, say a Japanese citizen would be. for example, their custody might be longer due to these extra checks.

59 wrenchwench  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:12:35am

re: #54 Buck

That is what the Arizona law was all about. Did you support it, or are you against it?

OK, I have to butt in here. The Arizona law was about pursuing the immigration status of persons who were NOT detained. As was explained to you above, they already had the ability to check on people who had been detained BEFORE for something else.

Stop using the Arizona law as a comparator when you don’t understand it. Stop asking people whether they were for it as some kind of stupid straw man.

60 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:19:28am

re: #58 Buck

An Israeli Citizen, during a visit to the USA, is accused of a crime.

Why would ICE be involved? If the Israeli is here legally, ICE won’t get involved.

61 Spocomptonite  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:20:57am

re: #54 Buck

That is what the Arizona law was all about. Did you support it, or are you against it?

The Arizona law, one could be detained for looking like a Mexican and not being able to prove either a) they were U.S. citizens or b) legal immigrants.

With this one, one already has to be detained, and even then it only becomes a mandatory more thorough background check. It certainly isn’t detainment for looking like an Israeli.

Now, to flip your question back at you, I thought you were for the Arizona law? Somehow you are against this, which isn’t even in the same league of inconvenience to those that are subject to it?

62 RanchTooth  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:25:19am

re: #54 Buck

That is what the Arizona law was all about. Did you support it, or are you against it?

I have no clue what you’re talking about or how it’s relevant to this case here. Also… still anxious for your rationale about why this is connected to Obama wussing out over the Middle East.

63 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:28:10am

re: #57 jamesfirecat

if for example Israel made a deal with Palestine to grant them statehood that both sides agreed to, and then proceeded not to live up to their end of the deal for whatever reason that would be a bad choice.

So here we are Strawman… If Israel were to…

I’ve yet to hear a good explanation for the settlements they’ve been erecting on the west bank

That is because your understanding of settlements is different that the reality.

First of all. Look at the map and see that for some the west bank includes Jerusalem. There have been jews living in Jerusalem for 3000 years. Building homes for jews in Jerusalem is not illegal, or immoral.

There is a map of blue with red dots that purports to show Israeli settlements expanding in the west bank. The dots are often simply buildings where jews live. The definition of settlements is any Jewish civilian living on land that was captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War.

Some settlements are on sites where Jewish communities had long existed during the British Mandate of Palestine.

Some Settlements are just industrial areas where Palestinians work, but the factories are owned by jews.

BUT the most important one is Jerusalem and the city around the old city. Where jews have lived and prayed to longer than Christianity and Islam even existed.

64 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:33:01am

re: #62 RanchTooth

The Arizona Immigration Law is a secondary law, which means persons must have committed a crime before they can be rightfully detained by police officers. Just like this one. That is the connection.


Also… still anxious for your rationale about why this is connected to Obama wussing out over the Middle East.

See my #44 above.

65 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:36:27am

re: #64 Buck

Buck, are you ignorant or lying about the Arizona law?

The law requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

There needs to be no commission of a crime.

66 wrenchwench  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:38:36am

re: #64 Buck

What a waste of a clue.

67 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:39:19am

re: #60 Obdicut

ICE might be involved, if they could not prove that they were in the country legally. That does not mean they are in the country illegally, but only that they couldn’t prove it.

You know how that is right? Having illegally entered another country yourself. You should be aware on how hard it would be to prove.

BUT that is not the point…. You are moving this discussion away the list and what is says about Israel.

68 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:41:50am

re: #65 Obdicut

Arizona HB 2162, &sect3.

11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of
37 immigration laws; indemnification
38 A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or
39 other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the
40 enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent
41 permitted by federal law.
42 B. For any lawful contact STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST made by a law
43 enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law
44 enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or
45 other political subdivision of this state IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW H.B. 2162
- 4 -
1 OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE where reasonable
2 suspicion exists that the person is an alien who AND is unlawfully present in
3 the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to
4 determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination
5 may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall
6 have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is
7 released.

69 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:42:42am

re: #68 Buck

The word “contact” is crossed out in the law. That didn’t come through the copy and paste.

70 The Ghost of a Flea  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:43:28am

re: #38 Buck

You leave out the phrase “shown a tendency”. It is very important.

“shown a tendency” is not the same as “does”. You want to parse this to the extreme, then you have to include that phrase.

No, I didn’t. Maybe I should used a different phrase than “base-rate correlation.” You know, correlation…a simple (admittedly very simple) measure of tendency…that explicitly is distinct from causation.

And if you want to get into parsing, “tendency” is semantically softer than unmodified “did/does”…which is a point to my side.

…and Israel has not shown a tendency to produce terrorism.

Unless you accept the idea that support for Israel produces terrorism.

Um…what?

What I pointed out were the unjustified extrapolations you made into a text; I proposed a counter-interpretation, but did not justify it as “correct” because we’re operating without metrics at to how statuses are assigned.

You made an assumption about the text’s meaning that extended beyond the words on the page, I pointed it out in formal terms. I was addressing a problem of language-as-written versus language-as-read.

That last part is just a nasty insinuation.

re: #41 Buck

Is this DHS report really “a void of interpretation”? Are you saying that there are unclear? Are you saying it is poorly written?

In order to make the facts work for you, you tell me that this report (that I think is very clear) is “a void of interpretation”.

No…the sentence I was parsing would be the referent “void.” Hence the entire deconstruction of what your offense was based on; hence why the offending paragraph does not reference the whole paper.

Also, I smell concern trolling plus nasty insinuation.

But honestly, I’m not going to engage you any more.

Either you’re a coward that like to formulate little insults about his opponent and drop them into the middle of muddy “arguments” that amount only to purposeful twisting of the words of others, then pretending it was all unintentional…

…or you’re damnably stupid and truly don’t understand the documents you post, the posts you respond to, or the semantics of your own writing—and have remained in that pristine state of suspended incomprehension for at least as long as I’ve been lurking here without acquiring any self-awareness.

I’m tempted to reel out some elaborate string of insults—you see, I like my insults to be elaborate, vulgar, and blatant, not cravenly couched in the language of concern and questioning—but instead I’m just going to promise that I’m going to continue to throw sawdust on the pseudo-rhetorical vomit you treat as logic whenever you post an article.

Now go tend to your heirloom butthurt—it needs pruning and watering—and convince yourself that I’m a anti-Israel liberal loon rather than someone with an appreciation for the distinction between actual logic and fallacy-assisted ideological mastubation.

71 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:44:50am

re: #67 Buck

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong that the Israeli citizen would be affected by this law if arrested. Strangely, you forgot to explicitly admit this, but I’ll take your usual-passive aggressive admittance that you had your facts wrong.

So, what I said is correct, and what you said was wrong. An Israeli, if in the US illegally— or if unable to prove their legal residence in the US— would be checked to see if other agencies were interested in them.

re: #68 Buck

A ‘stop’ is not an arrest, Buck. I’ll take it this is ignorance on your part, but it’s rather willful ignorance.

As usual.

72 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:47:45am

re: #71 Obdicut

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong that the Israeli citizen would be affected by this law if arrested. Strangely, you forgot to explicitly admit this, but I’ll take your usual-passive aggressive admittance that you had your facts wrong.

So, what I said is correct, and what you said was wrong. An Israeli, if in the US illegally— or if unable to prove their legal residence in the US— would be checked to see if other agencies were interested in them.

re: #68 Buck

A ‘stop’ is not an arrest, Buck. I’ll take it this is ignorance on your part, but it’s rather willful ignorance.

As usual.

I didn’t say arrest, I said: ” persons must have committed a crime before they can be rightfully detained by police officers.”

And it is a legal stop. So the officer would have to think a crime had been committed.

73 wrenchwench  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:51:24am

re: #72 Buck

What a waste of electrons.

74 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:51:40am

re: #70 The Ghost of a Flea

A lot of words, except that you don’t address the basic argument that this list is obviously NOT a list of any country that might have ever “produced” a terrorist. Clearly.

In fact it is YOU who likes to “formulate little insults”. You can give it pretty good, but you can’t take it.

75 RanchTooth  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:53:32am

I’M SO DONE WITH THIS

76 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:53:57am

re: #73 wrenchwench

Oh so you already knew that the Arizona law was NOT about pursuing the immigration status of persons who were NOT detained. Strange. I thought you thought it was, and that reading the actual bill would clear that up for you.

77 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:54:03am

re: #72 Buck

This is not true, Buck. Police officers stop people when they don’t believe they have committed a crime. For example, police have sobriety checkpoints where they stop every car going down a highway and administer a breathalyzer or other test on the drivers.

Buck, it’d be a lot easier to believe your ignorance was just ignorance if you weren’t so persistent about it.

The number of things you have said in this thread that are false is breathtakingly large. Doesn’t that give you pause? Doesn’t it make you question yourself— why you have to claim so many untrue things in order to make your points?

78 wrenchwench  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:54:31am

re: #76 Buck

Oh so you already knew that the Arizona law was NOT about pursuing the immigration status of persons who were NOT detained. Strange. I thought you thought it was, and that reading the actual bill would clear that up for you.

What a waste.

79 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:55:30am

re: #75 RanchTooth

I’M SO DONE WITH THIS

Actually you were done in your #3.

80 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:55:32am

re: #76 Buck

Oh so you already knew that the Arizona law was NOT about pursuing the immigration status of persons who were NOT detained. Strange. I thought you thought it was, and that reading the actual bill would clear that up for you.

“where reasonable
2 suspicion exists that the person is an alien who AND is unlawfully present in
3 the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to
4 determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination
5 may hinder or obstruct an investigation”

What part of this says that a person must be arrested /stopped before an attempt can be maid to determine if they are an immigrant or not?

81 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 11:57:33am

re: #80 jamesfirecat

“where reasonable
2 suspicion exists that the person is an alien who AND is unlawfully present in
3 the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to
4 determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination
5 may hinder or obstruct an investigation”

What part of this says that a person must be arrested /stopped before an attempt can be maid to determine if they are an immigrant or not?

Sorry that post was baddly thought out and should be removed I’m sorry I made it and don’t bother responding to it.

I am for fail today.

82 The Ghost of a Flea  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:00:56pm

re: #74 Buck

In fact it is YOU who likes to “formulate little insults”.

Pfft.

My insults are not little.

83 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:09:06pm

Obdicut, you are not reading the AZ law. It adds “IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW”. I guess you need to read it out loud.

If the person is stopped for a “sobriety checkpoint”, they also check for licence and registration. In AZ an undocumented person would not have a DL, and therefore would be committing the crime of driving without a licence. It would only be after the person could not provide that DL that the officer would be able to proceed with checking their status. If they provided an out of country DL, as I would, the office would also be able to question the status, because that would be reasonable. Under the law, the person would have to have their passport, or documentation showing that they are admitted in the country legally.

You throw the LIE word around a lot. In fact I have caught you lying many times. Only you quickly change the subject, moving it over and over out side of what you don’t want to talk about.

In the end, you think that the DHS is wrong, but don’t like how I described the wrong.

Why are we still discussing it? You only think that I need to substitute Gaza for Hamas. I think it is the same thing, you don’t.

84 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:19:53pm

re: #83 Buck

More ignorance.

1. If you get an international driver’s license, you can rent a car and drive in the US as a foreigner.

2. An immigrant can obtain a driver’s license in the US and then overstay their visa. Overstays of visa are one of the most common ways for someone to be an illegal immigrant.

Buck, when you’re wrong, your response is generally not to actually bother to research, to investigate, or educate yourself, it’s generally— as you just did— to claim more things that are untrue. I have no idea why you do so. It makes you seem a liar even when you’re not intentionally lying. I personally think that your habit of willful ignorance is tantamount to lying anyway.


In the end, you think that the DHS is wrong, but don’t like how I described the wrong.

No. You lied in how you described it. It’s not that I don’t like it— it’s that what you said is factually untrue, and you’ve followed it up with a serious of other factual untruths, from either ignorance or intention.

Things that you have said that are not true:

1. This policy treats Israel the same as Hamas, and Israelis the same as members of Hamas.

2. An Israeli citizen who was arrested for a crime would be subject to this policy.

3. The Arizona documentation law applied only to those who had committed a crime.

4. An undocumented person in the US would not have a driver’s license.

If they provided an out of country DL, as I would, the office would also be able to question the status, because that would be reasonable.

I’d like to point that this is admitting that you were wrong when you said that the officer could only check their status if they had committed a crime. Do you realize that?

85 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:41:57pm

You paraphrase and exaggerate what I said.

If you get an international driver’s license, you can rent a car and drive in the US as a foreigner.

Not at all relevant to the discussion.


An immigrant can obtain a driver’s license in the US and then overstay their visa. Overstays of visa are one of the most common ways for someone to be an illegal immigrant.

I don’t think the second part is true, and the first part is not relevant.

No. You lied in how you described it.

No I did not lie. You interpret it differently. You think of Hamas as simply a terrorist group. They are that and much more. There are members of Hamas that are social workers, and teachers. Like the former Soviet Union, membership has it’s privileges. There are others who call Gaza Hamasistan…. You don’t feel that way. Fine. But not a lie.


1. This policy treats Israel the same as Hamas, and Israelis the same as members of Hamas.


I explain that above. Yes, I think Gaza = Hamas. You don’t.


2. An Israeli citizen who was arrested for a crime would be subject to this policy.

I state that Israel is on this list, AND that would make Israelis subject to this policy.

3. The Arizona documentation law applied only to those who had committed a crime.

I stated that “persons must have committed a crime before they can be rightfully detained by police officers.” All of those words in place, yes I stand by that. It is not a lie. A lawful STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST made by a law enforcement official IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW does not include stopping people on the street and just demanding their papers.

You said, “The law requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials”. In fact a lawful STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST MUST be made by a law enforcement official IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW first.

86 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:45:41pm

re: #85 Buck

You paraphrase and exaggerate what I said.

Not at all relevant to the discussion.

I don’t think the second part is true, and the first part is not relevant.

No I did not lie. You interpret it differently. You think of Hamas as simply a terrorist group. They are that and much more. There are members of Hamas that are social workers, and teachers. Like the former Soviet Union, membership has it’s privileges. There are others who call Gaza Hamasistan… You don’t feel that way. Fine. But not a lie.


I explain that above. Yes, I think Gaza = Hamas. You don’t.

I state that Israel is on this list, AND that would make Israelis subject to this policy.

I stated that “persons must have committed a crime before they can be rightfully detained by police officers.” All of those words in place, yes I stand by that. It is not a lie. A lawful STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST made by a law enforcement official IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW does not include stopping people on the street and just demanding their papers.

You said, “The law requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials”. In fact a lawful STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST MUST be made by a law enforcement official IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW first.

Saying today that Gaza= Hamas is like saying in 1944 that German = Nazi.

87 wrenchwench  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:46:09pm

re: #85 Buck

I don’t think the second part is true

Once again, you are wrong.

You are ignorant, yet persistent. Not a good combo.

88 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:46:11pm

re: #84 Obdicut

Overstays of visa are one of the most common ways for someone to be an illegal immigrant.

In all seriousness, there are approx 12 million “undocumented workers” in the USA. Do you really think the most common method was overstaying a visa?

89 Spocomptonite  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:46:29pm

Buck just wants to think this is all about Israel.

I mean, our other allies (NATO: Turkey) (Major non-NATO Ally: Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, The Philippines, Thailand, Kuwait) are on this list, but does buck say anything about the supposed oppression of travelers from these countries?

Nope.

90 wrenchwench  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:47:48pm

re: #88 Buck

In all seriousness, there are approx 12 million “undocumented workers” in the USA. Do you really think the most common method was overstaying a visa?

Yes. Approximately 40% of illegal immigrants became such by overstaying a visa. That’s a conservative estimate.

91 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:48:26pm

re: #85 Buck

Not at all relevant to the discussion.

It is, given that you claimed an undocumented immigrant wouldn’t have a driver’s license. They could have an international driver’s license along with their license from their own nation, and that would be legal for the US.


I don’t think the second part is true, and the first part is not relevant.

You don’t think immigrants can get drivers license? They can, of course. That’s why a driver’s license doesn’t prove citizenship. Instead of ‘not believing’ why not take the ten seconds to research it? Seriously, what prevents you from doing so?

[Link: www.usa.gov…]

I stated that “persons must have committed a crime before they can be rightfully detained by police officers.” All of those words in place, yes I stand by that. It is not a lie.

But you then contradict yourself immediately. Stops occur without any suspicion of a crime, as with sobriety checkpoints. I mean, never mind that what you said didn’t even say the suspicion of a crime’ but ‘persons must have committed a crime’.

What aren’t you getting about that? A sobriety checkpoint doesn’t presume that any individual has committed a crime.

92 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:49:09pm

re: #86 jamesfirecat

You never heard the expression “Nazi Germany” to describe Germany at that time?

A person travelling from Germany at that time would have a big swastika on the front of their passport.

93 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:49:19pm

re: #88 Buck

In all seriousness, there are approx 12 million “undocumented workers” in the USA. Do you really think the most common method was overstaying a visa?

Is there any reason when I said “one of the most common” you then asked me if I believed that it was “the most common”?

94 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:53:23pm

re: #92 Buck

You never heard the expression “Nazi Germany” to describe Germany at that time?

A person travelling from Germany at that time would have a big swastika on the front of their passport.

Yes, but that doesn’t mean that all Germans supported the nazi regime.

To say that all Germans were Nazis at that time is to lump lump Dietrich Bonhoeffer in with Heinrich Himmler.

95 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:54:29pm

re: #94 jamesfirecat

In fact, membership in the Nazi party carried privileges with it— and I believe membership in Hamas, in Gaza, does as well.

96 Spocomptonite  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:55:04pm

re: #88 Buck

Yes. I’ve known lots of people with student/work visas who, through unexpected circumstances or simple paperwork problems in getting re-issued, end up overstaying their visas. I even had one friend incarcerated for 2 months because his work visa was revoked, and while working on the legal process of getting that fixed, he was arrested by INS at our workplace, during business hours, in front of everyone. The laws in these cases end up being a bigger detriment to our society than the supposedly “bad” illegal immigrants they were made to protect us from.

97 Spocomptonite  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:55:59pm

re: #92 Buck

You never heard the expression “Nazi Germany” to describe Germany at that time?

A person travelling from Germany at that time would have a big swastika on the front of their passport.

Just because a Democrat is in the White House doesn’t make you a Democrat.

98 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:56:04pm

re: #93 Obdicut

Is there any reason when I said “one of the most common” you then asked me if I believed that it was “the most common”?

OK, I see two, maybe three possible methods of becoming an illegal immigrant. One is border crossing, another is overstaying a visa. I can’t think of a third. So when you say “one of the most common” …..

99 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:57:51pm

re: #97 Spocomptonite

Just because a Democrat is in the White House doesn’t make you a Democrat.

Seriously? You don’t know the difference in a working multiparty democracy with regular elections and what Hamas is done in Gaza?

FAIL.

100 Spocomptonite  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 12:58:44pm

re: #98 Buck

OK, I see two, maybe three possible methods of becoming an illegal immigrant. One is border crossing, another is overstaying a visa. I can’t think of a third. So when you say “one of the most common” …

“Border crossing” entails a very broad area. There’s forced human smuggling, there’s attempted political asylum, there’s attempted refugee status, there’s coming here before one officially can but the paperwork is held up, etc etc etc.

101 Spocomptonite  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:00:09pm

re: #99 Buck

Seriously? You don’t know the difference in a working multiparty democracy with regular elections and what Hamas is done in Gaza?

FAIL.

I thought it was you who didn’t understand the political situation of post-WWI Germany.

102 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:00:37pm

re: #94 jamesfirecat

For the purposes of practicality, yes you would treat any German from Nazi Germany as if they supported the Nazi’s.

I mean if they wanted to renounce their citizenship in Nazi Germany, you would treat them differently, but that is not at all what we are talking about.

103 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:04:55pm

re: #100 Spocomptonite

“Border crossing” entails a very broad area. There’s forced human smuggling, there’s attempted political asylum, there’s attempted refugee status, there’s coming here before one officially can but the paperwork is held up, etc etc etc.

Well, we can’t really put numbers to any of that, BUT I suspect if you did, overstaying a visa, and all that you list would not add up to close to the numbers of purposely sneaking in.

104 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:05:03pm

re: #102 Buck

For the purposes of practicality, yes you would treat any German from Nazi Germany as if they supported the Nazi’s.

I mean if they wanted to renounce their citizenship in Nazi Germany, you would treat them differently, but that is not at all what we are talking about.

I think the fact that you choose to equate the fact that someone chooses to live someplace as meaning they must support their government is totally wrongheaded Buck.

Also just for reference… how easy is it to move somewhere else if you were born in Palestine and don’t like the government?

Is there anyone here who can address that question?

105 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:05:36pm

re: #98 Buck

OK, I see two, maybe three possible methods of becoming an illegal immigrant. One is border crossing, another is overstaying a visa. I can’t think of a third. So when you say “one of the most common” …

Have a visa revoked. Coming as a child with your parents, of no volition of your own. Seeking refugee status in the US and being denied.

It’s very, very, very common for people to overstay visas. It doesn’t have to be the most common for my point to be true. It is millions of people.

106 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:09:40pm

re: #104 jamesfirecat

There are Palestinians living in every middle east country, including Israel.

Gaza is not East Berlin.

107 Spocomptonite  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:11:16pm

re: #103 Buck

Well, we can’t really put numbers to any of that, BUT I suspect if you did, overstaying a visa, and all that you list would not add up to close to the numbers of purposely sneaking in.

Breaking news! Guy that can only see black and white refuses to acknowledge world might be greyer than he thought.

108 Spocomptonite  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:12:18pm

re: #106 Buck

There are Palestinians living in every middle east country, including Israel.

Yeah, the ones rich enough to escape it.

109 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:12:47pm

re: #106 Buck

There are Palestinians living in every middle east country, including Israel.

Gaza is not East Berlin.

I’ll trust you on that, but it still doesn’t address the issue of how there may be some who choose to stay behind to try and overturn the corrupt regime which is running their country, just as there were Germans who despised what the Nazis did.

These people should be your natural ally Buck, but your callous rhetoric lumps them in with those they seek to fight and doubtlessly does little to endear you to them.

Are you certain that every person in Gaza supports Hamas? If so why?

If not, why do you act as if they do?

110 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:14:04pm

re: #105 Obdicut

Have a visa revoked. Coming as a child with your parents, of no volition of your own. Seeking refugee status in the US and being denied.

I think those all fall under Crossing the border, or overstaying a visa.

If your visa gets revoked, and you stay past the date, you have overstayed a visa. If you came over because your parents brought you, then you crossed the border illegally. Denied refugee status and staying after the temp visa you might have received expires? Overstayed a visa.

Now, because no one wants to know, no one knows the real numbers. You could be right. No one will ever know for sure.

111 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:15:55pm

re: #109 jamesfirecat

You are missing the point, and moving the discussion. ICE is not picking up Gazan’s who stay behind to fight. Can you please try and stay on the topic?

112 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:16:32pm

re: #110 Buck

I think those all fall under Crossing the border, or overstaying a visa.

They don’t. Refugees don’t cross the border illegally, they apply for asylum. They are generally allowed freedom of movement during that application. They are not giving a visa.

There have been plenty of studies on the numbers, and it is definite that overstaying visas is in the millions.

Your argument about the Arizona bill could not have been disproven more thoroughly.

The people subject to it do not have to have committed a crime.

A stop does not have to include the commission of a crime.

Undocumented aliens can have driver’s licenses.

113 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:16:43pm

re: #111 Buck

You are missing the point, and moving the discussion. ICE is not picking up Gazan’s who stay behind to fight. Can you please try and stay on the topic?

Explain why you say “Yes, I think Gaza = Hamas. “

In what context did you mean these comments?

114 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:17:17pm

re: #108 Spocomptonite

We are talking about Gazan’s who are in the USA. Rich or Poor?

115 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:30:32pm

re: #112 Obdicut

They don’t. Refugees don’t cross the border illegally, they apply for asylum. They are generally allowed freedom of movement during that application. They are not giving a visa.

They call it a Refugee/Asylum Visa.

Your argument about the Arizona bill could not have been disproven more thoroughly.
The people subject to it do not have to have committed a crime.
A stop does not have to include the commission of a crime.
Undocumented aliens can have driver’s licenses.

A lawful stop would then need to lead to the reasonable part. Not the other way around. Again for further qualification, first there has to be a lawful STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST made IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW. Just like the federal law.

If they had a DL, then they would not be subject to the law, as there would be no reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien who AND is unlawfully present in the United States.

Most illegal aliens don’t. You can only have an international DL for as long as your home DL is good. AND and illegal would not go back to renew their DL when it expires. AND they would still have to have legal residence where they have the original DL. If they are residing illegally in the USA, then they would not have a legal DL back home.

116 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:32:47pm

re: #113 jamesfirecat

In the context of this discussion of course. The DHS list of specially designated countries (SDCs) that have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.

On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza.

117 Buck  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:34:23pm

re: #113 jamesfirecat

I also think Hamas = Nazi. Just to split your head wide open.

118 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 1:36:26pm

re: #116 Buck

In the context of this discussion of course. The DHS list of specially designated countries (SDCs) that have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.

On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza.

Yes, but does that mean that everyone who travels from Gaza must support Hamas?

119 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 30, 2011 4:04:26pm

re: #115 Buck

They call it that after it’s been granted.


If they had a DL, then they would not be subject to the law, as there would be no reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien who AND is unlawfully present in the United States.

Except if they decided the person was suspicious for whatever reason. I have no idea why you’ve decided their criteria for them.


Most illegal aliens don’t. You can only have an international DL for as long as your home DL is good. AND and illegal would not go back to renew their DL when it expires. AND they would still have to have legal residence where they have the original DL. If they are residing illegally in the USA, then they would not have a legal DL back home.

Many illegal aliens do in fact go back and forth over the very porous border. Or go back, reapply for a travel visa, get it, and then come back over here, and overstay the travel visa again.

This is very typical of you, Buck: You tried to create a false equivalence between this law and the Arizona law. You failed, and you are trying to pretend you didn’t.

The Arizona law:

Requires that cops detain anyone who they suspect is an illegal immigrant after any stop, detention, or arrest. It allows communities to sue police departments if they feel they’re not vigorous enough about it.

The DHS rule:

Requires that ICE inform other agencies when they are detaining an illegal Israeli immigrant to see if those other agencies have any interest in that detainee.


There is no comparison between the two, at all.

Furthmore, your original lies still stand: Hamas and Israel are not, and cannot be, treated the same by this law, since Hamas is a terrorist organization and political party, and Israel is a country. You could have said that Gaza and the West Bank are treated the same as Israel, and that would have been true, but you couldn’t resist taking it beyond the truth in order to attack Obama. You never can resist the urge to attack what you perceive as liberals, and defend what you see as conservatives.

And you apparently never feel bad about all the times you state things that are blatantly false while doing so. It doesn’t appear to bother you a bit.

120 Buck  Sat, Jul 2, 2011 6:56:34pm

re: #119 Obdicut

You have again moved the discussion away from the original post and had the discussion you want to have.

Tell you what, next time just make a page about your topic. Mine is that the Obama Administration has put Israel on the same list of countries with Gaza (Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza).

This list is countries that “have shown a tendency to promote, produce,
or protect terrorist organizations or their members”.

That there are terrorists who (as you like to say) are produced by England, Germany and Japan means that this is not a list of countries that simply “produce” (your meaning not mine) terrorists, but just as stated in the DHS report, countries that “have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members”.

I maintain that Israel didn’t produce a terrorist.. or promote, or protect any terrorist organization (or member).

That’s the story. Further evidence for me that Obama is making a shift in where the US stands in the region


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Playing With AI-Generated “Art”I haven't really explored NightCafe's free online AI Art Generator (creator.nightcafe.studio) tool yet. I have only done some preliminary tinkering around with it but, I have to say, I'm more impressed with the results than I anticipated considering how little ...
dat_said
1 day, 3 hours ago
Views: 143 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 0 •
Indigenous Americans Ruled Democratically Long Before the U.S. DidDemocracy: it was older and more widespread than we thought. At the Oconee site, called Cold Springs, artifacts were excavated before the valley became an aquatic playground. Now, new older-than-expected radiocarbon dates for those museum-held finds push back the origin ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 6 days ago
Views: 1,462 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 3 •