Should the Johnson Amendment (forbids religions and charities from endorsing candidates) be repealed?

[Vance]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

Last spring I won't to a Phoenix area Just Serve meeting where we learned about refugees. I learned there is a legal definitions for refugees and many whom we think of as refugees are actually a part of other groups. We were told the screening process for refugees is one of the strictest screening processes in the world. Not all of the people coming in go through this process because they are under a different legal definition and their entrance hasn't been set up the same as the refugees. 

I admit I know almost nothing of the screening process, but got just a brief glimpse of it at this meeting. I understand why some may be worried about security, but many will not realize that the terrorist from _______ group of entrants is not the same as the highly screened group of refugees. 

Any effective screening process requires documents or documentation about the screenie.  Too many of these countries from which these people are coming have totally inadequate documentation.  Terrorists can and have easily slipped through the process.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, Vance said:

Any effective screening process requires documents or documentation about the screenie.  Too many of these countries from which these people are coming have totally inadequate documentation.  Terrorists can and have easily slipped through the process.

I understand that, as pertaining to the countries covered by the Trump executive order, there has not yet been enough intelligence gathered from those countries to make screening effective. Regardless of how strict the screening process is, if there is not sufficient information in the database to flag potential terrorists, they could still slip through.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

On 2/12/2017 at 2:41 PM, Vance said:

Any effective screening process requires documents or documentation about the screenie.  Too many of these countries from which these people are coming have totally inadequate documentation.  Terrorists can and have easily slipped through the process.

The process currently takes over a year and is very thorough. A reasonably practical terrorist would take the far easier course of just getting a visa.

I am going to break with my usual hatred of CFRs and issue a CFR for terrorists that easily slipped through.

[longview]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am going to break with my usual hatred of CFRs and issue a CFR for terrorists that easily slipped through.

Re:  the 19 terrorists all had visas before they performed their "martyrdom operation."  They were not vetted nor properly followed up on because of artificial barriers put up by Jamie Gorelic between law enforcement and intelligence agencies.  Thus 9/11 happened.  There were numerous opportunities for interdiction, disruption, and arrests.  All the way from Bin Laden to the "Blind Sheik."

[Anijen]

Some of the problems with immigration:

• Broad language of a lot of the statutes
• Immigration is under too many administrations (i.e. part is under Dept of Defense, part is under Homeland Security, State Dept. Dept. of Justice, and other sub Departments (i.e. IRAIRA, ICE, etc.) 
• Removal have some rules that are contrary to each other depending on the department they are under.
• Admissions have some rules that are contrary to each other depending on the department they are under.

 

I agree with Nehor it is a long process, but I disagree with him that it is very thorough. I laughed at his very next quip; 

Quote

A reasonably practical terrorist would take the far easier course of just getting a visa.

Which would kind of negate his statement that; "The process currently takes over a year and is very thorough."

 

Her is a story my son shared with me;

 

Quote

 

Today, I went out carpet cleaning and ended up cleaning the house of a sweet old lady. This woman had taken in a refugee from Sudan last year and housed her for several months, and I had a fascinating conversation with her on the topic.

This refugee from Sudan is a 28-year-old woman. She became a refugee after she converted to Christianity. The act of converting had her family declare an honor killing. This woman escaped to save her own life from her family as they wanted to kill her.

From what I gathered, she and bunch of other refugees pretty much said they were refugees, brought in and plopped wherever without any process to acclimatize them to whatever area they were going, nor were they thoroughly questioned on their backgrounds, nor properly vetted to make sure they were who they said they were. In this case, I believed the story about this woman.

Now, she's brought to the U.S. and this kindly old lady at this house I cleaned was kind enough to let her use a spare bedroom and take her in.

Then came a massive culture clash.

The refugee comes from a culture where women have no rights, whatsoever, and it's accepted, often seen as the will of Allah. She had no education whatsoever, couldn't read or write, and had been told all her life that women don't get jobs or education.

The lady who owned the house grew to like and care for the refugee, has a daughter who is a fourth grade teacher who was willing to take extra time to help provide an education to the refugee, who's name I never actually caught, and a son who had a good job and would help buy her material things, like clothes and various other things.

The problem is the refugee refused to accept help getting an education, and didn't want to get a job at all, all because she's a woman, and women don't do that, not in her world view. To her, that is the way it is, end of story. 

The refugee also became completely enamored with owning a car and getting a bunch of other luxuries. They bought her a cheap old used car after helping her get a permit, but the woman wrecked in December. She had never seen snow before and wasn't cautious and slid off the road, and didn't know what turning signals are or were for. She ended up trying to pass a semi-truck, which was signaling to turn off the highway, but she tried passing, then had to swerve to avoid colliding and wrecked the car.

Luckily she was physically fine and not injured, but the car was now a wreck.

According to the lady who owned the house, enough was just never enough. After losing the car, she wanted another one and wanted them to provide it for her. They provided her with lots of luxuries and other things, but it was never enough, she always wanted more, but was completely unwilling to continue getting an education beyond basic math skills and reading, and felt that she shouldn't be required to get a job at all, after all, she's a woman and woman don't do that sort of thing, again, according to her own world view from a culture she grew up in.

It came to a point the lady had to turn her out, helped her find an apartment and is helping her pay the rent, because that was cheaper than having her in their home.

It's just a really sad story. On the one hand, the Sudanese Refugee has a horrible background. She grew up with no rights whatsoever and she can't go home, her family will kill her, but because of growing up in that culture, she's come to accept it as reality and normal, so she has in turn no inclination or desire to improve herself as we understand it here in the U.S. She doesn't want an education, nor does she want to get a job, which made her become such a financial burden on the household she was living in that it became impossible to continue housing her.

I feel sorry for her, as well as the old lady whose house I cleaned. I truly wish the best for both of them, and hope things work out for this refugee from Sudan, and I hope that in time she will assimilate into our culture and understand there's nothing wrong with women getting an education or getting jobs and being self-reliant is something to be admired, no matter who you are.

 

Bottomline I am all for helping refugees (we should). However, I am sure there will be a future attack by someone who entered in as a refugee or by illegal means. Having said that helping outweighs not helping. Helping is always better than hating. 

 

Edited February 14, 2017 by Anijen

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Re:  the 19 terrorists all had visas before they performed their "martyrdom operation."  They were not vetted nor properly followed up on because of artificial barriers put up by Jamie Gorelic between law enforcement and intelligence agencies.  Thus 9/11 happened.  There were numerous opportunities for interdiction, disruption, and arrests.  All the way from Bin Laden to the "Blind Sheik."

Yes, but I was talking about refugees. Did any terrorists easily make it through that process?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

 

I agree with Nehor it is a long process, but I disagree with him that it is very thorough. I laughed at his very next quip; 

Which would kind of negate his statement that; "The process currently takes over a year and is very thorough."

The post I was responding too was about refugees. That process is very thorough. Visas are easier to get as they probably should be.

[longview]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Bottomline I am all for helping refugees (we should). However, I am sure there will be a future attack by someone who entered in as a refugee or by illegal means.

Makes me wonder if this Sudanese Christian woman should have been placed in an expatriate community where her peers could help her become self reliant and more broad minded.  This confirms my strong conviction that the 'social engineers' are more interested in flooding the country than in securing the interest of the middle class.

Now we read of Angela Merkel trying to cover up her insanely excessive immigration program by paying some of them to leave Germany.  She is up for another term.

[longview]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but I was talking about refugees. Did any terrorists easily make it through that process?

Yes.  There are plenty of documented cases.

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The post I was responding too was about refugees. That process is very thorough. Visas are easier to get as they probably should be.

That sounds like a talking point of the left.  'Thoroughness' not at all likely, a real sham.  Visas must be made rigorous.

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Re:  the 19 terrorists all had visas before they performed their "martyrdom operation."  They were not vetted nor properly followed up on because of artificial barriers put up by Jamie Gorelic between law enforcement and intelligence agencies.  Thus 9/11 happened.  There were numerous opportunities for interdiction, disruption, and arrests.  All the way from Bin Laden to the "Blind Sheik."

Not one of those 19 was from any of the 7 countries listed on the EO.

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, longview said:

Yes.  There are plenty of documented cases.

That sounds like a talking point of the left.  'Thoroughness' not at all likely, a real sham.  Visas must be made rigorous.

Documented cases of refugee terrorists in the United States? Please share.

Why not look up the refugee vetting process so you can judge whether it is thorough? It is quite complex and involves lots of approvals and checks and the process usually takes at least a year with ongoing checks throughout.

Making visa checks more rigorous may have some merit as that is how some terrorists get in even though most terror attacks on US soil come from citizens. But is that a wise use of our limited intelligence resources? Vetting every visa would be incredibly costly and take away from investigations into more likely terror threats. Perhaps that is why the White House wants to focus on Islamic terrorism almost exclusively? That might work but also makes the future look bright for your up and coming KKK member with a violent agenda.

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not one of those 19 was from any of the 7 countries listed on the EO.

That too. Of course Trump has business interests in those countries that were involved but I am sure our President would never let that influence his decisions.

[bsjkki]

It is fascinating to watch threads get derailed. On the Johnson Amendment--yes, it should get "destroyed." On the question of political neutrality from the LDS church--that should be maintained. Can you imagine if every Bishop told their individual congregations how to vote? It is in the best interests of the LDS church to be politically neutral. Does this mean all churches should have to be politically neutral? No...each church should be free to make that decision for themselves. Should churches lose their tax exempt status in order to maintain their first amendment rights? No. What can be taxed--can be controlled. I do not want the government controlling religions. 

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It is fascinating to watch threads get derailed. On the Johnson Amendment--yes, it should get "destroyed." On the question of political neutrality from the LDS church--that should be maintained. Can you imagine if every Bishop told their individual congregations how to vote? It is in the best interests of the LDS church to be politically neutral. Does this mean all churches should have to be politically neutral? No...each church should be free to make that decision for themselves. Should churches lose their tax exempt status in order to maintain their first amendment rights? No. What can be taxed--can be controlled. I do not want the government controlling religions. 

Any church can tell their members how to vote. What they can't do is maintain their tax exempt status while doing it. The Johnson Amendment maintains the separation of Church and State. If a church can't survive without governmental money. It shouldn't survive at all.

Edited February 14, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[bsjkki]

43 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

If a church can't survive without governmental money. It shouldn't survive at all.

I think you've got a leftist spin on the tax question. Taxes are my money confiscated by the government by force of law and threats of incarceration. When the government lets me keep more of my money, it doesn't mean 'I can't survive without government money'.  Churches were tax exempt before the Johnson Amendment--the Johnson amemdment just shut them up. 

[Oliblish]

If you are interested in learning more about the history of the Johnson amendment, there was a podcast on KUER Radio West on the subject:

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/taxes-churches-and-political-game

 

[emeliza]

5 hours ago, longview said:

Re:  the 19 terrorists all had visas before they performed their "martyrdom operation."  They were not vetted nor properly followed up on because of artificial barriers put up by Jamie Gorelic between law enforcement and intelligence agencies.  Thus 9/11 happened.  There were numerous opportunities for interdiction, disruption, and arrests.  All the way from Bin Laden to the "Blind Sheik."

But that is the deal.   The refugee process is very vetted and through.  The VISA process is not.  So the ban on refugees most likely won't do any good.  Changing VISA rules might.

[longview]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Documented cases of refugee terrorists in the United States? Please share.

An example from frontage at.com:

"This came after the Cox Washington News Bureau reported that there were no fewer than 73 airport workers with possible terror ties, working at airports including Sea-Tac Airport in Seattle, Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta, Logan Airport in Boston, Orlando International Airport in Florida, Memphis International Airport in Tennessee, and others. But Johnson boasted: “We’re doing a better job of consulting all of the right databases when it comes to airport security and a host of other things.”

[emeliza]

4 minutes ago, longview said:

An example from frontage at.com:

"This came after the Cox Washington News Bureau reported that there were no fewer than 73 airport workers with possible terror ties, working at airports including Sea-Tac Airport in Seattle, Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta, Logan Airport in Boston, Orlando International Airport in Florida, Memphis International Airport in Tennessee, and others. But Johnson boasted: “We’re doing a better job of consulting all of the right databases when it comes to airport security and a host of other things.”

Did you read this article?  No where in it does it mention refugees.  It is about employees at airports not being properly vetted.

[Anijen]

A Brief History of Immigration

Before 1790, open door policy, no legal restrictions.

1790, Congress passes the Naturalization Act of 1790 (established requirements for citizenship, for "free white persons" and had a 2 year waiting period)

1795, waiting period was increased to 5 years.

1800’s (early 1800s), A large number of Catholics started coming in, this started a "Nativist Movement," the nativist movement did not like Catholics.

1830’s, Nativist movement advocated immigration restrictions on Catholics.

1840’s Nativists movement developed into a political party called the Know-Nothing Party.

1840’s Know-Nothing Party added an anti-Chinese sentiment to the anti-Catholic rhetoric. Even though these immigrant attitudes did not materialize into federal legislation, many discriminatory local regulations and statutes were enacted.

1849, The Passenger Cases, held that federal power over matters were superior over states.

1856, SCOTUS held that citizenship was not necessarily determined by a person’s birth in the United States.

1868, the 14^th Amendment (all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. were citizens).

Post-Civil War era witnessed the beginning of federal enactments designed to control the admission of noncitizens.

1882, First restrictionist period, excluded convicts, prostitutes, idiots, lunatics and imposed a head tax on aliens.

1882, Congress passes the Chinese Exclusion Act, (excluded any Chinese person).

1889, The Chinese Exclusion Act was upheld and was enforced for more than 60 years.

1891, Laws were enacted that provided for the inspection and exclusion of persons for reasons of health, crimes, poverty, and polygamy.

1917, Congress imposes stricter controls on foreign immigration, including laws such as Asiatic Barred Zone which was designed to exclude Asians, it also imposed literacy requirements and tried (but were unsuccessful) in excluding all persons of African ancestry.

1921, Quota laws came into effect which limited the number of persons who could immigrate to the United States (these quota laws have never gone away)

1924, Was extremely effective in curtailing immigration to the United States. In addition, during this period, authorities began deporting Mexican-Americans. Nearly half-million Mexican-Americans, including U.S. citizens, were deported under a program called the “repatriation campaign.”

1943, The Chinese Exclusion Act is repealed.

1952, The McCarran-Walter Act, also known as the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) became the framework of modern immigration law. (Most immigration laws after this date deal with quotas).

1980, The Refugee Act, which established a system where the president would set the number of refugees to be admitted from overseas in any given year.

1986, The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) and The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments (IMFA), provided a blanket amnesty for agricultural workers and others who had been here since 1982. These acts also created a pilot program for waiver of the visa requirement for persons from certain countries and an adjustment of status for these persons (under the DOJ).

1990’s (Early), The Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT90) which upped the totals for all the quotas and reduced or substantially eased the way for families, workers, and Asylees to come into the country. This act also created protected status which was a temporary safe-haven and started the sanctuary city movement (although it wasn’t called sanctuary cities yet)

1991, Persons who served honorably in the U.S. armed forces were given special immigration status which accelerated the path to citizenship.

1992, Special considerations were given a special adjustment status (similar to those in the military) for Chinese nationals (due to the massacres at Tiananmen Square).

1996, to the present increased efforts to restrict immigrants access and expanded powers to the courts were given to remove them.

1996 The first major legislation that dealt with terrorism was passed. Under President Clinton with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) and later that year with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) gave authority to remove people without a hearing. These acts broadened the definition of “conviction” and “aggravated felony” which eliminated many forms of relief for aliens. These two acts have been criticized by scholars as some of the most far-reaching and draconian enacted in nearly a century.

2000, Under President Clinton, laws were created to protect trafficking victims and those who suffered physical or mental abuse as a result of criminal activity. The problem here that the vetting process was practically nil when all one had to do was claim abuse, or threat of future abuse and the immigrant was let in.

2001, (post 9-11), Congress enacted the USA Patriot Act. This act increased (tripled) Border Patrol Agents and permitted greater sharing (which still toady is not much shared among agencies). The downside to this is many agencies were set up while at the same time it abolished INS. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established. Also with all these changes the major immigration authorities fell under three components within the DHS (USCIS, CBP, and ICE)

2005, Real ID is signed by President Bush which made very broad judicial review and jurisdictional changes of the federal appellate courts, habeas corpus petitioning was eliminated (as a means of review)

2013, President Obama by use of executive order made DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), which was later expanded to cover parents and other workers. This expansion also changed visa petitions which result in the easing of entrance to the U.S., but also resulted in many (hundreds) of states challenges questioning the president’s authority to implement these programs. This will be the same fight President Trump will use which relies on the Constitutions supremacy clause, which invalidates state laws that interfere with or are in contrary to federal law.

2017, President Trump, by executive order stops immigration from seven countries (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Syria) for 90 days.It is over ruled by a federal judge.

Overall with all the recent acts since 9-11, 2001, the laws have become a leviathan of confusion with Administration made law and there will be one or more departments statutes that say one thing on the admissibility or the removal of an immigrant, but will be contradicted by another statute under another department. It really is a mess. I have no idea what a solution could be. I am for helping refugees, I just feel we will see a terrible consequence because of the lack of vetting. Having said that, I still to this day believe it is more important to be of help than of a hinderance.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Anijen

[Anijen]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Why not look up the refugee vetting process so you can judge whether it is thorough? It is quite complex and involves lots of approvals and checks and the process usually takes at least a year with ongoing checks throughout.

Although the process is difficult under one department another department will let them in. And then it will reverse the once difficult pass from one agency, becomes more easier, all the while the once easier department might become more difficult.

Another issue; is that there are so many paths (some very difficult, some astonishingly easy), all will affect entrance (or removal). there are some many types of visas and exceptions, such as; hard challenged, criminal activity, military, country exceptions (country denials), educational exceptions, agricultural etc. and etc., and etc.

Last of all, you are right when you say it can be difficult (it can be) and it can be lengthy (it can be), but what you fail to acknowledge (with love) is that almost always the immigrant/refugee may have an reasonable argument for entry (and there are many of them, I listed some above) whether true or not) they will be let in and then the immigration courts will decide.

Scenario example: I am a refugee (it doesn't matter if I have nefarious purpose or not, I just don't tell).

Here is the process:

1. I get to the border, 
2. I am questioned. 
3. I say I am already a citizen or (LPR)
4.  I am detained and taken to an office
5. I am questioned some more
6.  A supervisor comes in and questions me.
7.  Efforts are made to contact my US address and get more info.
8.  Which of course I have set up before hand with a friend already in the U.S.
9.  Because I claim citizenship or I am a Lawful Permanent Resident, I am afforded Constitutional protection.
10. Because I am afforded Constitutional protection they cannot deny me entry (well they can, but typically wont).
11.  I am allowed conditional entrance
12.  While I am here in the US, I work hard on becoming legal through an immigration lawyer.
13. While I am here, I will be investigated.
14. While I am here I will typically have to go to an immigration court (typically every six months) to answer more questions.
15. If I am legal or have reasonable argument to be here, I will have no problems
16. If I am here illegally, I will have problems, but they are not insurmountable.
17. If I am here illegally to do crime or terrorism, I'm not going to comply and if I do I will be lying or trying to get citizenship legally, but the point is...                   I am here.

 

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

2013, President Obama by use of executive order made DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), which was later expanded to cover parents and other workers. This expansion also changed visa petitions which result in the easing of entrance to the U.S., but also resulted in many (hundreds) of states challenges questioning the president’s authority to implement these programs. This will be the same fight President Trump will use which relies on the Constitutions supremacy clause, which invalidates state laws that interfere with or are in contrary to federal law.

The expanded program to cover parents and other lawful permanent residents is still under injunction. The supreme court tied in the United States vs. Texas so the lower courts injunction stands. This case was very interesting to follow and is eerily similar to the current court case with Trumps EO on travel and immigration. Twenty-six states sued the Obama administration. The lawyers from the DOJ were found in contempt of court for lying and ordered to take ethics training. (I think the judge backed off from this.) It was sent back to the lower court for a trial on its merits but with the new administration, I'm not sure what will happen now. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/supreme-court-dapa-ruling-blow-obama-administration-moves-immigration-back-political-realm http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/justice-department-orders-ethics-training-after-immigration-suit-controversy-226805

Edited February 15, 2017 by bsjkki
forgot link

[longview]

6 hours ago, emeliza said:

Did you read this article?  No where in it does it mention refugees.  It is about employees at airports not being properly vetted.

Yes.  Makes no difference how they get in.  Walking across north or south borders, H1b visas, diplomatic, educational visas, whatever . . .

[Calm]

You appear to be equating refugee with immigrant.  Is that accurate?  You see immigrants as one category?

[longview]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

You appear to be equating refugee with immigrant.  Is that accurate?  You see immigrants as one category?

The difference is refugees are escaping their Islamic hell they helped build.  The immigrants are desiring to impose Sharia Law wherever they can.  The outcome is the same.  Greater Islamic hegemony in host countries with assistance of their leftist allies.