Seattle federal judge temporarily blocks Trump's travel ban

[NotfooledbyW]

basquebromance, post: 16495247

I don't want anyone allowed into this country who believes if you leave the Muslim faith, you should be killed. Keep them out.

How do you sort them? Waterboard them?

What about US citizens or Green Card holders here that believe that?

What if someone converts to Islam and that belief already here. What to do about it?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

One court takes it away.
Another court gives it back.
By the time this reaches the Supreme Court that court will have been Americanized and the shit will cease.

Count on it

Trump's anti/Muslim publicity stunt is a disaster - no court will approve it.

And FYI the Supreme Court is thouroghly American as we speak.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray From Cleveland

I see, so you think this ruling has solid ground because it's based on assumptions? Think that will hold water in the higher courts?

Don't think it is so, we know it. Trump said so during the campaign and transition. Giuliani admitted as much quite proudly and publically.

Saying and doing are two entirely different things. The EO was for people from certain countries, not certain religions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here's what I'm wondering:

When past presidents issued very similar temporary bans, why were they allowed to stand? Was it because no state bothered suing?

Orders like Trumps were used multiple times by past presidents, including Obama, Clinton, both Bush's and Reagan. Carter issued an almost identical ban in 1980 when he invalidated “all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States.” The order said that the U.S “will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires.”

Yet, no one sued. Why?

I'm certainly no immigration lawyer, but the law seems pretty clear that this is within the power of the president. And if it isn't, why did so many past bans go unchallenged?

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

What's the difference? It's a Republican doing it this time, that's all.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

kyzr, post: 16492269

Trump cancelled 100,000 visas, so no boarding planes w/o a visa, sorry judgie, that's how the government works...

Fool.

State Department Reverses Visa Ban, Allows Travelers With Visas Into U.S.
The reversal was announced in compliance with the opinion from a federal judge in Seattle barring President Trump’s executive action.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, ......"


Ray From Cleveland post: 16495567

What's the difference? It's a Republican doing it this time, that's all.

Are any of these seven countries holding Americans hostage at the moment?

 

[eflatminor]

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, ......"


Ray From Cleveland

What's the difference? It's a Republican doing it this time, that's all.

Are any of these seven countries holding Americans hostage at the moment?

That's a strawman argument, a logical fallacy. The law does not require that American hostages be held.

 

[basquebromance]

I'm thinking the So-Called Judge James Robart isn't aware that Obama signed the Terrorist Prevention Act. This is law.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eflatminor, post: 16495735

That's a strawman argument, a logical fallacy. The law does not require that American hostages be held.

You have no clue what a strawman argument and a logical fallacy are.

It is a fact that answered a question about the difference between Carter's EO directed to a hostile government holding American hostages and Trump's EO directed at a class of people based upon a campaign slogan.

And Carter's ban was initially ruled as unconstitutional but held up later upon appeal.

. Federal judge Joyce Hens Green initially ruled the order unconstitutional on Dec. 12, 1979, but her ruling was later reversed on appeal. On Sept. 22, 1980, the Times, citing an Immigration and Naturalization Service spokesman, reported that by that date, nearly 60,000 students had registered as required, about 430 had been deported and 5,000 had left voluntarily.

Why Trump's Muslim ban isn't like Jimmy Carter's actions on Iranians

Another fact that Ray from Cleveland missed.

 

[eflatminor]

eflatminor, post: 16495735

That's a strawman argument, a logical fallacy. The law does not require that American hostages be held.

You have no clue what a strawman argument and a logical fallacy are.

It is a fact that answered a question about the difference between Carter's EO directed to a hostile government holding American hostages and Trump's EO directed at a class of people based upon a campaign slogan.

And Carter's ban was initially ruled as unconstitutional but held up later upon appeal.

. Federal judge Joyce Hens Green initially ruled the order unconstitutional on Dec. 12, 1979, but her ruling was later reversed on appeal. On Sept. 22, 1980, the Times, citing an Immigration and Naturalization Service spokesman, reported that by that date, nearly 60,000 students had registered as required, about 430 had been deported and 5,000 had left voluntarily.

Why Trump's Muslim ban isn't like Jimmy Carter's actions on Iranians

Another fact that Ray from Cleveland missed.

Get thee to a library. Your "fact", the truth or not, was an intentionally misrepresented proposition. There is NOTHING in the law that requires hostages be held, yet you set that up because it made it easier to counter your opponent's real argument.

Set your emotion and butthurt aside and argue the point at hand.

Good luck.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

eflatminor, post: 16495735

That's a strawman argument, a logical fallacy. The law does not require that American hostages be held.

You have no clue what a strawman argument and a logical fallacy are.

It is a fact that answered a question about the difference between Carter's EO directed to a hostile government holding American hostages and Trump's EO directed at a class of people based upon a campaign slogan.

And Carter's ban was initially ruled as unconstitutional but held up later upon appeal.

. Federal judge Joyce Hens Green initially ruled the order unconstitutional on Dec. 12, 1979, but her ruling was later reversed on appeal. On Sept. 22, 1980, the Times, citing an Immigration and Naturalization Service spokesman, reported that by that date, nearly 60,000 students had registered as required, about 430 had been deported and 5,000 had left voluntarily.

Why Trump's Muslim ban isn't like Jimmy Carter's actions on Iranians

Another fact that Ray from Cleveland missed.

Carter didn't have to do all that. He could have paid them off like Obama did.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ray From Cleveland

Carter didn't have to do all that. He could have paid them off like Obama did.

You brought up the sameness of the Carter and Trump EOs. Now that tactic has been shredded by reality.

And as an added bonus I found that Carter's EO was found to be unconstitutional as well.

Doubly wrong.

And now you bring up a baseless RW nut job claim about Obama as an attempt to cover up your posted ignorance.

Alex Jones Info Wars strikes again.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ray From Cleveland, post: 16495551,

The EO was for people from certain countries, not certain religions.

You don't suspect foul bigoted discriminatory motive when one week into office Trump finds out that nationals with approved Visas from these seven predominately Muslim countries suddenly are a danger.

You are very naive indeed. Specifically after knowing what Guilini said about the discussion he had with Trump earlier.

Trump did it to appease anti-Muslim white Chritian bigots and other Muslim haters that gave him overwhelming support on ejection day.

He could have given a order to review weak links in the vetting process and slowed it down and improved it on a specific basis if such weaknesses were found.

Nope Trump had to do a publicity stunt instead.

And it backfired.

 

[OKTexas]

Guess what hero, the Constitution doesn't apply to foreign nationals on foreign soil, it just ain't in there. Are you advocating changing that?

Once an immigrant passes through the 3 mile limit, they are within the sovereign territory of the US. Given the immigrants of interest with visas in hand were turned away at their respective Ports of Entry (POE), their rights as persons under the sovereign control of the US and the Constitution were well and truly established AND violated.

The actions of the US authorities at the various POE's last weekend, by turning away people with authorized entry visas were violative of the Establishment, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Amendments I & V. That makes the problems more than just an oversight, but rather egregious.

Further, in enforcing the EO before proper legal notice was given in the Federal Register as required under 44 USC § 1507, the Trump & Co cabal violated, at a minimum, the Due Process Clause again bypassing the legal notice required by the statute. The EO wasn't even filed until Tuesday Jan 31 at 11:15 LONG AFTER it started to be enforced on Jan 28! Just go to the federal register Calendar to peruse the dates!

The 3 mile limit has nothing to do with it, no one is technically on US soil until they are admitted through the POE. Also since this order does not have general applicability then it is not required to be filed in the manner prescribed in 44 USC § 1507, see 44 USC § 1505. 44 USC § 1505, also gives the president the authority to suspend the requirement in 44 USC § 1507.

You are clueless of the where the sovereignty of this nation begins. US soil has naughty to do with it on its seaward boundaries! US sovereignty begins inside our territorial waters on the seaward boundaries. They were set at 3 miles until Reagan adopted the 12 mile limit after the advent of UNCLOS! Live with the law! Many people, including the VA, quibble about which is lawful and when; a lesson learned from the past. After Reagan's Proclamation of accepting UNCLOS in 1988, it became a 12 mile limit for territorial waters where US sovereignty begins along the sea boundary.

44 USC § 1505 "COULD" apply if this requirement to lawfully bypass that necessity in that Section had been met and only for this this;
"(c)Suspension of Requirements for Filing of Documents; Alternate Systems for Promulgating, Filing, or Publishing Documents; Preservation of Originals. In the event of an attack or threatened attack upon the continental United States and a determination by the President that as a result of an attack or threatened attack—"

Was there an attack or threat of attack? Nope! Trump violated the statute and enforced EO 13769 three days before it was even filed with FR on Jan 31st at 11:15 AM failing to give the required legal notice, and your weaseling won't change the facts! You're wrong!

Me thinks you missed this part of 44 USC § 1505.
(1)Presidential proclamations and Executive orders, except those not having general applicability and legal effect or effective only against Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof;

The EO does not have general applicability, it is tailored and specific.

The EO does not have general applicability, it is tailored and specific.

You're desperate now I can see and grasping at straws. Isn't it bloody obvious to you that the passage you cited above from 44 USC § 1505 (a)(1) was not applicable in that case given the damn EO WAS BLOODY PUBLISHED?

Further, If you had done due diligence and read the totality of 44 USC § 1505 you would have discovered this bit in the last sentence of 44 USC § 1505 (a)(3);

For the purposes of this chapter every document or order which prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect.

Since penalties WERE included in the EO along with "temporary" suspensions of portions of specific statutes impacting entry into the US and refugee status, the EO was REQUIRED to be published in a timely manner to give PROPER LEGAL NOTICE. Your boat don't float leaving you with another failed argument in your defense of the Trump & Co cabal.

Bottom line is Trump is responsible for not giving proper legal notice in the Federal Register BEFORE enforcing his EO. He has committed another impeachable offense which will be added to the list! Q.E.D.

Thanks, you just proved the EO does NOT have general applicability. My bold.

QUOTE="ThoughtCrimes, post: 16495295, member: 37853"]Since penalties WERE included in the EO along with "temporary" suspensions of portions of specific statutes impacting entry into the US and refugee status,[/QUOTE]

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Once an immigrant passes through the 3 mile limit, they are within the sovereign territory of the US. Given the immigrants of interest with visas in hand were turned away at their respective Ports of Entry (POE), their rights as persons under the sovereign control of the US and the Constitution were well and truly established AND violated.

The actions of the US authorities at the various POE's last weekend, by turning away people with authorized entry visas were violative of the Establishment, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Amendments I & V. That makes the problems more than just an oversight, but rather egregious.

Further, in enforcing the EO before proper legal notice was given in the Federal Register as required under 44 USC § 1507, the Trump & Co cabal violated, at a minimum, the Due Process Clause again bypassing the legal notice required by the statute. The EO wasn't even filed until Tuesday Jan 31 at 11:15 LONG AFTER it started to be enforced on Jan 28! Just go to the federal register Calendar to peruse the dates!

The 3 mile limit has nothing to do with it, no one is technically on US soil until they are admitted through the POE. Also since this order does not have general applicability then it is not required to be filed in the manner prescribed in 44 USC § 1507, see 44 USC § 1505. 44 USC § 1505, also gives the president the authority to suspend the requirement in 44 USC § 1507.

You are clueless of the where the sovereignty of this nation begins. US soil has naughty to do with it on its seaward boundaries! US sovereignty begins inside our territorial waters on the seaward boundaries. They were set at 3 miles until Reagan adopted the 12 mile limit after the advent of UNCLOS! Live with the law! Many people, including the VA, quibble about which is lawful and when; a lesson learned from the past. After Reagan's Proclamation of accepting UNCLOS in 1988, it became a 12 mile limit for territorial waters where US sovereignty begins along the sea boundary.

44 USC § 1505 "COULD" apply if this requirement to lawfully bypass that necessity in that Section had been met and only for this this;
"(c)Suspension of Requirements for Filing of Documents; Alternate Systems for Promulgating, Filing, or Publishing Documents; Preservation of Originals. In the event of an attack or threatened attack upon the continental United States and a determination by the President that as a result of an attack or threatened attack—"

Was there an attack or threat of attack? Nope! Trump violated the statute and enforced EO 13769 three days before it was even filed with FR on Jan 31st at 11:15 AM failing to give the required legal notice, and your weaseling won't change the facts! You're wrong!

Me thinks you missed this part of 44 USC § 1505.
(1)Presidential proclamations and Executive orders, except those not having general applicability and legal effect or effective only against Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof;

The EO does not have general applicability, it is tailored and specific.

The EO does not have general applicability, it is tailored and specific.

You're desperate now I can see and grasping at straws. Isn't it bloody obvious to you that the passage you cited above from 44 USC § 1505 (a)(1) was not applicable in that case given the damn EO WAS BLOODY PUBLISHED?

Further, If you had done due diligence and read the totality of 44 USC § 1505 you would have discovered this bit in the last sentence of 44 USC § 1505 (a)(3);

For the purposes of this chapter every document or order which prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect.

Since penalties WERE included in the EO along with "temporary" suspensions of portions of specific statutes impacting entry into the US and refugee status, the EO was REQUIRED to be published in a timely manner to give PROPER LEGAL NOTICE. Your boat don't float leaving you with another failed argument in your defense of the Trump & Co cabal.

Bottom line is Trump is responsible for not giving proper legal notice in the Federal Register BEFORE enforcing his EO. He has committed another impeachable offense which will be added to the list! Q.E.D.

Thanks, you just proved the EO does NOT have general applicability. My bold.

QUOTE="ThoughtCrimes, post: 16495295, member: 37853"]Since penalties WERE included in the EO along with "temporary" suspensions of portions of specific statutes impacting entry into the US and refugee status,

You are purposefully ignoring the plain language in 44 USC § 1505 (a)(3) which clearly states;
"For the purposes of this chapter every document or order which prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect." You argued that the EO didn't.

People with valid entry visas were penalized by being refused entry. That penalty was written into the EO. Therefore your claim that the EO didn't need proper and lawful timely notification in the Federal Register is abjectly FALSE! There is no weaseling around the language of that statutory requirement. You are wrong yet again!

 

[OKTexas]

The 3 mile limit has nothing to do with it, no one is technically on US soil until they are admitted through the POE. Also since this order does not have general applicability then it is not required to be filed in the manner prescribed in 44 USC § 1507, see 44 USC § 1505. 44 USC § 1505, also gives the president the authority to suspend the requirement in 44 USC § 1507.

You are clueless of the where the sovereignty of this nation begins. US soil has naughty to do with it on its seaward boundaries! US sovereignty begins inside our territorial waters on the seaward boundaries. They were set at 3 miles until Reagan adopted the 12 mile limit after the advent of UNCLOS! Live with the law! Many people, including the VA, quibble about which is lawful and when; a lesson learned from the past. After Reagan's Proclamation of accepting UNCLOS in 1988, it became a 12 mile limit for territorial waters where US sovereignty begins along the sea boundary.

44 USC § 1505 "COULD" apply if this requirement to lawfully bypass that necessity in that Section had been met and only for this this;
"(c)Suspension of Requirements for Filing of Documents; Alternate Systems for Promulgating, Filing, or Publishing Documents; Preservation of Originals. In the event of an attack or threatened attack upon the continental United States and a determination by the President that as a result of an attack or threatened attack—"

Was there an attack or threat of attack? Nope! Trump violated the statute and enforced EO 13769 three days before it was even filed with FR on Jan 31st at 11:15 AM failing to give the required legal notice, and your weaseling won't change the facts! You're wrong!

Me thinks you missed this part of 44 USC § 1505.
(1)Presidential proclamations and Executive orders, except those not having general applicability and legal effect or effective only against Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof;

The EO does not have general applicability, it is tailored and specific.

The EO does not have general applicability, it is tailored and specific.

You're desperate now I can see and grasping at straws. Isn't it bloody obvious to you that the passage you cited above from 44 USC § 1505 (a)(1) was not applicable in that case given the damn EO WAS BLOODY PUBLISHED?

Further, If you had done due diligence and read the totality of 44 USC § 1505 you would have discovered this bit in the last sentence of 44 USC § 1505 (a)(3);

For the purposes of this chapter every document or order which prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect.

Since penalties WERE included in the EO along with "temporary" suspensions of portions of specific statutes impacting entry into the US and refugee status, the EO was REQUIRED to be published in a timely manner to give PROPER LEGAL NOTICE. Your boat don't float leaving you with another failed argument in your defense of the Trump & Co cabal.

Bottom line is Trump is responsible for not giving proper legal notice in the Federal Register BEFORE enforcing his EO. He has committed another impeachable offense which will be added to the list! Q.E.D.

Thanks, you just proved the EO does NOT have general applicability. My bold.

QUOTE="ThoughtCrimes, post: 16495295, member: 37853"]Since penalties WERE included in the EO along with "temporary" suspensions of portions of specific statutes impacting entry into the US and refugee status,

You are purposefully ignoring the plain language in 44 USC § 1505 (a)(3) which clearly states;
"For the purposes of this chapter every document or order which prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect." You argued that the EO didn't.

People with valid entry visas were penalized by being refused entry. That penalty was written into the EO. Therefore your claim that the EO didn't need proper and lawful timely notification in the Federal Register is abjectly FALSE! There is no weaseling around the language of that statutory requirement. You are wrong yet again!

Except they are not being refused entry, their entry is being delayed for 90 days to ensure they aren't a danger to this country. It applies to only 14% of muslim countries and includes all persons form those countries, because they lack a coherent central government with the ability to provide adequate background on the individuals.

The law gives the president desecration to do what he did, and just like Carters order which was temporarily stayed, this one will be upheld on appeal.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OKTexas, post: 16497789

...: because they lack a coherent central government with the ability to provide adequate background on the individuals.

Are you suggesting the Justice Departnent for years has granted VISAs to individuals for entry to the USA from those countries without the ability to provide adequate background on the individuals?

Iraq? That government has been our solid ally in the fight against ISIS. Thousand of Iraqi military work right alongside our Troops. The Kurds. Trump insults Iraqi nationals with that argument.

Iran? Surely the Iranianian government knows very much about the backgrounds of people they would allow to visit the US.

The rest. Its a stupid argument because without certainty about the backgrounds these people were not getting Visas.

Can you demonstrate the likelihood that DOJ allows entry without an adequate background check?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OKTexas, post: 16497789

The law gives the president desecration to do what he did, and just like Carters order which was temporarily stayed, this one will be upheld on appeal.

The people with visas are coming in. Trump has to prove in court that vetted people from these countries pose a threat that did not exist a week ago.

That is nothing close to what Carter did. Carter was punishing Tehran for holding sixty Americans hostage.

Trump's problem is he didn't vet his order through constitutional and national security vetting.

Borders Reopen to Banned Visa Holders; Trump Attacks Judge. NYTimes Feb 4

.Judge Robart, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, declared that “there’s no support” for the administration’s argument that “we have to protect the U.S. from individuals” from the affected countries, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan and Libya

Its not looking good for Trump's publicity stunt.

Trump has been checked and balanced.

 

[OKTexas]

OKTexas, post: 16497789

...: because they lack a coherent central government with the ability to provide adequate background on the individuals.

Are you suggesting the Justice Departnent for years has granted VISAs to individuals for entry to the USA from those countries without the ability to provide adequate background on the individuals?

Iraq? That government has been our solid ally in the fight against ISIS. Thousand of Iraqi military work right alongside our Troops. The Kurds. Trump insults Iraqi nationals with that argument.

Iran? Surely the Iranianian government knows very much about the backgrounds of people they would allow to visit the US.

The rest. Its a stupid argument because without certainty about the backgrounds these people were not getting Visas.

Can you demonstrate the likelihood that DOJ allows entry without an adequate background check?

No I'm suggesting nothing, 5 US intel officials including James Clapper testified to congress that they can't check information that's not available. Also at least 2 form Iraq have been arrested in the US on terrorism charges. I've already posted links on them and former bomb makers that killed Americans, who were mistakenly resettled in KY. So yeah, the DOJ and State have screwed the pooch, it's all out there for you to see.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No I'm suggesting nothing, 5 US intel officials including James Clapper testified to congress that they can't check information that's not available.

None of these people said they were granting visas to people they have not checked.


NATION’S TOP SECURITY OFFICIALS’ CONCERNS ON REFUGEE VETTING
Nation’s Top Security Officials’ Concerns on Refugee Vetting - House Committee on Homeland Security


House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaulstated yesterday during a pen and pad on H.R. 4038, “It is the Administration’s own officials that were warning us about this program. It’s not me making this up. This came from testimony that came from both F.B.I. and homeland security officials in briefings and in public testimony. I would argue that [the President] can spin it politically anyway he wants to but the fact of the matter is: the threat is real. ISIS has said in their own words that they want to exploit it to infiltrate the West. Again, it is not a threat I am making up, it’s a threat their own officials have warned us about.” (11/18/15)

Here’s what others are saying:

Gen. (ret.) Jack Keane, Chairman of the Board, Institute for the Study of War: “I’m absolutely convinced that you’re doing the right thing by pausing and making certain that the Congress takes a look at the Executive Branch’s plans and makes certain that it’s reasonable what we’re doing in terms of the vetting process.” (11/18/15).

John Brennan, Director, Central Intelligence Agency: “I think it makes it even more incumbent on the security and intelligence professionals to make sure that we are able to look at individuals who are coming into this country with an eye toward what it is that we might know about individuals or ways that terrorist organizations might try to secret people into these networks, into these refugee flows…[I am determined to] see what we can do to strengthen that system that allows us to have as best insight as possible into the backgrounds of these individuals as well as what their intentions might be.” (11/18/15)

James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice: “We can only query against that which we have collected. And so if someone has not made a ripple in the pond in Syria on a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our databases, we can query our databases until the cows come home but nothing will show up because we have no record of that person…You can only query what you have collected. And with respect to Iraqi refugees, we had far more in our databases because of our country’s work there for a decade. [The case of vetting Syrian refugees] is a different situation.” (10/21/15)

Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: “It is true that we are not going to know a whole lot about the Syrians that come forth in this process… That is definitely a challenge….We know that organizations like ISIL might like to exploit this [Syrian refugee resettlement] program…The good news is that we are better at [vetting] than we were eight years ago. The bad news is that there is no risk-free process.” (10/21/15)

Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Director, National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence: “The intelligence picture we’ve had of this [Syrian] conflict zone isn’t what we’d like it to be…you can only review [refugees’ submitted background data] against what you have.” (10/8/15)

James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice: “There is risk associated with bringing anybody in from the outside, but especially from a conflict zone like [Syria]… My concern there [about bringing Syrian refugees into the United States] is that there are certain gaps I don’t want to talk about publicly in the data available to us.” (10/8/15)

Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: “But [the Syrian refugees are] a population of people that we’re not going to know a whole lot about.” (10/8/15)

Gen. (ret.) John Allen, Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, State Department: “We should be conscious of the potential that [ISIS] may attempt to embed agents within that [Syrian refugee] population.” (9/11/15)

Gen. (ret.) James Clapper, Director, Director of National Intelligence: “As [Syrian refugees] descend on Europe, one of the obvious issues that we worry about, and in turn as we bring refugees into this country, is exactly what’s their background? We don’t obviously put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees…That is a huge concern of ours.” (9/9/15)

Michael Steinbach, Assistant Director for the Federal Bureau of Investigation: “Yes, I’m concerned [about bringing Syrian refugees into the United States]…We’ll have to go take a look at those lists and go through all of those intelligence holdings and be very careful to try and identify connections to foreign terrorist groups…in Iraq, we were there on the ground collecting [intelligence], so we had databases to use…You have to have information to vet, so the concern is in Syria is that we don’t have the systems in places on the ground to collect the information.” (2/12/15)

Nicholas J. Rasmussen , Director, National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence: “[The Syrian refugees are] clearly a population of concern…what we want to be able to do is apply the full weight of U.S. intelligence community holdings to the vetting and screening process so that we can unearth any information that we may have in our holdings that gives us concern about particular individuals.” (2/12/15)

Francis X. Taylor, Under Secretary, Intelligence and Analysis, Department of Homeland Security: “We are concerned about any group of people coming to the United States who may be coming to the United States for nefarious purposes…[officials] want to make sure that if we are asked to vet individuals from any part of the world to come to the United States, that we have applied the most rigorous screening that’s available within the U.S. government.” (2/12/15)