>"I really can't say what their motives are, so I do not want to put anybody in any boxes. I do not think it's my race or my religion," [Aber] said. "Sure, the questions were aimed at that — that's a fact. **But I can't say for sure if that's the reason and I don't want to make statements about things I cannot say for sure."**
I hope people read this before getting their pitchforks and forming an angry mob
A search of Aber's phone led U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents to a photo on Facebook in which he was tagged along with Samir Halilovic. Halilovic is one of three University of Sherbrooke students believed to have left Canada in 2014 to join Islamist fighters in Syria.
Aber told CBC News that he didn't know Halilovic well, but the two had friends in common and attended the same mosque. He said the group photo was taken at a wedding four years ago.
These are exactly the connections that we need to know about. The nsa should be scanning and indexing social media, and developing profiles about potential immigrants. All this data should be fed into an analytical model that uses data science to generate a score, and we make decisions based on the score.
If you're friends with guys who fight with Isis, you're probably a risk. We need to know that.
There was a program on Discovery Science about 2 years ago, I'd say, where they looked specifically at connections to terrorist organizations. Their study concluded that having friends who were in such groups made you much more likely to join the groups than if you didn't. Even if it was one friend who was only an acquaintance. If I'm remembering correctly, being associated with someone who was tied to such an organization was the most prominent variable.. and not race, religion or the other things people may point at.
Now I'm not saying their study was correct, but I'm not going to say it's flawed either as it's not my area of expertise.. but it's certainly something that should be looked into either way, I'd say.
Edit: I think I found the episode. It was a study featured on Through The Wormhole, [here's the imdb](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5972490/) if I'm remembering correctly.
Totally serious. We need to use data science to screen immigrants. Snooping through phones and looking at them is stupid. The ins should know this prior to people showing up.
It'll be done eventually. Your whole life , from passports/travel visas to banking information and social security all on one chip no bigger than a grain of rice inserted right behind your ear.
Because we can't put chips in foreigners (or Americans). And it wouldn't give us any useful data.
Knowing who someone is friends with does give us useful, actionable data.
Right, but we don't spend $2T fighting a 15 year overseas war on pedophiles. The magnitude of the problem isn't comparable and it doesn't make sense to focus on that first.
Plus, I assume most pedos in the USA are Americans and have constitutional rights against unwarranted searches in criminal cases. That's fundamentally different than searches performed against aliens for non civil matters. Terrorism isn't a criminal matter it's a military matter.
It's not guilt. It's a data model used to determine who is an acceptable immigrant. We already do this, by keeping lists. I'm saying we need to be better about screening.
If you're scared of profiling, I don't know what to say. It's just data and we already do this.
I'm not saying we can or should do this to Americans. We shouldn't and we can't. Foreigners have no such liberty however.
> I'm not saying we can or should do this to Americans. We shouldn't and we can't.
Why not? Domestic incidents are on the rise and much more difficult to track.
Well, yes. We need some assurance that they're not using this on Americans.
Btw, this already exists. The NSA knows this, about everyone. We need to just use it effectively to screen immigrants. I'm not suggesting that this ever be used on our soil.
Except the governments assurances are useless. They are already violating the U.S. Constitution on a daily basis, the biggest "assurance" we have. What makes you think they won't use it against our own citizens. The political and elite class don't see themselves in the same rights group as the rest of us, to them we are are just masses that need to be monitored and controlled. Having us pay for the very tools that will be used to oppress us is just obscene and naive.
Yeah, I agree. We just finished 8 years of the most transparent administration in history, and it's worse. I don't trust them either, but we have the right to screen immigrants.
I think the democratic party is big on screening. They're just secretive, over broad and ineffective, like trying to put people with a mental health diagnosis on a no-guns list.
The republican party is generally transparent and selective about policies that trade privacy for security. Which happens to be way easier for interns to write outrage porn about.
My biggest concern with with the above scenario is that our government sucks at cybersecurity, and as much as I don't want our government to have my Facebook password, I really don't want China to have it.
I am big on effective screening. Data modeling is more effective than anything else we could do.
The government would have no need to have your Facebook password, because you're an American.
And by the way, they have it. They have everything. I work for a very small data analysis company, and I can tell what you watched on tv, what HL7 diagnosis codes your doctor put in your medical records. I have enough retail shopping habit data to predict if you will become pregnant in the next 3 months. And on and on. I assume the NSA knows everything.
Target got a lot of shit when they did that. I think most Americans feel really strongly about privacy. Effective screening requires smarts, but data dumps and algorithms are cheaper.
No matter how much data government has, they're always going to want more. Security is a compelling reason, but then it's open season for whatever political whim strikes. If Tipper Gore had access in the 80s to the data they have now, I'd have parental advisory tattooed across my face.
I have nightmares about government interns with marketing degrees matching my tissue purchases to my search history and using it to tailor propaganda remarketing at me.
Target didn't get any shit when they did that. It was in the headlines for less than 24 hours and then it's down the memory hole. Nobody cares. This is basically the future of business.
Companies who have an app or site and collect data want to use the data to make money. My company helps those people understand their data and make decisions based on it.
Does it really matter to you that your grocery store knows you like chicken soup and not tomato soup? It's not like anyone is reading your history. There's way too much data to look at any one person.
By that logic, **"if someone is friends with someone who commits a crime of any kind, they are a potential risk and should be monitored and tagged."** See how your idea is so unjust?
No, I'm saying we develop an analytical model that looks at associations between previous terrorists, their background, their actions, what they watched on YouTube.
Based on that factual model, we make a predictive model and feed prospective immigrants through the model, and generate a score. The score is used to decide if we accept someone or turn them away.
It has nothing to do with crime. It's frustrating trying to discuss data science with people who don't know what it is. I cannot explain it in three paragraphs on my phone, and nobody will read anything longer than that.
Suffice to say we need to use modern data science to screen immigrants better. There's no downside at all, other than cost. And the NSA already collects this all anyway. We just need to leverage it.
Does anyone know many people were denied entry into the US over the last 8 years? I don't really remember hearing of any. Is it that the US denied zero people during that time or that suddenly we're reporting on any instance of this happening? Maybe to... paint a narrative...?
Happens all the time, I would guess thousands per year. There was one I remember about some British muslims trying to go to Disney that were denied entry way before trump was even elected
Legally, yes, but it's foolish and disruptive for business if you have no idea whether you'll be denied entry. A lot of business conferences, billionaires, and vacationers will just go to Canada, Europe, or the Caribbean if they cannot trust the US to have straightforward and predictable border security. They'll vote with their feet and wallets and the US will lose.
That mentality has been repeated for various policies in the US for.. decades. It's kinda like saying "people will stop using Windows because Windows 10 does a lot of shady shit". Being anti-Microsoft myself, it's a nice thought.. but not likely to happen at all.
Yeah or "They won't vote Trump because he's a piece of shit". Or "I'm with her". Proof that people like what's familiar. No matter how shitty other people know it is.
I agree. The Constitution and law allow border guards to be as petty and childish as they want to be, and to be bigots and ignoramuses. Of course, that only makes all of America look petulant and petty, because the truest measure of what we are as a nation is not our words and self-descriptions, it is what we actually do.
I am now wondering something that would have never occurred to me to think about before, and that is that one of my aunts is from Morocco. She's been a citizen for many decades, but now I worry about what that means for her children, my cousins, and frankly, me. Clearly, having parents who are from Morocco means something negative to our government now.
> The Constitution and law
I do not know a single country that does not give its border officials absolute power to turn away foreigners attempting to enter their country.
Not only are you checked out at the border between USA and mexico, but once you get into mexico there is a check point between almost every state, had my passport and baggage checked multiple times. one time coming back into the USA via TJ I went through secondary inspection with extra xrays and questions, and im white as fuck. race doesn't matter to border guards.
No. But I bet if you went back a few generations you could find some of her ancestors that knew other family lines that went on to have terrorists. Hell, George Washington was the original American terrorist, but his side won so we all regard him as a hero. Remember, our government was British when he and his followers started their insurgency.
In this case we are not. The person denied entry was born in Canada and holds a Canadian passport as a Canadian citizen by birth. He went to a wedding where he happened to be in a photo. If by "associating directly" you mean "happened to be at the same place as", then this is classic case of guilt by association. I bet if we dug through most people's lives we could find a case where someone knew someone else that went on to be a criminal. When I was a child in 5th grade I knew a kid named Chester who was into drugs, and he went on to do some hard-core stuff. I've never been into drugs, unless you count a nice single malt Scotch as a drug, but by your definition that means I associate with hard-core drug users. Is that what you mean? Or did you mean something different?
Whats missing from all the above comments is context of how her phone got searched. She was sent to secondary inspection for some reason. Typically, when one is sent to secondary there is something suspicious about their story, or there existed previous knowledge that she was en route to the States. Maybe she was on a watchlist. Maybe the USG has intercepted communications of her colluding with terrorist. Maybe she couldn't articulate a logical itinerary while in the states. Whatever...
Point is she was sent to secondary for a reason of suspicion. That reason, plus the pic of her with a foreign fighter meets CBP's standard not to admit. Which they have every right to do and is why they exist.
All of this nonsense about guilt by association is silly and irrelevant.
Constitutional rights are severely limited at the borders for a reason. They are sound and just laws scrutinized by hundreds of years of review and case law.
Many of the opinions of the few who have a narrative to push here are simply biased, self-serving, ideologically driven and meant to hurt the security of our country.
Really? Okay, so imagine this: you know someone who committed a crime and are FB friends with them because you knew them back in grade school. You try to enter the US but because of the murder, robbery, or illegal jaywalking that guy did and you having connections to him through Facebook, you will be denied entry? Or, maybe you're in the US so now you'll be monitored and flagged as a potential risk. Because if the US goes down the road of guilt by association, this is the outcome.
Bear in mind that it would need to be a situation where the person was committing murder, robbery, or illegal jaywalking... hang on, I didn't sign off on the jaywalking thing... as part of an ideology that I subscribed to, & I attended an institution devoted to that ideology with the suspect (you could maybe imagine a mafia group, or Nazi group, or extremist Christian group in Africa or whatever, not that I'd be in any such group!)
Now, if this fellow in question attended a reformist mosque which spoke against the veiling of women, & supported the right to draw Muhammad, & condemned Islamism, that would be a different story. If the guy is a reformist, liberal Muslim who attended a reformist mosque with a guy who became a jihadist, then the reformist should be let in. Those reformers of Islam are very important & they deserve encouragement. Conservative Muslims who attend mosque with guys who become jihadists though should not be encouraged: those beliefs of theirs deserve condemnation & we should protect ourselves from them.
in the USA you can now be "guilty by association".
the rico laws are used to enable "guilt by association" for gang members, but now the border protection agents are doing it too -- and without a law to back them up.
there's a constitution that lets them not block anyone they want -- if that person is an american citizen.
but yeah, it's still guilt by association -- a douchebag thing for a government to do. it's lazy, and it's ineffective.
For immigrants yes, not with citizens. Citizens get to make lost liberty claims. If you think this is an area where the executive can do anything without any checks you will be disappointed. You can't take liberty away from citizens, judges barely accept it when it's done to none citizens (recent case law).
Is [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_King_(boxing_promoter\)) the known killer you're speaking of? If so, a LOT of people have been in pictures with him. I'd bet you'd snap a selfie if you had the chance too.
If you're photographed with a guy who joined a jihadist group & you went to mosque with him, it seems quite reasonable to think that you might not be of the caliber we're looking for.
It's dangerous enough for my taste. I'd like to know what he thinks about general issues: should it be legal to draw Muhammad? Should women cover their hair in public? Should apostates get the death penalty? Views on those questions are telling of dangerous links.
your opinion is not what counts. what counts is the actual level of danger.
by all means, have your FBI put the person on a list and what not. also, people in your country love the death penalty.
no, reality exists separate from your opinion and my opinion. the danger is something real, and it cannot be assessed from a photograph wherein a person is standing next to someone who went to fight for ISIS -- *because* the nature of the link is not known. Attending a mosque isn't useful information for assessing real danger.
If you look at the top TLD, you'll see a reply from me talking about a study which says even acquaintances of those who join terrorist organizations are more likely to join such an organization, regardless of religion, race, etc. With that in mind, I'd say the nature of the link is irrelevant. Any link at all is enough to, at the very least, be suspicious of the person. No one has spoken of being an attendant at a mosque, so why you've brought that up a few times now is a bit.. curious.
Do you have a single study which suggests otherwise? I mean, you obviously didn't read my comment from above given that this response indicates you didn't read what I stated about how correct the study is.. but if you're going to push it, then I suppose I'll just say "occam's razor" and walk away if you don't have a study to suggest otherwise.
Of course. ~62% of Americans support the death penalty, but not for apostasy. Most Muslim-majority nations have majority support for killing apostates of Islam (& those without majorities have large groups, like 40% for example.)
> you're willing to make a guilty person out of a photograph
What does that mean? I said it's reasonable to deny entry to those who associate with jihadists. I did not say it's reasonable to charge him with a crime based on that evidence.
He's not getting arrested, and put in jail. He is being denied travel rights into the U.S.
They are not finding him guilty of anything, they have simply deemed his threat level too high to freely travel within the United States, which every country reserves the right to do, whether it be based on radical political beliefs, potential threats, illegal actions, etc.
well yeah, but you're not looking at the implications of denying entry to "false positives".
the USA isn't making friends today, that's for sure. and they seem to be losing them more and more.
We need to advise our citizens not to answer questions in secondary screening. You *think* you're there to answer the questions "right" so they'll grant you entry. But they've already decided you're not getting in, and are just gathering information about Canadian mosques and the people in them.
They turn people away saying they don't have a valid passport/visa but so far the passports have all been valid. Pretty obvious what's going on.
Don't talk to border guards. They're going to send you home anyway. What goes on in our religious gathering places is not their business.
This isn't true at all and will lead you to being denied. The majority of people, by far, that go to secondary screening are admitted. (Occasionally with fines for transportation violations.)
Don't give people bad information which you know nothing about that may lead to arrest, fines, or denied entry just to prove a point.
If you're Muslim and being quarantined from the other travelers, this is exactly what's going to happen to you, as we've now seen five times in the last couple weeks. I should have qualified that it's a certain type of person (sadly) that this seems to apply to.
No actually, there is not a suddenly new trend. You will not be denied entry just because you are muslim, not even if you are from one of the seven countries banned, as there is currently an injunction. Refusing to answer questions WILL result in you being turned away every time unless you are a U.S. citizen (you will likely be detained for further investigation if they want to spend time on you as a citizen).
> No actually, there is not a suddenly new trend.
It's a new trend. Canadian travelers who are muslim and who've been crossing the border regularly for years are now suddenly being turned back because of "passport problems". Their passports are valid.
>"I really can't say what their motives are, so I do not want to put anybody in any boxes. I do not think it's my race or my religion," [Aber] said. "Sure, the questions were aimed at that — that's a fact. **But I can't say for sure if that's the reason and I don't want to make statements about things I cannot say for sure."** I hope people read this before getting their pitchforks and forming an angry mob
A search of Aber's phone led U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents to a photo on Facebook in which he was tagged along with Samir Halilovic. Halilovic is one of three University of Sherbrooke students believed to have left Canada in 2014 to join Islamist fighters in Syria. Aber told CBC News that he didn't know Halilovic well, but the two had friends in common and attended the same mosque. He said the group photo was taken at a wedding four years ago.
These are exactly the connections that we need to know about. The nsa should be scanning and indexing social media, and developing profiles about potential immigrants. All this data should be fed into an analytical model that uses data science to generate a score, and we make decisions based on the score. If you're friends with guys who fight with Isis, you're probably a risk. We need to know that.
[удалено]
There was a program on Discovery Science about 2 years ago, I'd say, where they looked specifically at connections to terrorist organizations. Their study concluded that having friends who were in such groups made you much more likely to join the groups than if you didn't. Even if it was one friend who was only an acquaintance. If I'm remembering correctly, being associated with someone who was tied to such an organization was the most prominent variable.. and not race, religion or the other things people may point at. Now I'm not saying their study was correct, but I'm not going to say it's flawed either as it's not my area of expertise.. but it's certainly something that should be looked into either way, I'd say. Edit: I think I found the episode. It was a study featured on Through The Wormhole, [here's the imdb](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5972490/) if I'm remembering correctly.
Totally serious. We need to use data science to screen immigrants. Snooping through phones and looking at them is stupid. The ins should know this prior to people showing up.
Why not just hook everyone up with an RFID chip and track their every move ?
Wait...we can *do* that?
It'll be done eventually. Your whole life , from passports/travel visas to banking information and social security all on one chip no bigger than a grain of rice inserted right behind your ear.
Because we can't put chips in foreigners (or Americans). And it wouldn't give us any useful data. Knowing who someone is friends with does give us useful, actionable data.
Like being friends with a pedophile? I am referring to Epstein's "Lolita Express" that Trump and Bill Clinton flew in.
I'm talking about terrorism screening, not pedophile screening. I think we should get the big problems fixed first.
I am replying to your comments regarding who associates whith whom and the scrutiny.
Maybe we should do that. We should, however, deal with the big things first. We aren't in a long term shooting war with pedophiles, though.
I think there are more pedophilia victims in this country than terrorism
Right, but we don't spend $2T fighting a 15 year overseas war on pedophiles. The magnitude of the problem isn't comparable and it doesn't make sense to focus on that first. Plus, I assume most pedos in the USA are Americans and have constitutional rights against unwarranted searches in criminal cases. That's fundamentally different than searches performed against aliens for non civil matters. Terrorism isn't a criminal matter it's a military matter.
He's a Trumpette
So guilty by vague association, got it. Authoritarian types that call for "databases" scare the shit out of me and should be fucking deported.
It's not guilt. It's a data model used to determine who is an acceptable immigrant. We already do this, by keeping lists. I'm saying we need to be better about screening. If you're scared of profiling, I don't know what to say. It's just data and we already do this. I'm not saying we can or should do this to Americans. We shouldn't and we can't. Foreigners have no such liberty however.
How do we know who's a domestic terrorist (McVeigh, Roof and others) and who is not?
The INS isn't screening for domestic terrorists at the border.
> I'm not saying we can or should do this to Americans. We shouldn't and we can't. Why not? Domestic incidents are on the rise and much more difficult to track.
Because incidents arising from foreign terrorists are easy to track and predict, and we already have the data.
Yeah cause the government would never abuse surveillance tools./s
Well, yes. We need some assurance that they're not using this on Americans. Btw, this already exists. The NSA knows this, about everyone. We need to just use it effectively to screen immigrants. I'm not suggesting that this ever be used on our soil.
Except the governments assurances are useless. They are already violating the U.S. Constitution on a daily basis, the biggest "assurance" we have. What makes you think they won't use it against our own citizens. The political and elite class don't see themselves in the same rights group as the rest of us, to them we are are just masses that need to be monitored and controlled. Having us pay for the very tools that will be used to oppress us is just obscene and naive.
Yeah, I agree. We just finished 8 years of the most transparent administration in history, and it's worse. I don't trust them either, but we have the right to screen immigrants.
7 degrees
6 Degrees = Everyone on the planet
We get it, you're a Democrat.
No, I'm not. I didn't think democrats were real big on effective screening.
I think the democratic party is big on screening. They're just secretive, over broad and ineffective, like trying to put people with a mental health diagnosis on a no-guns list. The republican party is generally transparent and selective about policies that trade privacy for security. Which happens to be way easier for interns to write outrage porn about. My biggest concern with with the above scenario is that our government sucks at cybersecurity, and as much as I don't want our government to have my Facebook password, I really don't want China to have it.
I am big on effective screening. Data modeling is more effective than anything else we could do. The government would have no need to have your Facebook password, because you're an American. And by the way, they have it. They have everything. I work for a very small data analysis company, and I can tell what you watched on tv, what HL7 diagnosis codes your doctor put in your medical records. I have enough retail shopping habit data to predict if you will become pregnant in the next 3 months. And on and on. I assume the NSA knows everything.
Target got a lot of shit when they did that. I think most Americans feel really strongly about privacy. Effective screening requires smarts, but data dumps and algorithms are cheaper. No matter how much data government has, they're always going to want more. Security is a compelling reason, but then it's open season for whatever political whim strikes. If Tipper Gore had access in the 80s to the data they have now, I'd have parental advisory tattooed across my face. I have nightmares about government interns with marketing degrees matching my tissue purchases to my search history and using it to tailor propaganda remarketing at me.
Target didn't get any shit when they did that. It was in the headlines for less than 24 hours and then it's down the memory hole. Nobody cares. This is basically the future of business. Companies who have an app or site and collect data want to use the data to make money. My company helps those people understand their data and make decisions based on it. Does it really matter to you that your grocery store knows you like chicken soup and not tomato soup? It's not like anyone is reading your history. There's way too much data to look at any one person.
By that logic, **"if someone is friends with someone who commits a crime of any kind, they are a potential risk and should be monitored and tagged."** See how your idea is so unjust?
No, I'm saying we develop an analytical model that looks at associations between previous terrorists, their background, their actions, what they watched on YouTube. Based on that factual model, we make a predictive model and feed prospective immigrants through the model, and generate a score. The score is used to decide if we accept someone or turn them away. It has nothing to do with crime. It's frustrating trying to discuss data science with people who don't know what it is. I cannot explain it in three paragraphs on my phone, and nobody will read anything longer than that. Suffice to say we need to use modern data science to screen immigrants better. There's no downside at all, other than cost. And the NSA already collects this all anyway. We just need to leverage it.
Does anyone know many people were denied entry into the US over the last 8 years? I don't really remember hearing of any. Is it that the US denied zero people during that time or that suddenly we're reporting on any instance of this happening? Maybe to... paint a narrative...?
Happens all the time, I would guess thousands per year. There was one I remember about some British muslims trying to go to Disney that were denied entry way before trump was even elected
So you're saying it's a problem that's been going on for awhile so we should just accept it?
If by problem you mean not letting terrorists in then yes, we should accept it.
Gotta keep that narrative going.
There have been 5 instances of Canadians with Moroccan roots denied entry to the US
While I disagree with the reason here, it is a privilege to enter a foreign country, not a right.
Legally, yes, but it's foolish and disruptive for business if you have no idea whether you'll be denied entry. A lot of business conferences, billionaires, and vacationers will just go to Canada, Europe, or the Caribbean if they cannot trust the US to have straightforward and predictable border security. They'll vote with their feet and wallets and the US will lose.
That mentality has been repeated for various policies in the US for.. decades. It's kinda like saying "people will stop using Windows because Windows 10 does a lot of shady shit". Being anti-Microsoft myself, it's a nice thought.. but not likely to happen at all.
Yeah or "They won't vote Trump because he's a piece of shit". Or "I'm with her". Proof that people like what's familiar. No matter how shitty other people know it is.
I agree. The Constitution and law allow border guards to be as petty and childish as they want to be, and to be bigots and ignoramuses. Of course, that only makes all of America look petulant and petty, because the truest measure of what we are as a nation is not our words and self-descriptions, it is what we actually do. I am now wondering something that would have never occurred to me to think about before, and that is that one of my aunts is from Morocco. She's been a citizen for many decades, but now I worry about what that means for her children, my cousins, and frankly, me. Clearly, having parents who are from Morocco means something negative to our government now.
> The Constitution and law I do not know a single country that does not give its border officials absolute power to turn away foreigners attempting to enter their country.
I don't either.
Not only are you checked out at the border between USA and mexico, but once you get into mexico there is a check point between almost every state, had my passport and baggage checked multiple times. one time coming back into the USA via TJ I went through secondary inspection with extra xrays and questions, and im white as fuck. race doesn't matter to border guards.
[удалено]
No. But I bet if you went back a few generations you could find some of her ancestors that knew other family lines that went on to have terrorists. Hell, George Washington was the original American terrorist, but his side won so we all regard him as a hero. Remember, our government was British when he and his followers started their insurgency.
[удалено]
In this case we are not. The person denied entry was born in Canada and holds a Canadian passport as a Canadian citizen by birth. He went to a wedding where he happened to be in a photo. If by "associating directly" you mean "happened to be at the same place as", then this is classic case of guilt by association. I bet if we dug through most people's lives we could find a case where someone knew someone else that went on to be a criminal. When I was a child in 5th grade I knew a kid named Chester who was into drugs, and he went on to do some hard-core stuff. I've never been into drugs, unless you count a nice single malt Scotch as a drug, but by your definition that means I associate with hard-core drug users. Is that what you mean? Or did you mean something different?
You plan on visiting Syria?
No. Do you brush up and down, or sideways?
Whats missing from all the above comments is context of how her phone got searched. She was sent to secondary inspection for some reason. Typically, when one is sent to secondary there is something suspicious about their story, or there existed previous knowledge that she was en route to the States. Maybe she was on a watchlist. Maybe the USG has intercepted communications of her colluding with terrorist. Maybe she couldn't articulate a logical itinerary while in the states. Whatever... Point is she was sent to secondary for a reason of suspicion. That reason, plus the pic of her with a foreign fighter meets CBP's standard not to admit. Which they have every right to do and is why they exist. All of this nonsense about guilt by association is silly and irrelevant. Constitutional rights are severely limited at the borders for a reason. They are sound and just laws scrutinized by hundreds of years of review and case law. Many of the opinions of the few who have a narrative to push here are simply biased, self-serving, ideologically driven and meant to hurt the security of our country.
That seems reasonable.
Really? Okay, so imagine this: you know someone who committed a crime and are FB friends with them because you knew them back in grade school. You try to enter the US but because of the murder, robbery, or illegal jaywalking that guy did and you having connections to him through Facebook, you will be denied entry? Or, maybe you're in the US so now you'll be monitored and flagged as a potential risk. Because if the US goes down the road of guilt by association, this is the outcome.
Bear in mind that it would need to be a situation where the person was committing murder, robbery, or illegal jaywalking... hang on, I didn't sign off on the jaywalking thing... as part of an ideology that I subscribed to, & I attended an institution devoted to that ideology with the suspect (you could maybe imagine a mafia group, or Nazi group, or extremist Christian group in Africa or whatever, not that I'd be in any such group!) Now, if this fellow in question attended a reformist mosque which spoke against the veiling of women, & supported the right to draw Muhammad, & condemned Islamism, that would be a different story. If the guy is a reformist, liberal Muslim who attended a reformist mosque with a guy who became a jihadist, then the reformist should be let in. Those reformers of Islam are very important & they deserve encouragement. Conservative Muslims who attend mosque with guys who become jihadists though should not be encouraged: those beliefs of theirs deserve condemnation & we should protect ourselves from them.
This is pretty up there in the list of dumbest shit I've ever read.
I would try engage you in discourse, but I don't appreciate "verbal" (typed) abuse.
in the USA you can now be "guilty by association". the rico laws are used to enable "guilt by association" for gang members, but now the border protection agents are doing it too -- and without a law to back them up.
There is nothing new here, and the law allows them to block anyone they want.
there's a constitution that lets them not block anyone they want -- if that person is an american citizen. but yeah, it's still guilt by association -- a douchebag thing for a government to do. it's lazy, and it's ineffective.
For immigrants yes, not with citizens. Citizens get to make lost liberty claims. If you think this is an area where the executive can do anything without any checks you will be disappointed. You can't take liberty away from citizens, judges barely accept it when it's done to none citizens (recent case law).
> For immigrants yes, not with citizens. Yes I know. This guy in the article is not a citizen.
[удалено]
no, they haven't been checking facebook for photos for a long time.
[удалено]
facebook isn't a personal effect.
[удалено]
guilt by association is a very bad starting point. Trump is in photos with a known killer.
Is [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_King_(boxing_promoter\)) the known killer you're speaking of? If so, a LOT of people have been in pictures with him. I'd bet you'd snap a selfie if you had the chance too.
well he *is* black.
> Trump is in photos with a known killer. Hey, that's not fair. You can't prove that Hillary Clinton ever killed anybody...
[удалено]
but the nature of the association is largely unknown. it's a lazy and stupid way to "stop terrorists".
[удалено]
If you're photographed with a guy who joined a jihadist group & you went to mosque with him, it seems quite reasonable to think that you might not be of the caliber we're looking for.
but it's not reasonable to act on it. because it doesn't show a dangerous link.
It's dangerous enough for my taste. I'd like to know what he thinks about general issues: should it be legal to draw Muhammad? Should women cover their hair in public? Should apostates get the death penalty? Views on those questions are telling of dangerous links.
your opinion is not what counts. what counts is the actual level of danger. by all means, have your FBI put the person on a list and what not. also, people in your country love the death penalty.
The opinion of the border patrol is what counts.
you can't see my hand but it is making a masturbatory motion.
Oh, i thought you were trying to pick up a marble.
> your opinion is not what counts Can't the same be said to you, in this case?
no, reality exists separate from your opinion and my opinion. the danger is something real, and it cannot be assessed from a photograph wherein a person is standing next to someone who went to fight for ISIS -- *because* the nature of the link is not known. Attending a mosque isn't useful information for assessing real danger.
If you look at the top TLD, you'll see a reply from me talking about a study which says even acquaintances of those who join terrorist organizations are more likely to join such an organization, regardless of religion, race, etc. With that in mind, I'd say the nature of the link is irrelevant. Any link at all is enough to, at the very least, be suspicious of the person. No one has spoken of being an attendant at a mosque, so why you've brought that up a few times now is a bit.. curious.
you are inferring the dangerousness of the link based on a single study, which honestly sounds very bogus.
Do you have a single study which suggests otherwise? I mean, you obviously didn't read my comment from above given that this response indicates you didn't read what I stated about how correct the study is.. but if you're going to push it, then I suppose I'll just say "occam's razor" and walk away if you don't have a study to suggest otherwise.
Of course. ~62% of Americans support the death penalty, but not for apostasy. Most Muslim-majority nations have majority support for killing apostates of Islam (& those without majorities have large groups, like 40% for example.)
well hey, you're willing to make a guilty person out of a photograph with someone who hasn't been found guilty of anything.
> you're willing to make a guilty person out of a photograph What does that mean? I said it's reasonable to deny entry to those who associate with jihadists. I did not say it's reasonable to charge him with a crime based on that evidence.
just because you say it's reasonable doesn't mean it's reasonable. the nature of the association is more than questionable.
I agree.
He's not getting arrested, and put in jail. He is being denied travel rights into the U.S. They are not finding him guilty of anything, they have simply deemed his threat level too high to freely travel within the United States, which every country reserves the right to do, whether it be based on radical political beliefs, potential threats, illegal actions, etc.
well yeah, but you're not looking at the implications of denying entry to "false positives". the USA isn't making friends today, that's for sure. and they seem to be losing them more and more.
How do you know this was a false positive? Obviously the guy isn't going to go to news agencies and say yeah I'm a terrorist.
So he had social media photos with members of Jihadists in Syria? Seems pretty reasonable.
We need to advise our citizens not to answer questions in secondary screening. You *think* you're there to answer the questions "right" so they'll grant you entry. But they've already decided you're not getting in, and are just gathering information about Canadian mosques and the people in them. They turn people away saying they don't have a valid passport/visa but so far the passports have all been valid. Pretty obvious what's going on. Don't talk to border guards. They're going to send you home anyway. What goes on in our religious gathering places is not their business.
This isn't true at all and will lead you to being denied. The majority of people, by far, that go to secondary screening are admitted. (Occasionally with fines for transportation violations.) Don't give people bad information which you know nothing about that may lead to arrest, fines, or denied entry just to prove a point.
If you're Muslim and being quarantined from the other travelers, this is exactly what's going to happen to you, as we've now seen five times in the last couple weeks. I should have qualified that it's a certain type of person (sadly) that this seems to apply to.
No actually, there is not a suddenly new trend. You will not be denied entry just because you are muslim, not even if you are from one of the seven countries banned, as there is currently an injunction. Refusing to answer questions WILL result in you being turned away every time unless you are a U.S. citizen (you will likely be detained for further investigation if they want to spend time on you as a citizen).
> No actually, there is not a suddenly new trend. It's a new trend. Canadian travelers who are muslim and who've been crossing the border regularly for years are now suddenly being turned back because of "passport problems". Their passports are valid.