shrike82 posted:

Eh, all the recent news reports make it sound like they'd been radicalized for some time and planning an attack.

shrike82 posted:

Considering that the wife was apparently the radical one, kinda hard to spin it as a gone postal incident.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Speaking of, apparently the wife was posting radicalized comments on social media before applying for a K-1 visa.

Why don't our consular officials check visa applicants' social media accounts to ensure they don't "Like" Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

Samurai Sanders posted:

The last article I read about them used the term "self-radicalized". I dunno why but that gives me a funny mental picture, of them looking at themselves in the mirror going "I am radical! I am so radical!"

A Winner is Jew posted:

Because liking a facebook post isn't illegal. Like that's legit what the FBI has said on the issue.

Maybe we should though because there are probably a ton of facebook likes for klan and white supremacists out there and keeping guns out of those peoples hands would probably be a good thing.

A Winner is Jew posted:

Because liking a facebook post isn't illegal. Like that's legit what the FBI has said on the issue.

Maybe we should though because there are probably a ton of facebook likes for klan and white supremacists out there and keeping guns out of those peoples hands would probably be a good thing.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Speaking of, apparently the wife was posting radicalized comments on social media before applying for a K-1 visa.

Why don't our consular officials check visa applicants' social media accounts to ensure they don't "Like" Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

quote:

Over the last year, under Secretary Johnson’s leadership, the Department initiated three pilot programs to specifically incorporate appropriate social media review into its vetting of applicants for certain immigration benefits.

The Department is actively considering additional ways to incorporate the use of social media review in its various vetting programs.

The Department will continue to ensure that any use of social media in its vetting programs is consistent with current law and appropriately takes into account civil rights and civil liberties and privacy protections.

Muscle Tracer posted:

Criminality isn't the baseline to allow citizenship or immigration. It's also not against the law to not "be able to read, write, and speak English and have knowledge and an understanding of U.S. history and government (civics)," but we require that of citizens entering the country. MIGF is obviously wrong but "has [not] been convicted of a crime" isn't a good metric to use in determining citizenship.

My Imaginary GF posted:

If you like Al Qaeda, you shouldn't get a visa and a pathway to citizenship. I don't understand how anyone who likes Al Qaeda should feel entitled to enter America.

A Winner is Jew posted:

My point is that just because a group isn't liked by our government at the moment doesn't mean we should restrict access to those that have associated with said groups.

Alkydere posted:

I read that as "gently caress him with trumpets" on first pass.

A Winner is Jew posted:

And yet how many immigrants in the 30's and 40's where communists? Like they didn't just like a post but were actual card carrying members of their home countries communist parties?

My point is that just because a group isn't liked by our government at the moment doesn't mean we should restrict access to those that have associated with said groups.

KomradeX posted:

I'm pretty sure being an anarchist or a communist from like the 1880s to at I'm hoping the most the 1960s was grounds for not being an American. Now becoming one after you got here is different

quote:

Other exemptions from the bar include involuntary membership, membership without awareness of the group's aims, membership under the age of 16, and membership for the purpose of the obtaining food rations or other essentials of living.[48]

The nature of the conduct or belief that invokes the bar differs among these ideologies. For communists and totalitarians, the prohibited activities are membership and affiliation with relevant organizations,[49] the advocacy of relevant doctrines,[50] the publishing of relevant doctrines,[51] and the association with organizations that advocate or publish relevant doctrines.[52] The bar on communism forbids the advocacy of the establishment of communism in the United States, whereas the bar on totalitarianism forbids the advocacy of the establishment of totalitarianism anywhere in the world.[43][53] For advocates of assassination, government overthrow by force, destruction of property, and sabotage, the prohibited activities are advocacy,[54] writing and publishing materials that advocate,[55] and membership in an organization that publishes such materials.[56]

Rygar201 posted:

Jake Tapper is tweeting the pictures and names of the Sandy Hook victims, so I had to quit scrolling through twitter at work lest everyone ask me why I was crying.

KomradeX posted:

I'm pretty sure being an anarchist or a communist from like the 1880s to at I'm hoping the most the 1960s was grounds for not being an American. Now becoming one after you got here is different

Sharkie posted:

Nope, a member of a communist party or someone that advocates for communism technically can't become a citizen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_restrictions_on_naturalization_in_U.S._law

KomradeX posted:

to at I'm hoping the most the 1960s was grounds for not being an American.

Logikv9 posted:

Cruz's moderation is the worst thing he could've done. I look forward to Rubio 2016.

Joementum posted:

Adar posted:

Rubio is winning the "not Hillary" demographic, of whom there are a lot even among the youth vote.

Sharkie posted:

Nope, a member of a communist party or someone that advocates for communism technically can't become a citizen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_restrictions_on_naturalization_in_U.S._law

DrProsek posted:

Nah we still use the laws against being a communist to ban Chinese people from getting visas from time to time even today. It's not a hard 'No' like it used to be, but from immigration lawyers I know that work with a lot of Chinese clients, the question still comes up and is a pain in the rear end.

Logikv9 posted:

Cruz's moderation is the worst thing he could've done. I look forward to Rubio 2016.

Logikv9 posted:

Cruz's moderation is the worst thing he could've done. I look forward to Rubio 2016.

Fried Chicken posted:

Counterpoint: today had talk radio (via Rush, and then the talking points being repeated) talk bad about Trump for attacking Cruz.

Don't underestimate the power talk radio has on swaying the hard core base.

computer parts posted:

I wonder why 25% of the people polled made over $100,000/year.

Kalman posted:

Around 21% of the US has a household income of 100k or more. It's not quite dead on but it's a totally reasonable proportion.

ShutteredIn posted:

Gail Wynand posted:

The Googles and Facebooks of this world do not want to expand H-1B so they can hire legions of underpaid Indian programmers. Yes there are segments of the industry that do want to do this (every IT consulting firm) but Zuckerberg and Page are not among them.

Google and FB recruit from the top CS programs, and there is a finite supply of grads from these programs. Some of these grads are foreign citizens and the H-1B cap is a barrier to hiring these. Meanwhile there are also great CS programs overseas (particularly in India) that it is harder to recruit from because of the cap. A graduate of a top IIT is going to make a 6 figure salary anywhere s/he goes in the world, this isn't about cheap labor.

A lot of the cap issues emerge because of body shops abusing the system, but as a matter of political strategy it's best to keep the industry unified and focus on raising the cap - since it is BS anyway. I'd rather focus on cracking down on abusers than set some artificial quota.

Raere posted:

I looked up a guy I'm going on a date with soon on Facebook and his pic is a selfie with him and Jeb! I'm not sure which is more offputting - that he's a Republican or that he supports Jeb!