San Bernardino

You're being a troll.

 

What if you veil the words a bit and talk dahij? We nacirema would never figure it out.

 

Let's use the most unreliable and easily manipulated medium available to verify everyone's history. Never mind that upwards of 25 percent of users admit they lie regularly on social media, and anything can be deleted or edited at any time, and there is no way to verify that posts were even made by the person you're investigating.

While we're at it, why don't college professors use Wikipedia to verify the accuracy of their lesson plans?

(Not that I'd expect a 21st century reporter to question the infallibility of social media.)

 

Sounds like the kind of medium that would be really useful to bad people.

 

Also sounds like the kind of medium that would yield way more fake leads than real ones.

 

I disagree with the idea that we should not look at social media postings of people applying for visas/residency, especially when they are coming from countries where Islamic radicalism and/or anti-American sentiment runs high.

But, I especially reject that idea that it should be our policy -- let alone our announced policy -- that we will not look at social media posts. That's insane.

 

YF, you have convinced me. I think we should put a hold on allowing marriages in the United States until we are confident that they aren't too dangerous.

 

Jonah Goldberg also finds the idea that we wold try and differentiate between Islamism, and run of the mill, anti-Americanism.

Why would we let in someone who held either belief?

But wait. It gets odder. The Times chooses to end this story with a caution not to read too much into ugly posts on social media by people asking for the privilege — not the right — to move here. After all,”it is often difficult to distinguish Islamist sentiments and those driven by political hostility toward the United States. At the time Fehda Malik’s comment was posted, anti-American sentiment in Pakistan was particularly high; four months earlier, American commandos had secretly entered Pakistan and killed Osama bin Laden.”

Wait. What? I gather they are saying that anti-Americanism and Islamism are different, but occasionally overlapping things. Fair enough. But they also seem to be saying we shouldn’t much care about taking in immigrants who merely hate America on political grounds. That’s weird.

Even more weird is their example of potentially non-Islamist but still anti-American sentiment: Fehda’s outrage over the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Are we supposed to be relieved? ”Oh she’s not an Islamist, she’s just furious we killed Bin Laden for nationalistic reasons.”

Take Out Your Red Pens, by Jonah Goldberg, National Review

 

Did the Times see her social media posts, or were they just described to them?

Either way, why are they so vague about what they say:

The New York Times has an interesting story about how the State Department missed the bus on Tafsheen Malik’s Islamist and anti-American social media posts during her immigration background check. Though we aren’t permitted to read directly what she said on social media, she was apparently quite open in her endorsement of “violent Jihad.” The Times reports that:

Had the authorities found the posts years ago, they might have kept her out of the country. But immigration officials do not routinely review social media as part of their background checks, and there is a debate inside the Department of Homeland Security over whether it is even appropriate to do so. ​

We don’t get much of an explanation of what exactly “appropriate” means, only that the topic is being debated by government officials. It’s almost as if the Times is scared to actually report the interesting facts — what the posts said, why the government ignores them and may want to keep ignoring them etc. for fear of what people might do with the facts.

Read more at: Take Out Your Red Pens, by Jonah Goldberg, National Review

 

Should we let in someone who holds a, " strict literalist interpretation of the Quran"?

It's a pretty simple question?

And, look, make the argument that we should if you'd like.

But, I read dozens of stories about how thorough our vetting process was for this type of visa. Many people here made the same point.

What was this based on? The government saying so? Where was the reporting? Why did none of those declarative articles tell us what the process actually does and does not include?

Did anyone report that social media posts are not checked?

Did any report that going to a school that teaches a strict literalist interpretation of the Koran would not raise a red flag?

Did any tell us that you could hold anti-American views, based on politics, nationalism, or the killing of Osama bin Laden, and that we'd view this differently than if you held anti-American feelings based on an Islamist view of the world?

 

I didn't say that. I'm saying it's a spectacularly inefficient way to achieve what you want to achieve.

And it could come to a point pretty quickly that we're diverting much-needed resources away from things that do work.

Kind of like in the media, and how trolling Twitter has diverted much-needed resources from actual reporting.