ACLU: Don't Bar Terrorist Sympathizers

[FishForLunch]

Figures anything that harms the US ACLU is for it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to strike down a provision of the Patriot Act that prevents foreigners who endorse terrorism from entering the U.S.

The suit was filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan on behalf of a prominent Muslim scholar, Tariq Ramadan, and three national organizations of academics or writers who have invited him to speak to their members.

Ramadan, a Swiss citizen, has been denied a United States visa since July 2004, when he was about to move with his family to Indiana to take up a tenured professor's position at the University of Notre Dame, the New York Times reports.

At the time, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, Russ Knocke, cited the Patriot Act clause as the reason Ramadan's visa was canceled.

The provision bans foreigners who "endorse or espouse terrorist activity or persuade others" to support terrorism.

The ACLU suit seeks a declaration that the Patriot Act provision at issue is unconstitutional. It also seeks a court order preventing the government from relying on the provision to exclude Ramadan or any other foreign national.

Ramadan, the author of some 20 books on Islamic theology, filed a new visa application on September 16 after receiving invitations for speaking engagements in the U.S. When interviewed in December in Switzerland by agents of the Homeland Security and State Departments, Ramadan said, he was questioned about his views of the war in Iraq.

"I told them what I have said many times publicly, that I think the war was a mistake and illegal," he told the Times. "I think the resistance is legitimate but the means they are using are not."

Ramadan is the grandson of Hasan al-Banna, a founder in 1928 of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Egyptian group that has carried out violent attacks in recent decades.

He claims "there is nothing in my record supporting terrorism.”
But some critics say he espouses moderate views in Europe while embracing more militant views when addressing Muslims in the Arab world, according to the Times.

Homeland Security’s Knocke declined to comment on the lawsuit, but noted that the criteria for revoking visas included "public safety and national security risks.”

[Mavdog]

yeah, that wicked old Notre Dame University, a known haven for "terrorist sympathizers", is just trying to help someone who would "harm the US".

balderdash.

this is something that one would expect to read in a national lampoon article, only it is real rather than parody.

this is an academic. he is a writer. he is a professor at not only notre dame, but at oxford university.

this is a clear misapplication of the power the patriot act granted the government, for this man is not a danger to anyone.

not only is the denial of the visa an error in judgement, the government can't even adequately explain why they decided to deny the visa in the first place.

the aclu is right.

[FishForLunch]

When are the ACLU ever wrong, they clearly need to uphold the rights of a foreigner and one who lends moral support to the resistance. I have no pity for that jerk.

[Mavdog]

seems that you fail to understand how the rights of notre dame, its students, and of the organizations who invited ramadan were harmed.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

seems that you fail to understand how the rights of notre dame, its students, and of the organizations who invited ramadan were harmed.

You just don't get it. This has become a HUGE issue in hiring foreign nationals at academic institutions. There is no right of a university to hire a foreign person. I personally think that universities should hire personnel with views across the spectrum, but if there is even a shred of concern regarding support for terrorist organizations, it should be investigated in detail.

Notre Dame and its' students, faculty and staff have no "right" to hire Ramadan. He may be their choice and he certainly may be most qualified (I have no way of knowing this since the application materials aren't on my or your desk), but he is in no way entitled to this position as a "right" would suggest. Conversely, as a foreign national, if he wants to work here, he must satisfy all conditions of a Visa. Foreigners do not have the right to work here. Apparenetly he has not done so.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

You just don't get it. This has become a HUGE issue in hiring foreign nationals at academic institutions. There is no right of a university to hire a foreign person. I personally think that universities should hire personnel with views across the spectrum, but if there is even a shred of concern regarding support for terrorist organizations, it should be investigated in detail.

Notre Dame and its' students, faculty and staff have no "right" to hire Ramadan. He may be their choice and he certainly may be most qualified (I have no way of knowing this since the application materials aren't on my or your desk), but he is in no way entitled to this position as a "right" would suggest. Conversely, as a foreign national, if he wants to work here, he must satisfy all conditions of a Visa. Foreigners do not have the right to work here. Apparenetly he has not done so.

why does the academic instituition not have the right to employ the person that they view as the best qualified person for the job? or top put it in the reverse, what right does the state have (especially with a private institution such as notre dame) to arbitraily (and without justification btw) prevent the employment of the individual the institution wants to hire?

the school DOES have the right to operate their school in the highest level they strive to reach within the law.

the biggest issue with this case imo is the lack of openness by the government as to how they determined ramadan is a danger, and also the fact that there is no format to challenge that determination. it appears to be arbitrary and punitive.

the fact that ramadan was previously granted a visa clearly shows that ramadan had satisfied the normal requirements for a foreigner to work in america.

[FishForLunch]

If that is the case can I sue the Feds because they rejected my sisters tourist visa application. ACLU is saying that my constitutional rights were violated?

[Mavdog]

did they give any reason? is she a convicted felon?

maybe the nsa found her talking to the wrong people...

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

why does the academic instituition not have the right to employ the person that they view as the best qualified person for the job? or top put it in the reverse, what right does the state have (especially with a private institution such as notre dame) to arbitraily (and without justification btw) prevent the employment of the individual the institution wants to hire?

the school DOES have the right to operate their school in the highest level they strive to reach within the law.

the biggest issue with this case imo is the lack of openness by the government as to how they determined ramadan is a danger, and also the fact that there is no format to challenge that determination. it appears to be arbitrary and punitive.

the fact that ramadan was previously granted a visa clearly shows that ramadan had satisfied the normal requirements for a foreigner to work in america.

Again...you just don't understand, and again, noone is surprised. Notre Dame nor any other institution has no "right" to hire a foreign national. Laws are in place for the issuance of a legal work Visa and this man cannot meet the current standard. This is really very simple. Please stop trying to make this some liberal aclu issue. It isn't. He may have obtained a work visa in the past, but he clearly does not meet the standard today. It's so simple.

[Mavdog]

no, it is you who do not understand.

your position that these universities do not have the "right" to hire who they choose has not been supported by anything you are saying. you have not proven they don't have that right, rather you repeat that they do not have the right to hire foreign nationals who don't have a visa.

well, duh. they can't hire deceased people either, but that's not the point.

clearly an employer of any business cannot hire someone who cannot legally work, unless of course they are an undocumented immigrant (joke intended..)

for your benefit I'll abridge my statement: the school DOES have the right to to hire anybody they choose who can legally work in this country.

the question that remains unanswered is just how did this person become someone who cannot work in the us when he was previously allowed to do such.
why was the determination made and on what grounds was the decision made to classify this person as a violator of the patriot act.
what protection to we have as a society that is open with freedom of expression that the state will not, ney HAS not, used this act to stiffle dissent to their policies, which would be a violation of the people's freedom of speech.
what due process was provided to this person, and why was he categorized as unemployable when he was asked to work for the first class university that wants to hire him.

this is a clear abuse of the patriot act. the act was not passed to deny the right of universities to employ those who they choose to have teach. the application of the act to deny this man his job does NOTHING to keep our country secure.

[Drbio]

Nice try at putting words in my mouth. Universities certainly are expected to hire whom they feel is the best candidate. However, when dealing with foreign nationals certain things trump that. You are completely ignorant if you cannot recognize/understand this FACT of life.

This man once was able to procure a work visa. His situation has changed and now he cannot. What is so hard to understand about that mavdog? Did this man possibly attend a terror workshop, invest in some known terror group (or whatever..you "should" get the point). Just because he once was authorized does not give him a lifetime pass. What kind of liberal craphole thinking is that? Here is a thought...do you really expect the government to make public all details of why this individual might be now considered questionable, thereby empowering future such persons the knowledge of what they are looking for and enabling them to circumvent it? That is very convenient for the terror side and I suppose will show up on the dem platform soon.

Finally, you very ignorantly throw out "this is a clear abuse of the patriot act". Horse shit. You want it to be. Oh how happy you and other libs would be if that were true. Yet, you have no evidence of it so rather than perform any due diligence you throw out stupidity like "clear abuse of the patriot act". Nothing like a good inflammatory hunk of horse poo for the sheepish public.

[dude1394]

Didn't Atta and his crew have visas??

[Drbio]

Yes dude. They did.

edit---> Some were student visas though....

[Drbio]

Under mavdogs reasoning, denying Atta his visa would have done nothing to make our country safe. sickening huh?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

Nice try at putting words in my mouth. Universities certainly are expected to hire whom they feel is the best candidate. However, when dealing with foreign nationals certain things trump that. You are completely ignorant if you cannot recognize/understand this FACT of life.

nice try, but that was already pointed out. maybe it's the fact that "you are completely ignorant" that prevented you from seeing such above.

This man once was able to procure a work visa. His situation has changed and now he cannot.

what "situation has changed"? he's the same person as before.

What is so hard to understand about that mavdog? Did this man possibly attend a terror workshop, invest in some known terror group (or whatever..you "should" get the point).

uh, maybe he attended a democrat party affair and that's why he was denied entry. maybe he gave support to someone like human rights watch and the administration didn't appreciate it.
maybe there ISN'T any valid reason...YOU should get the point.

if there is a LEGITIMATE reason for his denial, give it. it's really pretty simple, people are innocent until proven guilty...at least in the america i know and love.

Just because he once was authorized does not give him a lifetime pass. What kind of liberal craphole thinking is that?

if he was a qualified person who was given a visa in the past, unless there is a change he should qualify again. there may be wierd waco "craphole thinking" that says someone can be arbitraily excluded from gainful employment and the authorities can stop free speech, and there is a history at waco of silencing any dissent, but in the rest of america there' IS feeedom of speech.

Here is a thought...do you really expect the government to make public all details of why this individual might be now considered questionable, thereby empowering future such persons the knowledge of what they are looking for and enabling them to circumvent it? That is very convenient for the terror side and I suppose will show up on the dem platform soon.

ah yes, let's hide behind the secrecy angle. bullcrap, there is a concept of due process and openness of decisionmaking and that should be maintained.
if there is proof of this mans complicity, just show it.

Finally, you very ignorantly throw out "this is a clear abuse of the patriot act". Horse shit. You want it to be. Oh how happy you and other libs would be if that were true. Yet, you have no evidence of it so rather than perform any due diligence you throw out stupidity like "clear abuse of the patriot act". Nothing like a good inflammatory hunk of horse poo for the sheepish public.

hmmm, when the act is used to bar a person of OUTSTANDING credentials, when that person has been given a position at one of the better colleges in the country, and the person has NOT been shown to be a threat to ANYBODY, yet the act was applied...it's VERY clear it is an abuse.

to deny that excess and abuse is what can be called "horse poo".

glad you kept it clean tho..

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

Under mavdogs reasoning, denying Atta his visa would have done nothing to make our country safe. sickening huh?

great mischaracterzation.

under bio's reasoning, the government can deny freedom of speech without justification. sickening, huh?

[dude1394]

You know I hadn't even read the posted article.

So let me get this straight....The patriot act allows the US to deny entry to someone who supports terrorism.. And the problem is????

Freedom of speech is reserved for citizens, not someone who would use that freedom of speech to recruit terrorists.

Whether the guy does or does NOT recruit terrorists is another discussion altogether. But certainly the US should have the right to control their borders and certainly someone who supports terrorists would be someone that maybe shouldn't be let into the country.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Didn't Atta and his crew have visas??

my memory is atta had an expired visa, yet they were allowed to enter even tho they were on the FBI's "watch list".

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

You know I hadn't even read the posted article.

So let me get this straight....The patriot act allows the US to deny entry to someone who supports terrorism.. And the problem is????

Freedom of speech is reserved for citizens, not someone who would use that freedom of speech to recruit terrorists.

Whether the guy does or does NOT recruit terrorists is another discussion altogether. But certainly the US should have the right to control their borders and certainly someone who supports terrorists would be someone that maybe shouldn't be let into the country.

the "problem" is there is NO evidence presented that this individual supports terrorism. that is a very basic right, to have one's accuser and for the evidence to be brought forth, which has been denied.

I don't have ANY problem denying entry to a person who supports terrorism. or someone who recruits terrorist.

we should control our borders.

isn't the right to freedom of speech/expression a basic human right, not just a right of a us citizen? surely the answer is yes...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the "problem" is there is NO evidence presented that this individual supports terrorism. that is a very basic right, to have one's accuser and for the evidence to be brought forth, which has been denied.

But that does not seem to be what the ACLU is arguing, they are arguing the right of the government to refuse entry aren't they?

Again if they want to bring a case of unlawful prosecution or something that would be understandable, the effect of winning this lawsuit to me would seem to be that the guvment couldn't refuse entry to a terrorist sympathizer? True or am I missing something?

I don't have ANY problem denying entry to a person who supports terrorism. or someone who recruits terrorist.

we should control our borders.

Is that not what he is being accused of?

isn't the right to freedom of speech/expression a basic human right, not just a right of a us citizen? surely the answer is yes...

To a point of course, if he were actively supporting and promoting terrorist bombers, I would expect we would call that illegal in some form or fashion, not up enough on it to be sure, but goodness gracious I sure hope so. Hmmmm but there do seem to be folks calling for open mutiny by our military so maybe not.

In this case however, he's not being prosecuted for his speech, just refused entry. It seems to me to be like a company who doesn't want to hire me because I'm an outspoken racist for example. I have freedom of speech in that instance (because the guvment can't arrest me) but the company is under no obligation to hire me as it might effect their welfare.

In this case the welfare the guvment is effecting is physcially me, and I've asked them to do so with the patriot act.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

my memory is atta had an expired visa, yet they were allowed to enter even tho they were on the FBI's "watch list".

Probably that effective "wall" between enforcement agencies that clinton set up.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

But that does not seem to be what the ACLU is arguing, they are arguing the right of the government to refuse entry aren't they?

Again if they want to bring a case of unlawful prosecution or something that would be understandable, the effect of winning this lawsuit to me would seem to be that the guvment couldn't refuse entry to a terrorist sympathizer? True or am I missing something?

here's the press release:

NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit challenging a provision of the Patriot Act that is being used to deny visas to foreign scholars whose political views the government disfavors. The lawsuit charges that the “ideological exclusion” provision is being used to prevent United States citizens and residents from hearing speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

“Barring people from the country because of their ideas skews and impoverishes political debate inside the United States,” said ACLU staff attorney Jameel Jaffer. “The government should not be using the immigration laws as instruments of censorship.”

The ACLU lawsuit was filed on behalf of the American Academy of Religion, the American Association of University Professors and PEN American Center, and also names as a plaintiff Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss intellectual who is widely regarded as a leading scholar of the Muslim world. The U.S. government revoked Ramadan’s visa in August 2004, preventing him from assuming a tenured teaching position at the University of Notre Dame and from accepting invitations to address various audiences inside the United States. Although neither Ramadan nor the university was given an explanation for the revocation, the Department of Homeland Security has cited the ideological exclusion provision as the basis for its decision.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general...s20060125.html

[dude1394]

I would imagine that if he wasn't espousing terrorism but pro-abortion views he wouldn't have been troubled.

I don't see it mavie, looks like the guvment has every right (and responsibility) to keep potential terrorists out of this country. ??

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I would imagine that if he wasn't espousing terrorism but pro-abortion views he wouldn't have been troubled.

I don't see it mavie, looks like the guvment has every right (and responsibility) to keep potential terrorists out of this country. ??

sure they do, and should.

this person is neither a terorist nor a supporter of terrorism. his writings denounce the islamist terrorist who hide behind the religion.

that's the issue here, the act is being used to deny entry to a person who opposes the administration's policies. they do NOT have that right.

[Drbio]

The glaring facts are that you have stated he is not a terrorist. How do you know this? You don't.

You have stated that since he once obtained a work visa that he could not possibly have changed since then and therefore should be awarded another visa. You support this assertion by stating that he is "not a terrorist or supporter of terror". How do you know this? Oh yeah...You don't.

You have conveniently ignored the fact that work visa requirements have changed since his last successful application. It would be at least honest of you to acknowleelde that. You will conveniently overlook that spewing more drivel about him already having once had one so he cannot possibly be a terrorist, Can you guarantee he isn't? Oh yeah....you can't.

I guess Atta and his boys having visas mean they couldn't possibly be terrorists right? That is what you so clearly insinuate. How do you know this? Yo don't.

You state that his writings clearly show he is not a terrorist all while ignoring the fact that he could be. How do you know this? Yawn....You don't.

You idiotically stated that Notre Dame and others have the right to hire foreign nationals. They do not. That is why the work visa program exists. At elast you backtracked in this statement a bit though. Of course, you are really good at the art of backtracking.

you continually pull shit like this out of your ass in this forum and completely ignore all discussion that shows otherwise. You clearly are off base. How do you know that? Oh yeah...sadly you don't.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

And you know this conclusively because of all of the resources that you have to investigate terror? Or is this just yet another of a long list of your idiotic statements? Which is it?

And before you go off on his writings blah blah blah....you mean he couldn't write one thing while doing another behind the scenes? That never happens does it?

yawn....more thinking less drivel please next time mavdeficient.

oh you're learning well from the current administration. make accusations with no basis in truth, all to limit criticism.

"when did you stop beating your wife sir".

ridiculous.

try reading about ramadan. read his writings and statements. read statements from the organizations that invited him to speak. that tells you about a person, just like reading your posts tells us about your ostrich mindset.

like I said, ridiculous.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

The glaring facts are that you have stated he is not a terrorist. How do you know this? You don't.

You have stated that since he once obtained a work visa that he could not possibly have changed since then and therefore should be awarded another visa. You support this assertion by stating that he is "not a terrorist or supporter of terror". How do you know this? Oh yeah...You don't.

You state that his writings clearly show he is not a terrorist all while ignoring the fact that he could be. How do you know this? Yawn....You don't.

You idiotically stated that Notre Dame and others have the right to hire foreign nationals. They do not. That is why the work visa program exists. At elast you backtracked in this statement a bit though. Of course, you are really good at the art of backtracking.

you continually pull shit like this out of your ass in this forum and completely ignore all discussion that shows otherwise. You clearly are off base. How do you know that? Oh yeah...sadly you don't.

too funny.
according to bio, a person is guilty until proven innocent.
what a fine american you are. you uphold the great traditions of american ethics. like...well, like you were NOT american.
well done.
like I said, when you are able to show ANY evidence of ramadan not being who he is, and was, let us know.when you are able to show him supporting terrorism, let us know.
until then....

[Drbio]

It might turn out that this man gets a visa after further review. If that happens it will be because the US government evaluated the facts and acted within the framework of the rules. If he doesn't, it will be because the facts indicate that he is not a qualified foreign national worker.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

sure they do, and should.

this person is neither a terorist nor a supporter of terrorism. his writings denounce the islamist terrorist who hide behind the religion.

that's the issue here, the act is being used to deny entry to a person who opposes the administration's policies. they do NOT have that right.

Well actually administration's policies are your policies. So since you and I both have the right to decide who does/does not get into this country they have complete right to do that.

[kg_veteran]

I don't see anything in this thread to make me think that Mavdog is a terrorist sympathizer. That's a little bit overboard.

None of us know why the guy was denied access to the country, yet everyone's talking like they do.

I will say, however, that I don't see how the provision of the Patriot Act being challenged is unconstitutional. Frankly, I think it's a good idea to keep those who espouse terrorist ideas or activities out of the country. I don't know if that's the case with this guy or not.

[dude1394]

Not everyone kg.

I think doc's take on it, is that it's sort of kneejerk anti-bush rhertoric. Guy says he's not a terrorist, guvment says he is(or might be) and have refused him entry. Sort of typical coming down on the side against dubya. I'm pretty sure that this would be perceived differently if a president Kerry were in office.

BUT it probably wouldn't be castigated by the right and would be sloughed off by the left.

My take on it is that the case the ACLU is arguing is detrimental to our ability to deny entry to anyone who we (we being the lawfully elected US government) decide is too big a risk to do so.

I'm sure there are mechanisms to appeal his denial of a visa and that's fine he should take them, but to argue that we don't have the RIGHT to deny him entry seems dangerous and weak on security.

[FishForLunch]

"did they give any reason? is she a convicted felon?

maybe the nsa found her talking to the wrong people..."

The reason is she wanted to visit her brother, but her husband was in charge of the Anthesiology department and could not take time off to accompany her. The Dummos at the INS thought she will immigrate. During this time they were freely giving out visas to Saudi students.

I bet if she was a felon I could have got the ACLU to plead on her behalf.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I don't see anything in this thread to make me think that Mavdog is a terrorist sympathizer. That's a little bit overboard.

None of us know why the guy was denied access to the country, yet everyone's talking like they do.

I will say, however, that I don't see how the provision of the Patriot Act being challenged is unconstitutional. Frankly, I think it's a good idea to keep those who espouse terrorist ideas or activities out of the country. I don't know if that's the case with this guy or not.

the basis for the denial is spelled out in the aclu link.

as I read it, the aclu isn't taking the position the government cannot deny visas to terrorist sympathizers ot those who support terrorism, just the manner in which it has been applied is unconstitutional.

do you believe that a person labeled as a terroist symathizer or a promoter of terrorism by the government is entitled to due process?

i certainly do. anybody accused of wrongdoing should have that right.

[dude1394]

Hmmm...what crime are they being charged with? If we decided we just don't want anyone who isn't a college educated person to come to the US are they being denied due process? If we decided we didn't want anyone from Mexico getting visas that also would be perfectly fine and they would be expected to prove they were not from mexico?

I just don't really get it, in general I don't think non-citizens have much rights at all to enter the country, it's a priviledge and they enter at our whim, and our whim can be logical or illogical. In this case it seems pretty logical.

I think we provide them due process in our criminal justice system but with respect to being deported, I don't think they have much rights at all. I could be wrong, but I don't think they have any, nor should they really. If someone with a visa is caught doing something I'm sure they can be deported without due process to be honest.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you are absurd.

ok, here is exactly how your approach is to the situation of ramadan turned back to you.

bio, you are clearly a terrorist sympathizer. you support terrorism.

now, prove those statements wrong, without basing it upon your own writings ,nor your own past statements, and not on anything others say in support of you not being a terrorist sympathizer or a terrorist supporter.

well?

I'm waiting....

Haha, love it. Rep for sure, if I don't have to spread it around more...

[Drbio]

Still waiting mavdog.

You have made the rediculous assertion as fact that this man is neither a terrorist nor a terror supporter. Can you prove this or will you continue to try to deflect the answer by making some outlandish comment?

I'm also still wiating for you to address dudes point. Based on your logic, Atta and his WTC plane buddies couldn't possibly be terrorsist, not terror supporters because (according to you) the US awarded them a visa. You can't have it both ways.

Which way would you like to officially flip flop today?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

Still waiting mavdog.

You have made the rediculous assertion as fact that this man is neither a terrorist nor a terror supporter. Can you prove this or will you continue to try to deflect the answer by making some outlandish comment?

have you proven you are not a terrorist supporter or sympathizer?

as soon as you can do that, without basing it upon your own writings (as ramadan's writings show he is NOT a supporter or sympathizer), or upon other's opinions (as many people have stood with ramadan NOT being a terrorist supporter or sympathizer), then I'll do the same in regard to ramadan.

well? let's see you accomplish just that very thing that you want done for ramadan.

we're waiting....

I'm also still wiating for you to address dudes point. Based on your logic, Atta and his WTC plane buddies couldn't possibly be terrorsist, not terror supporters because (according to you) the US awarded them a visa. You can't have it both ways.

Which way would you like to officially flip flop today?

nice attempt to misdirect.
atta did not have a valid visa when he entered the us.
your attempt to misdirect falls flat.

well, when are you going to prove you are not a terrorist sympathizer or supporter?

[Drbio]

Typical mavdog sache and misdirection. I called you out on your statements and you throw it back with outlandish crap. I predicted that typical drivel response

It is very simple.
1. U.S. entities do not have a "right" to hire foreign nationals.
2. Your statement about this man not being a terrorist or a supporter of terror are pure speculation. You simply cannot prove this and have danced all around it once called out.
3. You fail to admit that even if someone gets a work visa in the past that their situation might change to eliminate their eligibility in the future. This is one of the more absurd dig ins that you have made lately.

Pretty basic easy to understand stuff. Except apparently for mavdog.

[Mavdog]

still can't prove that you're not a terrorist sympathizer? why do you ask the same of ramadan?

yes, a company can hire a foreign national, even if they don't have a visa. the visa only allows for them to physically work in america. companies hire foreigners everyday who don't have a visa...it's called "outsourcing".

sure, a person can change. that is easy to document or prove. why has no documentation or proof been given on the basis for the denial of ramadan? answer: there is none. try understanding the issue.

pretty basic stuff, the right to know what evidence is being offered in accusations against someone. but just like your "guilty until proven innocent" stance above, it's not surprising that this basic ideal of american jurisprudence escapes you.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

still can't prove that you're not a terrorist sympathizer? why do you ask the same of ramadan?

I'm not the one who proclaimed him "Not a terrorist or terror supporter". Those are your words. I asked you how you knew this and all we have gotten back since is your misdirected crap.

yes, a company can hire a foreign national, even if they don't have a visa. the visa only allows for them to physically work in america. companies hire foreigners everyday who don't have a visa...it's called "outsourcing".

Don't change the subject. Nice try though. He is trying to enter the United States to work. There are rules in place that require him meet certain criteria to work in the US....he has been unable to meet those criteria. Your misdirect attmepts are weak.

sure, a person can change. that is easy to document or prove. why has no documentation or proof been given on the basis for the denial of ramadan? answer: there is none. try understanding the issue.

You falsely make an assumption that a persons acts are easy to document. Another point is that you simply do not know what the governemnt has in pocket on this man. Just because it hasn't been released publically does not mean that there is not documented evidence of concern. You just fail to grasp basic topical material. Try to keep up please.

pretty basic stuff, the right to know what evidence is being offered in accusations against someone. but just like your "guilty until proven innocent" stance above, it's not surprising that this basic ideal of american jurisprudence escapes you.

I once again challenge you to either show where I have ever said "guilty until proven innocent" or stfu. And please stop using quotation marks to imply that I said something that I have so clearly not. It exposes you as the weak fool you are. You are fooling noone with this nonsensical garbage. What is pretty basic is your lack of understanding. It is also very basic stuff to understand that you do get full access to materials related to national security. That this very elementary concept escapes you is typical.