Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/12/20 14:30:19
Subject: San Bernardino Terrorist Attack
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
Given that the previous thread discussing this incident was locked I have reached out to a Moderator to ask whether a new thread concerning this could be opened, and it was agreed that we as a community may discuss this but please keep this thread to discussing the case at hand. In particular this means not going into gun laws and their effect on this event and whether or not they're necessary for the populace of the USA to rise up against the government. If anyone starts going down this path please do not respond, only you can prevent thread locks.
Now with the general housekeeping rules since the last thread was locked the following has been reported;
http://news.yahoo.com/california-shooters-spouse-visa-approved-despite-questions-lawmaker-191619086.html
(Reuters) - United States immigration officials failed to obtain required proof from San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik that she had met her U.S. citizen fiancé in person, but granted her a spousal visa anyway, a Republican congressman said on Saturday.
The new questions over the granting of the visa to Malik, raised by Congressman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, suggest she was the beneficiary of a lapsed government vetting process now under intense scrutiny after the Dec. 2 attack that killed 14 people at a holiday party in the Southern California city.
"In order to obtain a fiancée visa, it is required to demonstrate proof that the U.S. citizen and foreign national have met in person. However, Malik's immigration file does not show sufficient evidence for this requirement," Goodlatte said in a statement.
Investigators say U.S.-born Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Malik, 29, became radicalized long before the shooting. They are believed to have been inspired by militant group Islamic State.
Goodlatte said his office conducted an investigation of how Malik obtained her spousal, or K-1, visa. They found that the official who reviewed Malik's application asked for more evidence that she had met her fiancé but it was never provided.
View galleryTashfeen Malik and Syed Farook are pictured passing …
Tashfeen Malik, (L), and Syed Farook are pictured passing through Chicago's O'Hare Internati …
The Department of Homeland Security and for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond on Saturday to requests for comment.
U.S. officials previously said that U.S. authorities in Pakistan, Malik's home country, did not seek a full background security investigation on her because routine checks did not raise suspicions.
Well before he married Malik in August 2014, Farook had plotted mass casualty attacks with his friend and neighbor, Enrique Marquez, according to FBI interviews with Marquez, 24, who was arrested on Thursday and charged with conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.
Goodlatte said that Farook stated he had been together with Malik in Saudi Arabia, and supplied copies of passport pages with visas to enter Saudi Arabia. But, Goodlatte said, the passport stamps were never translated from Arabic to determine the dates on the visas.
Goodlatte said Malik entered Saudi Arabia approximately June 4, 2013, with a 60-day visa, though her exit date stamp is illegible. Farook's passport shows he was in Saudi Arabia Oct. 1-20 that same year.
"Even if Farook and Malik were in Saudi Arabia at the same time, this does not provide evidence that they met in person," said Goodlatte.
A third conspirator has been identified, who also had a sham marriage to get a relative of one of the terrorists into the country;
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san-bernardino-defendant-enrique-marquez-admitted-terrorism-facebook-feds-n482131
Enrique Marquez Jr., the former neighbor charged with assisting the San Bernardino, California, shooters, admitted on Facebook a month before the shootings that he was involved in terrorism and might go to prison, according to federal court documents revealed Thursday.
Marquez, 24, was charged in a three-count indictment Thursday with buying the rifles used in the Dec. 2 assault — which killed 14 people at the Inland Resource Center — plotting other terrorist attacks with gunman Syed Rizwan Farook in 2011 and 2012, and negotiating a sham marriage to a distant relative of Farook's.
Federal prosecutors said there was no evidence that Marquez took part in or knew about the resource center attack. But they said he'd been plotting with Farook to carry out attacks on Riverside Community College and a Southern California freeway as early as 2011.
Federal prosecutors said there was no evidence that Marquez took part in or knew about the resource center attack. But they said he'd been plotting with Farook to carry out attacks on Riverside Community College and a Southern California freeway as early as 2011.
In an FBI affidavit accompanying the indictment, investigators said Marquez hinted at his involvement with Farook in a post on his verified Facebook account on Nov. 5 — almost a full month before the massacre.
"No one knows really knows me, I lead multiple lives and I'm wondering when its all going to collapse on M[e]," he wrote, according to the FBI.
An unidentified Facebook user engaged with Marquez, observing: "I think everyone leads multiple lives."
To which Marquez responded:
"Involved in terrorist plots, drugs, antisocial behavior, marriage, might go to prison for fraud, etc."
The question of whether Farook and his wife and accomplice, Tashfeen Malik, posted about their plans to social media before Malik came to the United States has created controversy. Critics of U.S. immigration policy have alleged that the United States might have been able to stop the attack had they tracked the couple's accounts.
FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday that Farook and Malik didn't post any public jihadist messages on Facebook before Malik entered the country.
The affidavit discloses, however, that Malik may have posted such sentiments publicly on the actual day of the shootings.
The FBI said that on Dec. 2, a post appeared on an account associated with Malik reading: "We pledge allegiance to Khalifa bu bkr al baghdadi al quraishi."
The agency said it believed the post referred to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — the leader of ISIS. It is time-stamped 11:14 a.m. (2:14 p.m. ET) — just minutes before Farook and Malik stormed the Inland Resource Center.
Of all things to date in this case I am absolutely floored by the immigration failures, especially over the visa being granted with insufficient evidence that the couple had met in person.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/12/21 01:51:35
Subject: San Bernardino Terrorist Attack
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Reuters/Yahoo wrote:United States immigration officials failed to obtain required proof from San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik that she had met her U.S. citizen fiancé in person, but granted her a spousal visa anyway, a Republican congressman said on Saturday.
She got a fiancé visa, not a spousal one, and it is not an absolute requirement to meet your fiancé in person in order to obtain a fiancé visa.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/12/21 01:57:10
Subject: San Bernardino Terrorist Attack
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
dogma wrote:Reuters/Yahoo wrote:United States immigration officials failed to obtain required proof from San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik that she had met her U.S. citizen fiancé in person, but granted her a spousal visa anyway, a Republican congressman said on Saturday.
She got a fiancé visa, not a spousal one, and it is not an absolute requirement to meet your fiancé in person in order to obtain a fiancé visa.
The only two exceptions are;
1. If the requirement to meet would violate strict and long-established customs of your or your fiancé(e)’s foreign culture or social practice.
2. If you prove that the requirement to meet would result in extreme hardship to you.
http://www.uscis.gov/family/family-us-citizens/fiancee-visa/fiancee-visas
Both of which are very difficult to obtain a waiver for, but there is no mention as to whether a waiver was granted. Given that there was a request for further evidence it seems unlikely that more evidence was provided that they had met in person, or that a waiver was granted.
In the culture of the individuals in question it is not uncommon for couples to meet before marriage, and on the facts reported neither of them was undergoing any particular hardship so the granting of a waiver does not seem like it is probable.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/21 02:05:09
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/12/21 02:30:50
Subject: San Bernardino Terrorist Attack
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Both of which are very difficult to obtain a waiver for, but there is no mention as to whether a waiver was granted. Given that there was a request for further evidence it seems unlikely that more evidence was provided that they had met in person, or that a waiver was granted.
Why would you mention a waiver when you're a Republican Congressman trying to be as Republican as you can, and have an opportunity strike at the Executive Branch?
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
In the culture of the individuals in question it is not uncommon for couples to meet before marriage, and on the facts reported neither of them was undergoing any particular hardship so the granting of a waiver does not seem like it is probable.
It also isn't uncommon for them to not meet, let alone within 2 years of reaching the age of marriage. And the hardship exemption relates to what it would take for them to meet, not whether or not they are experiencing hardship as a result of anything unrelated to meeting.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/21 02:43:03
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/12/21 13:35:00
Subject: San Bernardino Terrorist Attack
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
The good old "of course he would say that he's ________". Why has DHS not responded to say that a waiver was given?
dogma wrote:It also isn't uncommon for them to not meet, let alone within 2 years of reaching the age of marriage. And the hardship exemption relates to what it would take for them to meet, not whether or not they are experiencing hardship as a result of anything unrelated to meeting.
Reaching the age of marriage? These two were past the age of marriage.
http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=20494
Every American desiring to bring a foreign national girlfriend or boyfriend to the U.S to marry must file a K1 visa petition with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) and fulfill the following requirements. They must be legally able and willing to enter into the marriage in the U.S. and to enter into the marriage within 90 days.
The couple should also have met within the two years immediately prior to the filing of the K1 visa petition. A common question in the K1 visa petition process is whether there are any exceptions to the two year meeting requirement.
Two Year Meeting Requirement Waiver and Exception
More importantly, the couple must show with substantial and convincing evidence that they have a true and honest relationship and not merely a relationship designed to evade immigration law and obtain immigration benefits. Additionally, the K1 couple must demonstrate that they have meet within the two years immediately prior to the filing of the K1 visa application.
The two year meeting requirement is rigidly enforced and many K1 visa applications are denied or placed in 221(g) administrative processing because of the requirement. Keep in mind that it does not matter whether you meet after the K1 application was filed, what matters to the USCIS is that the couple met during the two year period immediately before the filing date. Other couples have failed because they had known each other for years and didn’t think it was necessary for them to meet during the two year period.
Additionally, not only does a couple have to meet during the two year period, they have to provide evidence that they have met. A couple cannot merely claim that they have met, they must show that they have traveled together, celebrated a birthday or holiday, and have documentary evidence of such a meeting. Couples are routinely denied a K1 visa because they fail to demonstrate that the meeting actually took place. Claims are not enough for the USCIS, it is necessary to demonstrate with documents and proof that a K1 couple has met during the two year period.
The meeting requirement is strictly enforced and a couple applying for the K1 visa should not take for granted the need for physical proof that they have met during the required time. Unfortunately, receiving a waiver or bypass on the requirement is a difficult task because exceptions are rarely made. For cases where it might be possible tend to be for cases where it would be physically impossible for the U.S. citizen to meet the fiance due to severe physical disability due to their medical condition.
U.S. Immigration law states that “if it is established that compliance would result in extreme hardship to the petitioner or that compliance would violate strict and long-established customs of the K-1 beneficiary’s foreign culture or social practice, as where marriages are traditionally arranged by the parents of the contracting parties and the prospective bride and groom are prohibited from meeting subsequent to the arrangement and prior to the wedding day.” INA § 214.2(k)(2). Waivers such as these are rarely granted by the USCIS because so few couples have been able to meet the stringent requirement of extreme hardship. For instance, being incarcerated or an inability to travel due to parole or a court order does not necessarily reaches the level of extreme hardship for the petitioner. Nonetheless, each case is evaluated on a case by case basis.
Due to the fact that extreme hardship is generally interpreted by the USCIS to mean something very close to “physically impossible,” it is generally available only to people who are so disabled that they can’t fly at all. As for the latter waiver, very few people qualify for this exception and those that do often have a difficult time proving it to the government’s satisfaction that meeting would violate a cultural norm or societal custom. In light of the advent of online technology, social media and dating websites, meeting the two year meeting requirement may be more and more difficult to fulfill.
http://richardbracken.com/waiver-of-the-k-1-visa-two-year-meeting-requirement/
There is an exception to the two-year meeting requirement in instances where both parties cannot meet because of either extreme hardship or due to a long established custom. 8 C.F.R. §214.2(k)(2).
USCIS is granted wide latitude in determining whether to waive the meeting requirement. Unfortunately, the Immigration and Nationality Act does not offer any concrete guidance regarding when such a waiver is appropriate. For instance the regulation does not even hint to what constitutes “extreme hardship” or “strict and long-established customs”. In fact, the only way to know what USCIS is thinking regarding this waiver are the number of appellate decisions that come down, which shed some light on the area.
Extreme Hardship
In determining whether couples meet the extreme harship standard, USCIS approaches each case independently of any others and considers the totality of the petitioner’s circumstances. In particular, the Service will consider whether 1. meeting the alien fiance is not within the petitioner power to control or change, and 2. whether the problem prohibiting the meeting is likely to last for a considerable time or that the duration cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.
Many individuals consider themselves good candidates for the extreme hardship waiver of the meeting requirement because of financial problems or because of safety concerns regarding the alien fiance’s home country. It should be noted that in almost every case, financial constraints alone fail to rise to the level of extreme hardship necessary to qualify for the waiver. Moreover, claims for the petitioner’s safety in traveling abroad rarely rise to the level of hardship because of the theoretical possibility that the couple could meet in another country besides the alien fiance’s.
Those most successful in the extreme hardship department are those who can point to a medical condition that prevents the meeting. In such cases a great deal of individualized detail must be submitted to not only show that the petitioner has a medical condition that prohibits the meeting, but also that the medical condition prohibits the petitioner from traveling. It has been suggested that a petitioner may qualify for the waiver by succesfully showing with great detail that the petitioner is not able to leave the U.S. due to a medical condition suffered by a member of his or her family. In such a case, evidence indicating the length of time that the family member has suffered from poor health, the type of care the family member will likely require, and the type of medical care the petitioner provides to that member would be needed.
Strict and Long-Established Customs
Petitioner’s also may qualify for a waiver of the meeting requirement when they can show that compliance would violate strict and long-established customs held in the beneficiary’s foreign culture or social practice. Arranged marriages can qualify for K-1 visas, however unless the couple can provide sufficient evidence that the culture absolutely prohibits the two individuals from meeting before marriage the waiver will be almost certainly be denied. For instance a great number of waivers have been denied in cases where ecclesiastical leaders have held open the slightest of possibilities that a couple might be permitted to meet, even when under the most limited and restricted circumstances.
The bottom line is that USCIS is very stingy in granting this waiver. So much so that unless the couple is willing to accept the possibility of significant delays in their case, I generally advise couples to make their best efforts to meet one another within two years of filing for the K-1visa despite great difficulty and sacrifice. Due to the great difficulties in obtaining this waiver I strongly recommend that those who believe they qualify consult with a competent immigration attorney prior to filing.
It is very common, even those stricter adherents to Islam to meet with a third party there or at supervised large family gatherings. This means that the social/custom category for waiver may be disconted, and as an extreme hardship waiver is almost impossible to get (and would not have applied in the circumstances listed) then that too seems highly unlikely.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/12/21 16:14:13
Subject: San Bernardino Terrorist Attack
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
When I say "age of marriage" I mean the age at which they were to be married.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
It is very common, even those stricter adherents to Islam to meet with a third party there or at supervised large family gatherings. This means that the social/custom category for waiver may be disconted, and as an extreme hardship waiver is almost impossible to get (and would not have applied in the circumstances listed) then that too seems highly unlikely.
No it doesn't. It means that such waivers are unlikely to be granted, but that such waivers are acceptable according to law and policy.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/12/21 18:18:57
Subject: San Bernardino Terrorist Attack
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
dogma wrote:
When I say "age of marriage" I mean the age at which they were to be married.
If you're claiming that it isn't uncommon for them not to meet would you please be so kind as to;
1) Share your source for this
2) Show that it was applicable for the couple being discussed
3) Explain how this meets the criteria for a K1 visa, or a waiver of the conditions
dogma wrote:No it doesn't. It means that such waivers are unlikely to be granted, but that such waivers are acceptable according to law and policy.
And a waiver was granted in this instance, or you can demonstrate that they met the criteria for such a waiver?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/12/24 18:22:23
Subject: San Bernardino Terrorist Attack
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
And the No Fly list has prevented relatives of someone who prayed in the same mosque as the attackers entry to the United States
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35171175
A Californian relative of a British family which was refused entry to the United States for a holiday has told the BBC the US government must explain its actions.
Muhammad Tahir Mahmood said his children had been looking forward to welcoming their cousins and were sad that the trip had been cancelled.
Mr Mahmood, 47, said he had been preparing to welcome his two brothers, Zahid and Tariq, their seven children and two of his sister's children for the holidays.
They had planned to go sky-diving and to make trips to several California theme parks, he said.
Mr Mahmood, a US citizen who runs an auto repair shop in San Bernardino, said he could think of no reason why his relatives would represent a threat to the country and called on his government to explain its actions.
"They can get away with anything by saying national security… and you cannot even challenge that," he told BBC News, adding, "there is no check and balance."
A spokesperson for US Customs and Border Protection refused to comment on this specific case, but told the BBC people travelling to the US "bear the burden of proof to establish that they are clearly eligible to enter the United States... the applicant must overcome all grounds of inadmissibility."
Categories of inadmissibility include, among others: health-related reasons, criminal convictions, public charge, security reasons and labour certification.
In the UK, Labour MP Stella Creasy called on the prime minister to challenge the US, calling it "a growing problem" of British Muslims being barred from the US without explanation.
She also told BBC Radio 5 live she was aware of four other UK cases of Muslims who were denied entry to the US.
"Nobody knows why these people were stopped. We do know what the common denominator is between them. All of us agree we've absolutely got to be vigilant about tackling terrorism, and we've got to be clear prejudice hasn't got a part to play in that," she said.
Mr Mahmood said he prayed at the same mosque as Syed Rizwan Farook, who along with his wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in San Bernardino on 2 December but he "did not know him personally", would not have recognised him and could not recall ever speaking to him.
Fourteen people were killed in the San Bernardino massacre
The couple died in a shoot-out with police a few hours after the attack which is being investigated by the FBI as an act of Islamist terrorism.
Mr Mahmood said he had no problem with the US denying entry to people who were deemed to be threats but he insisted "there needs to be a reason given."
Americans expected their country to act according to due process, said Mr Mahmood, who moved to the US from Pakistan more than 20 years ago.
"I think that's what the democracy stands for, run by the people, for the people," he said. "The authorities need to tell people why they're not letting people in."
Mr Mahmood said he could only surmise that his relatives had been refused entry because of an atmosphere of "Islamophobia" on the day the California public school system was disrupted by a threat, an atmosphere which he said had been fostered by hostile and unfair reporting about Muslims.
"It's a scary thing being a Muslim in America," the father of three told the BBC, adding that the media was "painting Islam as the enemy" when in fact Muslims were peace-loving people who had nothing to do with the actions of individual "idiots".
He said he was extremely worried about where the country was heading and there was a perception that "it's very dangerous to be a Muslim in America" because of media reporting and inflammatory rhetoric from politicians including Donald Trump.
"Every country, every race, every religion has idiots and Trump is one of the American idiots," he said.
Most American people were "very educated, very good people" and they realise that, he added.
Mr Mahmood said the last time he returned to the US from the UK he had been pulled aside at an airport for lengthy questioning because he was a "Muslim, bearded, brown" guy. "I expected that," he said, "but it's difficult to explain to the children."
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|