Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aladin who wrote (58273)	11/22/2002 12:26:37 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

Turns out there was one good thing in the Homeland bill. Of course, that means that State fought it. lindybill@cantstandthehouseofsaud.com November 22, 2002, 10:30 a.m. Closing an Open Door Saudis get an extra look. In the new Homeland Security bill just passed by both houses of Congress, stricter visa controls were enacted for people wishing to gain entry to the United States from one specific country: Saudi Arabia. The only people who lobbied against the policy ? taking the Saudi royal family's position ? were officials at the State Department. Just two sentences of a 400-page bill spell out the two new requirements. The policy prohibits "third-party screening programs" ? the most famous example of which is Visa Express, which allowed Saudi residents to submit their visa applications to private Saudi travel agents ? and every Saudi visa application must be reviewed by an onsite Homeland Security officer before a visa can be issued. The goal of the legislation is to put in place a better filter for screening out possible al Qaeda operatives trying to enter the U.S. on a temporary visa, the method used by all 19 of the 9/11 terrorists. The practical effect of this new policy is that all Saudi residents must now submit their visa forms directly to either the embassy in Riyadh or the consulate in Jeddah. State actually ended Visa Express a few months ago in response to public pressure, but members of Congress want to make certain it will not be resurrected. The new policy also requires Homeland Security officers in Saudi Arabia to review all applications before any visas can be issued. More than anything, an extra set of eyes can be crucial. The consular officer who issued ten of the visas to the 9/11 terrorists has said that she would not have granted the visas if not for pressure from her superiors within the State Department. Homeland Security personnel reviewing applications, however, would theoretically be immune to such pressures to compromise border security in order to improve "bilateral relations" with the Saudis. The effectiveness of the Homeland Security reviews of Saudi applications, of course, depends on how successful the new department is after its launch. If critics are proven wrong, then the supporting role in Saudi Arabia could mean a more secure border. If the massive bureaucracy collapses under its own weight, however, its impact in Saudi Arabia could be minimal. Either way, though, it is bound to be an improvement over State's superficial screening of Saudi visa applicants. Even though the State Department has made a few changes in Saudi Arabia since 9/11, such as longer interviews ? which now last all of ten minutes ? most Saudis still enjoy an open door into this country. According to statistics prepared by officials at State, a mere three percent of Saudi national applicants after 9/11 have been refused visas, which pales in comparison to the worldwide refusal rate of over 25 percent. In fact, every visa applicant is supposed to be presumed ineligible until he proves his own eligibility, because getting a visa is not supposed to be easy ? though it is for Saudis. The State Department protested to House and Senate leaders that the language, written by Rep. Dave Weldon (R., Fla.), singled out the Saudis. Apparently, some important legislators in Congress agreed that we shouldn't "single out" the country that sent us 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists, as State was assured that the Weldon provision would be removed, according to a House GOP leadership aide. But with the last-minute confusion and the rush to get the mammoth bill passed during the lame-duck session, the section targeting Saudi Arabia remained. That may be a loss for State, but it is a clear victory for homeland security. ? Joel Mowbray is an NRO contributor and a Townhall.com columnist.

To: aladin who wrote (58273)	11/22/2002 5:48:50 PM
From: Condor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

So why do you get involved in US foreign policy? Because they come knockin at our door when they decide to whack someone and want us to participate and lend our credibility and legitimacy to their policy/actions. They sure as hell don't need our military. They need our credentials to validate their actions. Furthermore our last excursion resulted in the US bombing us. Yes, US foreign policy prompts our reactions and comments. On your comment - John....Canada is not your problem - who are you to state that? I am the same as everyone here, a peon who pretends that his voice on this thread actually means something. If I can listen to the US BS for 58,000 posts then they can listen to my BS for a couple of hundred. My family lives in Trail BC, Parry Sound & Ottawa Ontario, Antigonish and Halifax NS. My mother, siblings, wife and children are all Canadian citizens (many are dual). Fine, I'll meet you at the Tim Hortons 2 miles north of the Parry Sound turnoff on Hwy 69 and we'll have a duel. Canada is very much my 'problem'. Beyond living there for 13 years, I still own property and pay taxes there.. Fine, tell that to the 2,000,000 snowbirds in the US and let me know how appreciated their advice is to the Americans. The thunder of a collective American raspberry to them would be sumptin methinks. Sorry, your indignance isn't impressing me. Now, please pass me on to a real American. How the hell can I argue with a hybrid? C