Immigrant PhD candidate rocked by sudden US Army discharge

[*PhilHos*]

(07-09-2018, 03:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: Gee....thanks. 

As to partisanship I am admittedly (I've said it multiple time" anti-Trump).  And until he does something that shows he's changed his spots he gets no benefit of the doubt.

I am openly partisan about that "man".  Others claim to be more open minded.

Maybe I expect too much from others who claim to not want it to be that way, but that's the way it is while he is the way HE is.  

In other words, we can't trust your judgment on anything you say in regards to Trump. Got it. Kudos to your honesty.

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 01:59 PM)PhilHos Wrote: In other words, we can't trust your judgment on anything you say in regards to Trump. Got it. Kudos to your honesty.

You do realize that based on your logic we can not trust your judgement on anything you say in regards to Christians, right?

Sometimes you are too clever by half, Phil.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-11-2018, 02:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You do realize that based on your logic we can not trust your judgement on anything you say in regards to Christians, right?

Why? When have I ever said that I give Christians all the benefits of the doubt? Or that I'm openly partisan about them? Add to that that I've often been critical of Christians and your point is less than meaningless.

But, thanks for trying. 

[Dill]

(07-09-2018, 03:38 PM)nd bfine32 Wrote: No doubt I'm the one keeping it partisan; as in the OP you blamed Trump, and have doubled down on this assertion a couple times. I have simply said these new vetting procedures are not steeped in political bias; therefore, it's not Trump's fault.

I've enlightened you all I care to on the matter. Just understand it's one of those situations where the people in the articles and those reading them may be jumping to false conclusions/ assumptions.

Why isn't your assumption of neutrality "jumping to false conclusions/assumptions"?  

Rather than taking Trump's policy neutrality on faith, why not ask critical questions, like why, suddenly, new vetting procedures are needed which break trust with people already in the service--and send them off without explanation?  The "cause" here is a policy change consistent with an administration hostile to immigrants, and its "effect" is to weed immigrants out of the US Armed Forces.

[GMDino]

(07-11-2018, 01:59 PM)PhilHos Wrote: In other words, we can't trust your judgment on anything you say in regards to Trump. Got it. Kudos to your honesty.

In other words I am honest about how I feel about that "man".  

I don't pretend to be "fair minded" and "middle of the road" while actually being a Trump defender like some choose to be.

I am honest about where I am coming from and post things that support my opinion.

And, again, if I post something about him that is false or incorrect I will gladly accept proof of that.  

If you just ignore true things because the person who shared them doesn't like your guy then I can't help you. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 03:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Why isn't your assumption of neutrality "jumping to false conclusions/assumptions"?  

Rather than taking Trump's policy neutrality on faith, why not ask critical questions, like why, suddenly, new vetting procedures are needed which break trust with people already in the service--and send them off without explanation?  The "cause" here is a policy change consistent with an administration hostile to immigrants, and its "effect" is to weed immigrants out of the US Armed Forces.

What if these vetting processes were in motion prior to Trump taking office? I am assuming nothing when it comes to the MAVNI program. 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-11-2018, 03:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What if these vetting processes were in motion prior to Trump taking office? I am assuming nothing when it comes to the MAVNI program. 

THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT!!!!

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 03:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What if these vetting processes were in motion prior to Trump taking office? I am assuming nothing when it comes to the MAVNI program. 

(07-11-2018, 03:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT!!!!

Then I doubt the article would have said


"The Pentagon said Friday that there has been no policy change since last year, when Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said no one could enter basic training without completion of a background investigation."

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 02:09 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Why? When have I ever said that I give Christians all the benefits of the doubt? Or that I'm openly partisan about them? Add to that that I've often been critical of Christians and your point is less than meaningless.

But, thanks for trying. 

Do you believe what the Bible says is true or make believe?

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 03:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then I doubt the article would have said


"The Pentagon said Friday that there has been no policy change since last year, when Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said no one could enter basic training without completion of a background investigation."

Wouldn't it have actually ha to say no changes were made before last year. To prove the "Trump's fault" theory?  

[*michaelsean*]

(07-11-2018, 03:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then I doubt the article would have said


"The Pentagon said Friday that there has been no policy change since last year, when Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said no one could enter basic training without completion of a background investigation."

Or from another article:

 But according to Stock, the program was dealt a truly deadly blow in September 2016, when Pentagon officials ordered “extreme vetting” for MAVNI recruits. Before, these recruits had already been subjected to the background-check process for receiving top-secret security clearance, which included counterintelligence screening among other rigorous measures. Now, the additional “extreme vetting” procedures stretched the Defense Department’s capabilities to their breaking point. Stock says that this move was made without commissioning a cost-benefit analysis, and that defense officials neglected to back it with the necessary resources and manpower to carry it out. MAVNI stopped accepting new recruits shortly after the “extreme vetting” order, and the program was finally suspended in 2017.

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 03:51 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Or from another article:

 But according to Stock, the program was dealt a truly deadly blow in September 2016, when Pentagon officials ordered “extreme vetting” for MAVNI recruits. Before, these recruits had already been subjected to the background-check process for receiving top-secret security clearance, which included counterintelligence screening among other rigorous measures. Now, the additional “extreme vetting” procedures stretched the Defense Department’s capabilities to their breaking point. Stock says that this move was made without commissioning a cost-benefit analysis, and that defense officials neglected to back it with the necessary resources and manpower to carry it out. MAVNI stopped accepting new recruits shortly after the “extreme vetting” order, and the program was finally suspended in 2017.

Link?

Don't know why it was halted in 2017 if the "deadly blow" came in 2016.  I need to see the whole story.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-11-2018, 03:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Link?

Don't know why it was halted in 2017 if the "deadly blow" came in 2016.  I need to see the whole story.

It was one of Dino's on the first page. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/immigrant-military-recruit-discharges-blame-bureacratic-incompetence/

A deadly blow meaning they weren't going to be able to recover from the backlog that would amass.

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 03:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Link?

Don't know why it was halted in 2017 if the "deadly blow" came in 2016.  I need to see the whole story.

Funny, you didn't need to see the whole story to suggest "Because Trump."

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 03:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Wouldn't it have actually ha to say no changes were made before last year. To prove the "Trump's fault" theory?  

Actually it would have to say what policy adjustments occurred before last year that caused the change. 

Otherwise when a Presidential administration makes a policy adjustment and there are huge repercussions it is going to be assumed there is a "cause and effect" relationship.

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 04:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Funny, you didn't need to see the whole story to suggest "Because Trump."

I read the entire story in the OP.

The funny part is that you did not have to see ANYTHING before you started trying to deflect blame away from Trump.

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 04:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually it would have to say what policy adjustments occurred before last year that caused the change. 

Otherwise when a Presidential administration makes a policy adjustment and there are huge repercussions it is going to be assumed there is a "cause and effect" relationship.

Not it wouldn't, but there's no need discussing that point further. You bolded no changes made since last year in a failed effort to prove a point. 

I have learned that rationality is a rare commodity in this forum. You, Dino, and others can suggest these changes were made "because Trump", even when presented with evidence that changes were made before he took office; just understand that you are wrong.  

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 04:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I read the entire story in the OP.

The funny part is that you did not have to see ANYTHING before you started trying to deflect blame away from Trump.

I didn't have to see any article linked in this thread to realize it was not "because Trump". I shared it early in the thread, but often times you cannot quell the symptoms of TDS. 

[GMDino]

Argue, argue argue...no one looks up information.

https://www.npr.org/2017/07/03/535342867/pentagon-considers-canceling-program-that-recruits-immigrant-soldiers

Quote:The Pentagon is considering pulling out of a deal it made with thousands of noncitizen recruits with specialized skills: Join the military and we'll put you on the fast track to citizenship.

The proposal to dismantle the program would cancel enlistment contracts for many of the foreign-born recruits, leaving about 1,000 of them without legal protection from deportation.

The plan under consideration is laid out in a memo from Pentagon officials to Defense Secretary James Mattis. In the memo, obtained by NPR, high-level personnel and intelligence officials cite security concerns and inadequate vetting of recruits under a program called Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest, or MAVNI.

The memo also cites "the potential threat posed by individuals who may have a higher risk of connections to Foreign Intelligence Services," and it refers to an "elevated" risk of an insider threat.




...


Questions about the program arose last year when officials discovered that some MAVNI recruits had offered false educational credentials, according to a legal brief from the Department of Justice. The brief was filed as part of a lawsuit challenging the Pentagon's decision to freeze the program.


The Pentagon responded to the discovery of some recruits providing fake university degrees by ordering security checks on all recruits in the program and barring new enlistments.

But that screening process has overwhelmed the Army's resources. According to the Pentagon memo, those security checks have "diverted already constrained Army fiscal and manpower resources from their primary roles."
Stock said many MAVNI recruits were left in limbo.

"The Army said you can ship to basic training after you complete the background checks. But now they've canceled all the background checks so nobody can ship to basic training," she said.

In one of two ongoing lawsuits, several noncitizens recruited under MAVNI and serving in the Army Reserve have sued. They argue that they were promised an expedited path to citizenship but that the Department of Homeland Security, at the behest of the Pentagon, has failed to process their naturalization applications, as required by law.

In the other case, the plaintiffs argue the Pentagon discriminated against naturalized U.S. citizens who were denied security clearances in the first terms of their enlistment. That meant that the military careers of the MAVNI recruits were effectively stalled out because they were unable to attend officer training school, for instance.

That's it.  A few were dishonest with their educational history so they went overboard with "extreme vetting" and the current admin wants to dismantle rather than fix it.

I am sure it has nothing in common with the current administration's views on immigrants.  None.  

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 04:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: Argue, argue argue...no one looks up information.

https://www.npr.org/2017/07/03/535342867/pentagon-considers-canceling-program-that-recruits-immigrant-soldiers




That's it.  A few were dishonest with their educational history so they went overboard with "extreme vetting" and the current admin wants to dismantle rather than fix it.

I am sure it has nothing in common with the current administration's views on immigrants.  None.  

So you posted an article from 2017 that states questions arose about false academic credentials  last year (new math suggests that would be 2016) to demonstrate this is "because Trump"? And once these questions were raised it was discovered many of these individuals posed an "elevated risk" of insider threat.

Brilliant!!