According to a diplomatic cable obtained by The New York Times, “close family” is “defined as a parent (including parent-in-law), spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling, whether whole or half. This includes step relationships.”The language in the Supreme Court opinion — which the guidelines are designed to follow — was "a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States" and "a close familial relationship."
But it went on to state that “close family” does not include “grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-laws and sisters-in-law, fiancés and any other ‘extended’ family members.”
It is not clear how the administration arrived at the new definitions....
It looks to me as though they decided to define "relationship" as nuclear family. I can see wanting to exclude grandparents simply because one child becomes a pathway for 4 adults, but that's a policy idea that doesn't seem to have anything to do with what the Supreme Court said.
Note that Justice Thomas (joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch) wrote a separate opinion that called the Court's approach "unworkable." It will "burden executive officials with the task of deciding—on peril of contempt— whether individuals... have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country."
पोस्ट्स
८६ टिप्पण्या:
If they live under sharia law and refuse to denounce sharia law they shouldn't be allowed in.
Doesn't sound too hard. They had to draw a line somewhere, and wherever they drew it people just past the line would complain. "What sense does it make to allow third cousins once removed but not second cousins twice removed?"
This is just theater by now, and does not much matter.
"... but that's a policy idea that doesn't seem to have anything to do with what the Supreme Court said."
I don't want to shock you, but the Executive is allowed to implement policies that were not explicitly mandated by the Supreme Court. It's discussed in an obscure, antiquated document, more than 200 years old, called ...
This is what defenders of Obama's legacy wanted. Pro-Choice at its finest from conception to elective wars to immigration reform to welfare profits to Democratic leverage.
1) What s the source? A diplomatic cable?
2) I'm skeptical this story is true, but if so, defining "family" narrowly is a good way to spotlight the "unworkable" burden for when SCOTUS follows up their stay.
"This is just theater by now, and does not much matter."
You are right, of course. It appears Trump never had any notion of implementing the plan Achilles suggests. If we are going to let stand the absurd claim that the Constitution forbids a "religious" test for immigrants, then it really is a suicide pact. And we are boldly affixing our John Hancocks.
Dear stepsister,
Be thankful you were included. You shouldn't have been.
Homeland Security
Mike, exactly. If Grandparents had been included, you can be damn sure the NYTs would dig up a sympathetic aunt for their sob story.
Hey Grand Pa, if it's really that important to you, get your ads on a plane and visit your grandkids. Or drive up to Toronto and meet them there.
Keith Ellison says Saudi Arabia isn't on the list because they have Trump hotels there.
Keith Ellison is a Muslim who supports abortion on demand, gay marriage, and drag queens.
Why should the US allow a bunch of elderly to immigrate? They'll produce little, and hasten the demise of Medicaid and SS.
Hey Grandpa, maybe use your American wealth (by 3rd world standsrds) to move those precious grandkids to a country that's not a jihadi shithole.
So child is here and grandma can't come. But mama of child can come, and once mama is here, grandma can come not based on being grandma to child but based on being the mama to child's mama? Is that right? It took 20 seconds to figure out the work-around.
It's for the children!
Does it matter? If the kid comes, the parent gets in and then, doesn't the parent's parent also come too? I'm trying to figure out who the idiots are and am I one of them?
Right, wise men can't decide worth shit what will work who aren't in an organization structured to get stuff to work.
As if bona fide weren't an obvious nonsense specification. Idiots.
The SC gave us omabacare too.
Letting in ancestors falls victim to the population implosion.
There's 1 you. You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 ggparents, 16 gggparents, 32 ggggparents, 64 gggggparents...
"our government is being run by complete idiots." Referring to Supreme Court majority, right?
The decision to not include relations where there is a generational gap is both rational and reasonable. In those cases, there is not a direct connection.
At the same time, while a current resident number one's grandparent might not qualify, if that resident's parent is a resident as well(resident number two), then that applicant will qualify as a parent (as will resident number one's aunts and uncles, but in their capacity as siblings of resident number two).
Again, the plan does not present an undue hardship -- especially for people who have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER under the U.S. Constitution, and to whom the federal government constitutionally owes no duty whatsoever.
Just the liberal judges and social justice adventurers who believe they can fight clean wars.
If you want to be joined by a relative, you get thrown out, is the rule I'd propose.
So, you're a grandfather. Your grandchild can't get you in, but your son or daughter can. What's your problem?
"....... run by complete idiots". You just now figured this out? Never dealt with a building permit have you?
How about a law that says no family member gets immigration preference? That is the way it used to be, and it would sure stop chain immigration.
Classic Progressivism at work here. A leak to the NYT and the aversion to any line drawing. There are no rules or line drawing in the post-modern world. Every country is exceptional.
Who could possibly want to refuse entrance to that beautiful woman in the American Flag headscarf who appears on the signs ? That's who we're talking about, right ?
I was going to say that they could just use the traditional prohibited degrees of consanguinity to determine who does and does not have a close familial relationship, but then I checked and canon law restricted marriage up to the fourth degree of consanguinity, which would include cousins. Checking the Table of Kindred and Affinity in the 1762 Book of Common Prayer suggests that the English tradition -- which after 1776 becomes the American tradition -- uses a somewhat narrower definition of close familial relationship.
So in consequence, I would recommend that the administration, for purposes of implementing the modified moratorium, rely on the traditional prohibited degrees of consanguinity, and allow the entry of only those persons covered by the relationships set forth in the Table of Kindred and Affinity in the Book of Common Prayer, 1762.
(N.B. I would have used the 1662 edition, only I could not find a copy online.)
In all seriousness, though, I think the restriction to the nuclear family is fine -- it doesn't seem to me inconsistent with the parameters of the Supreme Court opinion, as I've heard it expressed. Allowing grandparents in would be consistent with allowing siblings, though, as both are in the second degree of consanguinity under what I think is the usual means of counting.
Having witnessed the TSA's excruciatingly thorough inspection of my terminally ill mother's adult diaper, I can vouch that our government considers grandparents a prime terror threat.
The wording of the law looks crystal clear to me. The President, on his sole judgment, can delay and group of immigrants.
tcrosse said...
Who could possibly want to refuse entrance to that beautiful woman in the American Flag headscarf who appears on the signs ?
The desecrator of the American flag, you mean? The violator of the US Flag Code? She wants to come to America, you say? How about Guantanamo Bay? And all her Facebook friends too.
The desecrator of the American flag, you mean?
My point being that it's not Truth in Advertising.
The NYT acknowledges that existing law distinguishes between "immediate relatives" (parents, spouses and children (under 21) of United States citizens), and "other relatives", but says that "those definitions apply to people seeking to immigrate — not merely to visit." But we are talking here about a TEMPORARY regulation. What's the big problem with requiring some vistors to wait for a few months?
But if the Government wants to avoid nationwide injunctions, it needs to find a way to avoid what appear to be hard and fast rules. Bureaucrats for generations have known how to devise regulations with presumptions and special procedures and requirements and different deadlines and timelines and documentation requirements. Doesn't the Trump Administration know that the way to slow immigration from these countries is to use DMV procedures? I fear that The Donald has never had the experience of dealing personally with the DMV. He's alsways had "a guy who handled that". He needs to get that guy into the Oval Office for a chat.
I thought immigration was on an order, merit basis. For example, if your grandfather is not a terrorist, and does not have principled-alignment with terrorism, then he is eligible to immigrate. If the son is a terrorist, or has principled-alignment with terrorism, then he is not eligible. If the daughter applies for immigration before the grandfather, then her application and merit will be considered in order. And so on and so forth.
tcrosse said...
"Who could possibly want to refuse entrance to that beautiful woman in the American Flag headscarf who appears on the signs ?"
Is that the girl who had her underboob showing and they pixelated her.... oh, wait. That was Hustler magazine. Of course, I only saw it because it was referenced on Yahoo News, (which explains the pixilation)
Larry Flynt's outfit never bought that pixilation machine so many news outlets use... can't get the spares for it.
Re: n.n:
The travel restrictions aren't just about immigration -- it's ordinary short-stay visas too. The vast majority of visitors to the United States don't have the slightest interest in living here -- they're just visiting for business or to see family or maybe do some shopping and sightseeing.
See the great Josh Blackman's blog post http://joshblackman.com/blog/2017/06/29/family-matters-implementing-irap-v-trumps-bona-fide-relationship/ addressing how current law already treats grandparent's differently.
The wording of the law looks crystal clear to me. The President, on his sole judgment, can delay and group of immigrants.
The 1952 law is indeed crystal clear, but the 1965 law eliminated national origin as a basis for denying entry, hence the invitation to litigation.
Balfegor:
So, that would still be on an order, merit basis, where order and merit are biased by a multifaceted hierarchy. It seems the controversy concerns giving preference to people affected by elective wars, regime changes, etc. and for purposes of social justice (e.g. [class] diversity).
If it's "not clear how the administration arrived at the new definitions...." then that's just because the author didn't really attempt to achieve clarity.
From Josh Blackman today, at http://joshblackman.com/blog/2017/06/29/family-matters-implementing-irap-v-trumps-bona-fide-relationship/:
"As a matter of longstanding U.S. immigration law, certain more distant relatives cannot petition for visas at all. The State Department has explicitly stated that “Grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws, and cousins cannot sponsor a relative for” immigrant visas. (To be precise, a person who happens to be a grandparent, aunt, uncle, etc. can sponsor his or her own child, spouse, parent, or sibling for an immigrant visa, but not those more distantly related). In contrast, immediate relatives (spouse, children, parents) of U.S. citizens are not subject to the cap and immediately eligible for a visa. Again, this framework reflects different congressional judgments about the appropriateness of capping based on closeness of familial ties. The President’s distinctions are just as reasonable as those of Congress: if the former are invalidated on constitutional grounds, the latter come into doubt."
From the link to the State Department at https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/family/family-preference.html:
"Immediate Relative Immigrant Visas (Unlimited): These visa types are based on a close family relationship with a United States (U.S.) citizen described as an Immediate Relative (IR). The number of immigrants in these categories is not limited each fiscal year. Immediate relative visa types include:
IR-1: Spouse of a U.S. Citizen - Learn More
IR-2: Unmarried Child Under 21 Years of Age of a U.S. Citizen
IR-3: Orphan adopted abroad by a U.S. Citizen - Learn More
IR-4: Orphan to be adopted in the U.S. by a U.S. citizen - Learn More
IR-5: Parent of a U.S. Citizen who is at least 21 years old
Family Preference Immigrant Visas (Limited): These visa types are for specific, more distant, family relationships with a U.S. citizen and some specified relationships with a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). There are fiscal year numerical limitations on family preference immigrants, shown at the end of each category. The family preference categories are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, and their minor children, if any. (23,400)
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried sons and daughters (age 21 and over) of LPRs. At least seventy-seven percent of all visas available for this category will go to the spouses and children; the remainder is allocated to unmarried sons and daughters. (114,200)
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, and their spouses and minor children. (23,400)
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens, and their spouses and minor children, provided the U.S. citizens are at least 21 years of age. (65,000)
Note: Grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws, and cousins cannot sponsor a relative for immigration."
(emphasis mine)
Seems the guidance is at least attempting to track longstanding immigration policy. But, we all know no matter how they define it, Justice Thomas' flood of litigation prediction will be proven correct.
Eh, any line drawn will be arbitrary. "Boo hop, what about X??" is inevitable.
No matter where the line is drawn the Media and pro-import 'em all crowd will find a sympathetic case right on the other side of the line and flog that story for weeks.
Nice centrist people will be moved to tears, and we will get more Big Government, more stupid policy, etc. Rinse, repeat, add a zero to our debt.
Hey, sorry; they all have to go back.
if we are going to admit immigrants let's limit them to people with IQs over 130. They will raise our own national IQ, which is falling, and they won't build no-go welfare zones.
Re: n.n
So, that would still be on an order, merit basis, where order and merit are biased by a multifaceted hierarchy. It seems the controversy concerns giving preference to people affected by elective wars, regime changes, etc. and for purposes of social justice (e.g. [class] diversity).
Not sure what you mean by all that . . . The vast majority of foreigners I work with (other than Chinese and Indians) come from countries covered by visa waiver arrangements, so they don't even need to get a visa ahead of time (although they do need to fill out an ESTA now, which is kind of similar). To the extent there's "order" or "merit" there, it's just that they come from a visa waiver country and that they not be a convicted criminal.
Putting in all this business about "order" or "merit" and "multi-faceted hierarchies" really just makes it confusing -- most visas are totally routine. It's business or tourism or visiting family, pretty much. They don't have anything at all to do with wars or "social justice" or any of that. That's refugees, which (the "refugee" crisis in Europe notwithstanding) is a much, much tinier population.
To bring this back to the travel ban, it sounds like people who have a legitimate business need to enter the country will still be able to get their visas (none of the countries covered are visa-waiver countries so they all had to go through the application process anyhow). It's just tourists, extended family, and would-be immigrants (or refugees or asylum seekers or whatever) who won't be able to come. For the time being.
It's a start. A few more known wolf attacks and we can restrict it more.
Plus the "chilling effect" will reduce terrorist immigration.
I saw a tall (6"), thin, woman in Istanbul do a strip routine while imitating a whirling Dervish. I suggest we let her in--if she is still alive.
On the one hand, it is the President's call, so in this matter, whatever he decides is constitutional.
On the other hand, how many people with terrorist tendencies live to be grandparents?
No expert here, but it seems to me that conforms to pre-existing immigration law about visa sponsorships. Of course it will be challenged in court. But the fact that they are using categories already long-established in immigration law certainly makes for a better standing in court.
I assume the Ninth will now revise immigration sponsorship law by nationwide injunction on the ground that it is motivated by something unconstitutional, at least under this president. This should be fun and fireworks. The lawyers are at the airports waiting for their chance.
I do not expect many of the judges to give up until they discover that judges who attempt to become legislators may, in fact, be deposed by Congress. It is not until they find themselves wandering on the streets that reality will set in.
It seems like the administration is inviting litigation by interpreting the Supreme Court's words as narrowly as possible. Not sure they have the goodwill for that approach to be beneficial.
The issue isn't Grandpa from Yemen, jeez.
The issue is carefully vetting visiting folks from 6 crazy Muslim countries to ensure that they don't blow up buildings or stab people or run them over with cars. (See, 9/11; France; Monaco; London.
The purpose is to NOT become like these lax European countries that don't care too much about the terrorism inflicted on their citizens.
We'd like to prevent that -- hence, stricter border regulations. So, sorry, Grandpa, but that's how we want it.
That's a pretty asinine statement for a Grandfather to make. You are supposed to be acquiring experience and wisdom as you age. How did he skip all that?
I saw a tall (6'), thin, woman in Istanbul do a strip routine while imitating a whirling Dervish. I suggest we let her in--if she is still alive.
Corrected from 6". I wouldn't want to plant fantasies in Chuck's head.
When I was a kid my grandparents lived in a country with, bluntly, a pretty evil government. We lived in Canada, which put pretty severe sanctions on that country. As a result, when we wanted to visit them, or vice versa, the travelling party had to apply for a visa well in advance - 60-90 days, IIRC.
And now I have friends blowing up my FB account whining that Iranian grandma will have problems visiting her kids. Well, sorry - but the Iranian government is way more evil than the one that ran my grandparents' home country. So sorry if our struggle against the forces of medieval darkness is inconvenient for you, but suck it up buttercup. US security policy is not supposed to be run for the convenience of Iranians.
#sorrynotsorry
It seems like the administration is inviting litigation by interpreting the Supreme Court's words as narrowly as possible.
The Supreme Court now has jurisdiction of the cases, not any of the lower courts. If someone wants to challenge the current action, they need to take it up with the Supreme Court.
Like everything else the Trump Administration does,
this "plan" was obviously devised in about two minutes,
it will be tossed out there and cause chaos and endless bureaucratic snafus
--and Trump's supporters will love it just because it pisses off their enemies.
(their enemies being defined as everybody besides themselves).
I know this pattern by heart already.
Darrell said...
I saw a tall (6"), thin, woman in Istanbul do a strip routine while imitating a whirling Dervish.
Maybe she could go on tour with Spinal Tap.
readering said...
It seems like the administration is inviting litigation by interpreting the Supreme Court's words as narrowly as possible.
They are letting in in-laws, so no. But don't worry, the litigation isn't waiting for an invitation.
Maybe she could go on tour with Spinal Tap.
If we let her in. And she's not dead. And if Spinal Tap were a real band.
On the other hand, how many people with terrorist tendencies live to be grandparents?
The median age of grandparents in Gaza in approaching forty.
How are diplomatic cables transmitted these days? What is the actual format?
A diplomatic cable suggest that the New York Times intercepted something from 1900.
If you go to Ellis Island you can hear an oral history given by an old woman remembering her early childhood. An entire family was emigrating from Russia. Immigration officials gave all the family a clean bill of health except for the grandmother, who was returned to Russia. Think of that -- the entire family enters the U.S. and one member, impoverished, possibly ill, sent back.
I don't think that story bears as much on the Trump administration's policy as it sounds like it does. It's not a hint that Trump should be as ruthless as a Roosevelt. Nor is it a call to change the current policy. It's simply a fact that the movement of people between nations cannot help but be accompanied by sorrow.
A diplomatic cable suggest that the New York Times intercepted something from 1900.
NYT Intercept--
DO NOT LET TRUMP FAMILY BACK INTO THE UNITED STATES
STOP
"The Supreme Court now has jurisdiction of the cases, not any of the lower courts. If someone wants to challenge the current action, they need to take it up with the Supreme Court."
Not how it works, as Thomas's opinion predicts: "And litigation of the
factual and legal issues that are likely to arise will presumably
be directed to the two District Courts whose
initial orders in these cases this Court has now—
unanimously—found sufficiently questionable to be stayed
as to the vast majority of the people potentially affected."
Why should the US allow a bunch of elderly to immigrate? They'll produce little, and hasten the demise of Medicaid and SS.
I believe Australia bans immigration of anyone over the age of 55.
Now?
@James K
Why should the US allow a bunch of elderly to immigrate? They'll produce little, and hasten the demise of Medicaid and SS.
The discussion here is about granting visas. It applies to grandparents who'd like to visit their grandchildren here on some sort of a visit visa.
"How are diplomatic cables transmitted these days? What is the actual format?"
Probably a pdf file attached to an e-mail.
sinz52: "like everything else the Trump administration does - "
I think you are letting your hatred of Trump interfere with your judgement. If you read Florence's post at 5:07 you can see that it was carefully crafted to dovetail with current immigration law re relatives to be fair and reasonable, and to withstand judicial scrutiny.
So I don't see how you can assert it was just thrown together in a few minutes for the purpose of pissing off the right people.
People here complain about all the trolling and counter-trolling. But a lot of it begins just like this - someone making an asinine partisan assertion in bad faith. I've tried to take the high ground, correcting and criticizing the argument presented without provoking (as best as I can), but people like me get tired of this shit day after day. Eventually we decide to respond in kind. And then the whining begins.
It's a micro of today's Tweet storm, what Ace aptly borrows from sibling games: "hit and cry". Mika poke poke poke Trump for 3 weeks, and when he pokes back they run crying to mommy.
So, if you want to be anti-Trump, that's fine. Criticize away - we need to hold our leaders accountable. But if all you are about is partisan sniping, then don't whine when Trump's supporters fire bavk. We're not putting up with that bullshit anymore, and we're willing to burn everything to the ground to prove it.
It's reasonable to assume that the "relationship" BS was to humor the Court's liberals to get unanimity. The libs are probably pretending that "related" folks have a right to entry. This will serve to perpetuate their loony lib credentials, but will do nothing for separation of powers, the Constitution or the safety of the nation.
Nyamajul, I thought it also included the reverse - a Grandpa in America wanting his grandkids in one of the threat nations to come visit him here?
Why are leftists so eager to import Muslims who disagree with everything the left stands for these days ?
Is a puzzlement, as the KIng would say.
I'm a grandfather, and I'm convinced that most Times readers are complete idiots.
@Michael K
No, Muslims hate America, Christianity and Western Civ generally. That's a set of pretty big shared interests.
Most leftist leaders don't REALLY care about gays, women, etc. - those are just weapons to use against us.
Two years ago my niece died. I looked up the guidelines at my job for taking time off in the case of a death in the family (I think it was based on the Family Leave Act?) The list of qualifying relations was the same, if I remember correctly. So it seems to be a pretty standard definition.
... our government is being run by complete idiots.
Speaking as a person who was a government contractor during the terms of both Bushes, Clinton, and the first five years of Obama, I can assure you that the above statement has been true for some time, and based on the people I worked with from 2009 until 2014 it got substantially worse under Obama.
"Why so eager"
I would look at Europe and see how the Left is integrating the massive influx of radical Muslim into their socialist goals. It serves their purpose somehow. Maybe turning natives into foreigners in their own country, destroying culture and nationalism. Maybe inviting terror so voters will become dependent on an Orwellian Police State.
I don't know, but your answer is there somewhere. The autocratic class certainly seems to think the benefits of importing radical Muslim males outweighs the risks.
...the benefits of importing radical Muslim males outweighs the risks.
What's not to like? The 80% that stay on the dole for a lifetime or the second and third generations that revert back to their primitive nature and go on a killing spree?
The discussion here is about granting visas.
First, I didn't write the sentence you attributed to me, I only responded to it with a factual statement.
Second, people who come here on visas have a habit of overstaying them and absorbing into the illegal population.
Third, immigration is a subset of the issue.
There are people in San Bernardino who wish we had stronger vetting of immigrants a couple years ago. They're the ones who buried their loved ones back in December 2015. It's good to remember why we need immigration controls.
Blogger Michael K said...
"Why are leftists so eager to import Muslims who disagree with everything the left stands for these days ?"
Because the left doesn't actually believe in any of the things they say they believe in. They are more like the islamists than they are like classic liberals. They are as far from decent and tolerant and honest as it is possible to be.
I believe there is a law stating this...
Blogger rhhardin said...
Letting in ancestors falls victim to the population implosion.
There's 1 you. You have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 ggparents, 16 gggparents, 32 ggggparents, 64 gggggparents...
6/29/17, 4:11 PM
Funny you should mention that Hardin! I was thinking recently about the preposterous numbers of forebears required if you go back just 1000 years, assuming a generation every 20 years. The formula is 2 to the nth power, where n = the number of preceding generations. The only way I can think of to reduce the number of ancestors needed is an awful lot of incest. I would like to hear an explanation from someone who has put more thought into it.
Exactly what I predicted the rule would be 3 days ago, and it is directly connected to the court's decision- it was left to the administration to design the rule, and they picked the most rational one, nuclear family only.
And remember, this is mostly travel related, not immigration related. In other words, if you are a parent traveling to the US to see your children, you do not then gain the right to have your own parents visit you in the US.
AND Hawaii has sued about the definition of close family:
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/06/29/breaking-news/hawaii-challenges-family-rules-on-trumps-travel-ban/
Also, somewhat confusingly, the plaintiffs ask: "that the Government may not apply a presumption that aliens lack a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States."
Which would I suppose, if granted, shift the burden of demonstration from the applicant to the government to show that the applicant doesn't have such a relationship?
Let the games begin!!! I am rolling around in acute agony from tendonitis, and this brought a touch of levity into my sleep-deprived night.
You are supposed to be acquiring experience and wisdom as you age. How did he skip all that?
He reads the NYT.
Oso Negro, I ran calculations on that myself like 20 years ago. If I remember right, go back far enough (like 2000 years), and the average person alive at that time is your ancestor via more unique paths up your family tree than there are atoms in the universe. Maybe more than 2000 to get to that, but yeah, the numbers are that insane. We're ALL insanely inbred.
The courts, including a majority of the SC, are itching to make immigration policy, even legislation, to prevent Trump from doing so. The conservative three justices are trying to persuade their colleagues this can't really work--and the courts should go back to leaving this to the President, backed up by an Act of Congress. Otherwise it's up to the courts to decide which degrees of family relationship count? Or if this bogs down, just say no such criteria work, so everybody gets in? Students already admitted to school? Any school? Barbering school? Employees already hired? Any employer? Any coffee shop? Trump's campaign statements either shouldn't be considered relevant (like what a politician says when a bill is being debated--not likely to be first-class interpretation of legislative language, or a meaningful prediction of what the bill will achieve), or they should simply be taken as an indication that the President has national security in mind. End of story.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा