Balkinization: US to rest of world: Don't even think of having any international events in the US

Comments:

I was born and grew up in Boston, attending public schools, college, law school practiced law in an office downtown, and moved to Brookline [surrounded on about three sides by Boston] after getting married to a location closer to my office than when I lived in Boston. At heart I am a Bostonian. I, too, was thankful that Boston rejected the Olympics primarily for logistical problems, in particular traffic and transportation issues. As many in MA do, I look back with pride that MA did not vote for Nixon in 1972. But if Sandy is correct regarding international events, that would be a big loss for the Boston area as well as for such events with the attributes offered in the Boston area..

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:34 PM

The UN still will hold events here. Maybe it is the parking privileges.

# posted by

Joe : 5:11 PM

Sandy: Can anyone possibly believe, for example, that we will effectively protect ourselves against the possibility of a terorrist entering the US simply by denying entry to anyone from, say, Syria or Libya?

What were the nations of origin of the vast majority of those who have committed terrorist attacks or have been convicted of planning terrorist attacks in the United States?

Prophylactic bars to immigration (with case by case exceptions) from nations controlled by the enemy is historically American SOP during wartime.

If FDR were president today, would he follow Trump or Obama's immigration policy? Be honest with yourself.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:53 PM

With the coming crackdown on immigrant work visas, looks like we'll get to see what MLB will look like without all the players from Latin America and Asia.

# posted by

Unknown : 7:08 PM

The totally dishonest SPAM I AM!'s " Be honest with yourself." Sad.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:14 PM

Shag:

Do you ever have anything relevant and useful to contribute to any discussion?

Sad old man.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:12 PM

:Shag:

Do you ever have anything relevant and useful to contribute to any discussion?

Sad old man.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:12 PM

You might be the least self aware person on the planet.

Sad middle aged fuckwit.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 2:11 AM

Actually, I do recall that once or twice he's had something substantive to contribute. Maybe a 10th of a percent of the time he sets aside the cutesy names an insults, and actually has something to say. Been a while, though. But Bartbuster's record as a dedicated internet stalker is unbroken.

Anyway, on the OP, of course it's worth erecting barriers to terrorists that might theoretically be overcome with enough extra effort. On the margin it can cause the terrorists to attack someplace else. Hard on someplace else, I admit, but, hey, America first.

Why is the terrorism rate so much lower in the US, than in Europe? Because Europe is easier to get to from where most of the terrorism has been originating, of course. And it's not originating in Canada.

While still permitting immigration from non-terrorist states, (And I'm disappointed that Saudi Arabia managed to stay off the list, they're largely responsible for this problem.) we will have to be careful we don't allow terrorist to enter the US via a third country. But that's a lot easier task than dealing with a flow of people half of whom approve of terrorism.

Sandy, your call for an international boycott of travel to the US in response to the election not going the way you wanted is just pathetic. What's next? I'm sure you'll think of something, and I'm sure it will be silly.

I miss the old, sensible Sandy Levinson, before the TDS went metastatic.

# posted by

Brett : 5:37 AM

I miss the old Brett who went International [in the manner of Trump?] to repair his despondency following a divorce blaming his own lawyer and leading to his trolling on legal blogs. Why, if Brett dispairs with the fascist [per SPAM] Trump, he can sail off to his spouse's Philippines for a stronger leader.

Brettbart (the really, really "unBreit") continue their tag team trolling for the benefit of Trump, America's first [America First?] PG* President. Trump got into the James Bond series with his own "To Russia With Love" presidential campaign. Trump as President then preened at his Inaugural as "Goldfinger" [with short fingers, of course, but with Pussy Galore on his team. [Hint: KC]

But the Trump Administration is playing out more like "Dr. Strangelove," cheered on by Brettbart (the really, really "unBreit").

* Access Hollywood tapes [Note; Trump was an immature 60 years old at the time, under understandable strain as his spouse Melania was late in her pregnancy with their son Barron, realizing the need for a Tic Tac for his celebrity libido.]

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:02 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:18 AM

HuffPost claims to have read a draft of the upcoming Trump order on refugees, which they summarize as follows:

Block refugee admissions from the war-torn country of Syria indefinitely.

Suspend refugee admissions from all countries for 120 days. After that period, the U.S. will only accept refugees from countries jointly approved by the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department and the Director of National Intelligence.

Cap total refugee admissions for fiscal year 2017 at 50,000 ― less than half of the 110,000 proposed by the Obama administration.

Ban for 30 days all “immigrant and nonimmigrant” entry of individuals from countries designated in Division O, Title II, Section 203 of the 2016 consolidated appropriations act: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. These countries were targeted last year in restrictions on dual nationals’ and recent travelers’ participation in the visa waiver program.

Suspend visa issuance to countries of “particular concern.” After 60 days, DHS, the State Department and DNI are instructed to draft a list of countries that don’t comply with requests for information. Foreign nationals from those countries will be banned from entering the U.S.

Establish “safe zones to protect vulnerable Syrian populations.” The executive order tasks the secretary of defense with drafting a plan for safe zones in Syria within 90 days. This would be be an escalation of U.S. involvement in Syria and could be the first official indication of how Trump will approach the conflict there.

Expedite the completion of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all visitors to the U.S. and require in-person interviews for all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa.

Suspend the visa interview waiver program indefinitely and review whether existing reciprocity agreements are reciprocal in practice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/read-draft-text-trump-executive-order-muslim-entry_us_5888fe00e4b0024605fd591d

The only bar of entry is from Syria with an accompanying order to plan safe zones for these refugees.
There is also a 30 suspension for various nations who sponsor or have active terrorist wars.

None of this is controversial. I suspect these approaches would be very popular among Europeans and will likely become a campaign issues in France and Germany.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:20 AM

"nations controlled by the enemy"

What nations does "the enemy" control?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 12:17 PM

"I'm disappointed that Saudi Arabia managed to stay off the list"

A strong case could be made for the Philipinnes, which is where your wife is from, correct? If we had a policy that barred immigration from there when your wife was seeking entry imagine how that would have effected you and her.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 12:22 PM

Indeed, if there were any sign that the Philippines was actually a source of terrorists, rather than merely being beset with them, you'd have a point.

Key point here: The Philippines have a functioning legal system, if the US consulate asks for any records concerning a visa applicant, they get them, and with no particular reason to suspect they're faked. And even so, an applicant from, say, Davao, might have trouble getting a visa.

Many of the countries on the terrorism watch list, such as Syria, don't even have control over their own territory, and complying with information requests on people leaving is way, way down the priorities list even when possible. Quite a different situation.

# posted by

Brett : 12:34 PM

"Many of the countries on the terrorism watch list, such as Syria, don't even have control over their own territory,"

Many? So is the criteria 'control over territory' or something else? If it's something else, like having a recent history of lots of Islamic terrorism, then the Philippines should count.

It's interesting how when it's your life and happiness is at issue you're motivated to much more parsing and specific.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 12:47 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:52 PM

BD: "nations controlled by the enemy"

Mr. W: What nations does "the enemy" control?

In a conventional war, these would include the enemy and enemy occupied nations.

In asymmetric warfare, these would include nations with substantial terrorist operations or a history of being used as terrorist travel conduits. A number of these would include our nominal allies.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:52 PM

"So is the criteria 'control over territory' or something else?"

We rely on authorities in the country you're coming from to supply the information necessary for vetting visa applicants. If a country is incapable of supplying such information, because the territory in which the records would be found are held by enemy forces, or would have a significant chance of being generated by enemy forces, or if it is unwilling to do the work, vetting becomes impossible, no matter who much we say we do it.

The Philippines do not fall into that category, as yet. Syria certainly does.

# posted by

Brett : 1:11 PM

What nations does "the enemy" control?

Russia.

# posted by

Mark Field : 2:18 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:41 PM

Mark:

Russia and China are currently rivals. Neither are at war with us.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:34 PM

"In a conventional war, these would include the enemy and enemy occupied nations.

In asymmetric warfare"

What you're doing here, and you seem aware of it albeit a low level, is taking what might be uncontroversial practice in conventional wars and trying to shoehorn it to a very different kind of conflict. That shoehorning is full of assumptions not argued, much less shown.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 4:13 PM

" If a country is incapable of supplying such information"

Your answer shows its overinclusive. The Syrian government could supply records of Alawite Muslims that have long lived in firmly held government controlled areas.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 4:17 PM

Let's note that the policy as described and defended by Bart would have denied entry to Jews, Roma, Jehovah Witnesses, etc., fleeing Nazi Germany during WWII. It appears to doom Alawite and Sufi Muslims as well as Christians trying to flee Syria. That's the shameful stance of a nation acting out of fera rather than strength and pride in ourselves and ideals.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 4:26 PM

Mr. W: What you're doing here, and you seem aware of it albeit a low level, is taking what might be uncontroversial practice in conventional wars and trying to shoehorn it to a very different kind of conflict.

Conventional and asymmetric warfare differ in scale and tactics, but enemy forces in both levels of conflict occupy territory. Freely admitting people from such territory is brain dead bordering on insanity.

BD: Prophylactic bars to immigration (with case by case exceptions) from nations controlled by the enemy is historically American SOP during wartime.

Mr. W: Let's note that the policy as described and defended by Bart would have denied entry to Jews, Roma, Jehovah Witnesses, etc., fleeing Nazi Germany during WWII. It appears to doom Alawite and Sufi Muslims as well as Christians trying to flee Syria.

Once again, you do not understand the plain English language of or are willfully misrepresenting what I post.

During wartime, Americans have made exceptions for refugees fleeing enemy persecution. The execution of this exception was imperfect to be sure (See the SS St Louis during WWII), but it existed.

We had a lengthy discussion some weeks ago where you criticized my proposal to allow the Jews and Christians persecuted by Muslim nations and terrorist caliphates to enter the United States as refugees.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:35 PM

What nations does "the enemy" control?

Russia.

And thus the US, apparently.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 5:39 PM

We have met the enemy and he is us.

# posted by

Mark Field : 5:57 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:46 PM

Asymmetric warfare differs from conventional in many ways that may practices appropriate to respond to the latter may not be the former. Here, 'holding territory' is very different from an asymmetric force compared to a conventional one, the former's 'control' is usually more tenuous, irregular, of a different nature. Note that our asymmetric foes hold relatively little territory, and that's little related to their threat.

And your citation of 'case by case' exceptions wouldn't have helped the poor people of the St.Louis, who were generally persecuted, just like refugees from the areas you want to bar (unless, of course, they're from a group you tribally connect with-so much for 'case by case' as you shift your principles to fit your prejudices). Everyone is for letting yesterday's St Louis dock...

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:04 PM

SPAM I AM! engages in asymmetric commentary.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:11 PM

Seriously, how would either Bart or Brett's proposed plans offer any hope to the Jewish refugees of the St. Louis?

Brett says he'll rely on whether the government of the country the refugee is fleeing can provide adequate records vetting them. So would the Jews of the St. Louis have their fate depend on the Nazi government providing us with that?

Bart's plan is that everyone under enemy control gets barred. The Jews of the St. Louis were under Nazi controlled areas (that's why they fled!). And how does 'case by case' exceptions help? The Jews of the St. Louis were generally fearful of their lives because the Nazis targeted Jews in general. Likewise, Alawite, Sufi, Shiite Muslims are fleeing the areas that Bart, Brett and Trump would bar refugees because ISIS related forces are generally killing Alawite, Sufi and Shiite Muslims. To reject them as you loudly claim you would have allowed those on the St. Louis is to place tribalism and/or a need to avoid the embarrassment of history's lessons over anything resembling principle as I can see.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:22 PM

Mr. W: Asymmetric warfare differs from conventional in many ways that may practices appropriate to respond to the latter may not be the former. Here, 'holding territory' is very different from an asymmetric force compared to a conventional one, the former's 'control' is usually more tenuous, irregular, of a different nature. Note that our asymmetric foes hold relatively little territory, and that's little related to their threat.

The primary difference for our purposes in determining who to allow into the United States is that terrorists generally pose a civilians. How and to what extent they control territory in the source nation is irrelevant.

Bart's plan is that everyone under enemy control gets barred. The Jews of the St. Louis were under Nazi controlled areas (that's why they fled!). And how does 'case by case' exceptions help?

By definition, case by case exceptions does not mean that "everyone under enemy control gets barred."

And your citation of 'case by case' exceptions wouldn't have helped the poor people of the St.Louis, who were generally persecuted, just like refugees from the areas you want to bar...

Actually, Jews fleeing Nazi Europe posed almost no practical enemy identification problem because Nazis did not pose as Jews.

Likewise, Jews and Christians fleeing today's Islamic genocide pose almost no practical enemy identification problem because Muslim terrorists do not pose as Jews and Christians.

Where we have an enemy identification problem is admitting Muslims from terrorist nations in which Muslim terrorists generally pose as civilians.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 7:41 PM

"My boy, we are pilgrims in an unholy land."

- Professor Henry Jones

Nah. We are living in it. Just seems a bit more unholy lately.

# posted by

Joe : 7:45 PM

Mr. W, In the early 1920s US immigration laws were changed to severely limit the admission of refugees from certain areas.

A recent book addressed efforts to deport some of the poor and uneducated in America in the 19th century by various states aime at the Irish whom came here as a result of the famine in Ireland.

Turning back Jews from Germany in the 1930s was part of the then America First movement.

Go back to the first arrivals way back when, people who had been persecuted for religious beliefs. Some of them challenged subsequent groups on religious grounds.

Why some ethnic groups that came here and were not treated fairly were opposed to new arrivals of their own ethnicity.

America's history has had some common threads going back to the early 1600s on treatment of the "Other." That's what Trump is trying to do now.

We learned as children about the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island and the values they offered. Sometimes those values are forgotten. When things don't go as planned, balme the "Other." But for those values, how can America be great?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:58 PM

you said the SOP was to bar entry to those in enemy controlled territory but with case by case exceptions. So which is going to save the St. Louis Jews, Bart? Or are you, ever Proteus, changing your proposed principle to something based on identification error troubles?

And, Can you site an example of a Sunni Muslim terrorist that posed as Alawite, Sufi or Shiite Muslim? If not, then there goes your distinction there, such that it is.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 8:01 PM

Bart: "Conventional and asymmetric warfare differ in scale and tactics, but enemy forces in both levels of conflict occupy territory."

Bart: "How and to what extent they control territory in the source nation is irrelevant."

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 8:04 PM

"Turning back Jews from Germany in the 1930s was part of the then America First movement."

Good point Shag.

It's easy with historical hindsight to see the St. Louis travesty for what it was. Jews are no longer the Other for the Right, so they'd like to ignore the historical embarrassment of being on the wrong side of history on that. But I don't want to be on the right side of history fifty years after the fact, but today. I don't see any distinction between the Jew fleeing the general persecution of Nazi controlled Germany and the Alawite or Sufi Muslim fleeing the general persecution of Alawites and Sufi's by ISIS. At least no distinction that's not morally odious...

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 8:23 PM

Mr. W: you said the SOP was to bar entry to those in enemy controlled territory but with case by case exceptions. So which is going to save the St. Louis Jews, Bart?

Ummm, the case by case exceptions? Is this really that hard to understand?

Or are you, ever Proteus, changing your proposed principle to something based on identification error troubles?

The relative ease in in distinguishing Christians and Jews from Islamic terrorists is the reason for the exception.

And, Can you site an example of a Sunni Muslim terrorist that posed as Alawite, Sufi or Shiite Muslim? If not, then there goes your distinction there, such that it is.

The Islamic fascist movement includes folks from all the branches of Islam.

Bart: "Conventional and asymmetric warfare differ in scale and tactics, but enemy forces in both levels of conflict occupy territory."

Bart: "How and to what extent they control territory in the source nation is irrelevant."

Allow me to draw this out in crayon for you.

ISIS operates in Syria regardless of whether it controls just the city of Palmyra or the entire national territory.

ISIS terrorists can join the refugee flow from Syria regardless of what parts of Syria ISIS controls.

It's easy with historical hindsight to see the St. Louis travesty for what it was. Jews are no longer the Other for the Right, so they'd like to ignore the historical embarrassment of being on the wrong side of history on that.

The Right?

:::shakes head:::

Try again, hero.

In 1939, FDR refused the Jews on the St. Louis entry into the United States after they telegraphed him personally begging for sanctuary. That progressive icon was afraid of losing votes in the 1940 election if he showed them any mercy. The Democrat Congress refused to vote on a bipartisan sponsored bill allowing these men and women sanctuary.

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005267

You on the Left completely own this morally odious act like you do the later internment of Japanese Americans.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:42 PM

"Seriously, how would either Bart or Brett's proposed plans offer any hope to the Jewish refugees of the St. Louis?"

Wake me when a ship full of Syrian Christians arrives. Today the more likely scenario is that a ship of mixed refugees leaves, and halfway through the voyage the Christians are thrown overboard. (No Jews get thrown overboard because the genocide of Jews in Syria is essentially complete, nobody left to flee.)

Last week's refugee policy was to admit blond, blue eyes Aryans fleeing WWII, while turning back the Jews. That's how bad it was.

# posted by

Brett : 5:46 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 8:24 AM

Brett, how do you imagine your post is relevant to what we're talking about? Maybe speak to the point: the difference between the Jews fleeing general persecution from the Nazis and Alawite or Sufi Muslims fleeing general persecution from ISIL.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 8:28 AM

One learns to cringe a little before deciding to actually click on a source Brett supplies, because what he takes from it is usually so bizarre and tortured.

Here Brett links to a story about an altercation off the coast of Italy where some Sunni Muslims migrants from North Africa threw some Christians from North Africa over a boat.

So Brett thinks an article about bad behavior by Sunni North African Muslims fleeing North Africa is dispositive about what to do about Alawite and Sufi Muslims fleeing Sunni Muslim terrorism in Syria.

It's like saying because Nigerian Catholics did something bad we should let Serbian Orthodox Christians into the U.S.. Tells one a lot about how Brett and his ilk think about these issues.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 8:38 AM

Should not let Serbian...
That is

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 8:39 AM

You're invoking 'case by case exceptions' to cover entire groups like Jews and Christians, you really can't see how laughable that is?

And you argue that this 'case by case general exception' is based on the ease of differentiating Jews and Christians from ISIL terrorists because there's no evidence of terrorists posing as Jews or Christians to gain entry. Yet you cannot produce any evidence of ISIL terrorists posing as Alawite or Sufi Muslims either. So you've no basis or principle for excluding them. At least none that's not a morally odious one.

Your attempt to pin on 'the Left' the St. Louis affair because FDR bowed to the American First sentiment strongest on the Right is typically obtuse. It's like saying the firing of Jocelyn Elders came from 'the Left.'

Here and now we have the equivalent of the St. Louis, entire groups of refugees fleeing general persecution. And which side is trying to keep them from docking is plain for all to see.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 8:41 AM

Mr. W: You're invoking 'case by case exceptions' to cover entire groups like Jews and Christians, you really can't see how laughable that is?

Refugees are vetted individually. Case by case. Get it?

Your attempt to pin on 'the Left' the St. Louis affair because FDR bowed to the American First sentiment strongest on the Right is typically obtuse..

Please.

By 1939, the progressive Democrats ran every branch of the federal government and a majority of the electorate were Democrats. FDR and his Democrat Congress and no one else turned the Jewish refugees away.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:51 AM

"Refugees are vetted individually. Case by case. Get it?"

And so plans to grant access or deny access to entire groups, as Trump, Brett and yourself have argued, doesn't fit in with that. Christian, Jew, Alawite, Sufi, whatever, denial or access should be based on individual circumstances. That's the point.

"
FDR and his Democrat Congress and no one else turned the Jewish refugees away. "

Just like Clinton fired Elders. But how obtuse to say Elders was fired because 'the Left' opposed her.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 8:58 AM

Bart: "my proposal to allow the Jews and Christians"

Bart: "Refugees are vetted individually. Case by case"

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:02 AM

It's case by case exceptions which apply generally to the groups Jews and Christians but generally not to the group Muslims.

Alternative facts and understandings I guess!

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:06 AM

"the difference between the Jews fleeing general persecution from the Nazis"

Good lord, you actually wrote that?

# posted by

Brett : 9:09 AM

Mr. W:

I'll bet you get this response a lot...

https://youtu.be/C5rJ4g9EMUk

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:10 AM

Yes I did Brett. What, do want to argue that an Alawite or Sufi Muslim facing torture and death from ISIL is somehow worth less concern than a Jew facing torture and death from the Nazis?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:22 AM

Bart, 'case by case exceptions' applying generally to groups is laughingly beyond Orwellian.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:23 AM

Mr. W: Bart, 'case by case exceptions' applying generally to groups is laughingly beyond Orwellian.

You mean like FDR and Truman's case by case screening of Jewish refugees from Nazi Europe?

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007094

Give it up, dude.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:48 AM

If it's case by case then it would be generally applied. Words have meanings.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 10:19 AM

And now you're pointing to the guy who turned around the St. Louis?

Like Carmen San Diego you're all over the place.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 10:24 AM

Mr. W:

I do not know why I bother, but one last time...

How do you determine if an individual belongs to a group allowed entry into the United States unless you individually screen them?

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:28 AM

On the international front, it might be helpful if countries sent the new powers that be a video introducing their country. The Netherlands helpfully provides an example:

https://youtu.be/ELD2AwFN9Nc

# posted by

Joe : 10:29 AM

Lol, are you saying the 'case by case' vetting would have been to be whether the people on the St Loius were Jews or that a Syian refugee is a Christian?

Do you not get that that is a policy of *general* admittance of some groups and denial of others (all shown to be Christians and Jews let in, others not) and what you're calling 'case by case exceptions' is vetting eligibility for the group policy?

Holy crap.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 10:42 AM

"Holy Crap"

Brett linked to something from years ago recently and three people here were among those who commented. So, you know, we are familiar with the sort of thing people say around here. Used to the general trend. The true "holy crap" is they invaded the asylum, so to speak.

# posted by

Joe : 12:04 PM

The defenses of the refugee "policy" are particularly unprincipled because the list of countries (a) omits the homeland of the 9/11 attackers; and (b) omits any Muslim country where Trump does business.

# posted by

Mark Field : 12:23 PM

BD: How do you determine if an individual belongs to a group allowed entry into the United States unless you individually screen them?

Mr. W: Lol, are you saying the 'case by case' vetting would have been to be whether the people on the St Loius were Jews or that a Syian refugee is a Christian?

Really, really.

People do not come with bar codes on their foreheads with all the relevant information. You actually have to speak with them individually, case by case.

what you're calling 'case by case exceptions' is vetting eligibility for the group policy?

I think you are actually beginning to get it!

https://youtu.be/IUZEtVbJT5c

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:33 PM

Bart, when normal people use the English language 'case by case exceptions' means individual cases treated differently than the general policy because of specially shown circumstances. Your using the term to mean 'all of group X and Y get A treatment, none of group B and C do, but we have to look at each person to know which group they're in!' Lewis Carrol on drugs couldn't think up such nonsense.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 12:43 PM

"(b) omits any Muslim country where Trump does business."

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

# posted by

Joe : 1:00 PM

Think of it this way, in many government programs some group of persons with certain general characteristics in common (like, having an income below a certain threshold) can receive the benefit while those outside the group cannot. But of course you have to establish whether any given potential recipient falls into the first group. But no normal use of English would say the program is administered 'case by case.'

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 1:01 PM