Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The US got this right.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The US got this right. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The US got this right. - 1/8/2013 3:36:36 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

Yeah, I see your point, and I'm open for suggestions as to a good term to distinguish the elitist vs beneathist flavors.


The word 'class' used to have some of the power to do that, at the time when Marx used it, but not now, I think. It was only when I was reading Peter Singer on 'speciesism' that I really *got* what Marx wanted to convey when he used the term 'class': that, really, 'the human race' is too much of a catch-all term: we need a way of articulating the phenomenon of one group of humans seeing another group of humans as so different it might as well be a 'different species'. Thus "Blacks just aren't humans in the same sense as we [whites] are" (a comment I actually overheard once).


_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: The US got this right. - 1/8/2013 4:44:34 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20935502

This man also has several aliases, one of which i have used on these boards. He is aka Tommy Robinson founder of the racist EDL.

Free speech or not, you have to worry if rabble like this have been invited to speak in the US.

So what was the purpose of the trip? Did he enter (illegally) to speak somewhere in the US that night?

Also, where has his trial taken place and where will he spend time in jail? in the US or the UK? It looks to me like he was charged & put on trial in the UK and I dont think they have the right to do that if the crime happened in the US.. he should be extradited to the US & stand trial there.. jmo

I did not realize it was that easy to enter the US just by using the self-check kiosk.. wow! lol And then he slipped out of their hands so easily at JFK.. double wow!


He was kicked out of the US for having criminal convictions. He was tried in the UK as he had broken UK law by travelling on someone elses passport. IE, he was tried where his journey started, not where it ended.

(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: The US got this right. - 1/8/2013 5:50:24 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

Yeah, I see your point, and I'm open for suggestions as to a good term to distinguish the elitist vs beneathist flavors.


The word 'class' used to have some of the power to do that, at the time when Marx used it, but not now, I think. It was only when I was reading Peter Singer on 'speciesism' that I really *got* what Marx wanted to convey when he used the term 'class': that, really, 'the human race' is too much of a catch-all term: we need a way of articulating the phenomenon of one group of humans seeing another group of humans as so different it might as well be a 'different species'. Thus "Blacks just aren't humans in the same sense as we [whites] are" (a comment I actually overheard once).



Tribal?

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: The US got this right. - 1/8/2013 9:04:03 PM   
tj444


Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
He was kicked out of the US for having criminal convictions. He was tried in the UK as he had broken UK law by travelling on someone elses passport. IE, he was tried where his journey started, not where it ended.

That was probably better for him (as long as the US doesnt extradite him later) to be in a UK jail than an American jail, probably a lighter sentence there too..

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: The US got this right. - 1/8/2013 9:18:47 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		That limited useage of race has no controlling authority today, no matter who misuses it.

"people of common descent," c.1500, from M.Fr. razza "race, breed, lineage," possibly from Italian razza, of unknown origin (cf. Spanish and Portuguese raza).
Original senses in English included "wines with characteristic flavor" (1520), "group of people with common occupation" (c.1500), and "generation" (c.1560). Meaning "tribe, nation, or people regarded as of common stock" is from c.1600. Modern meaning of "one of the great divisions of mankind based on physical peculiarities" is from 1774...
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=race&searchmode=none


race noun
1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology .
a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race?s=t

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow
KKK is a racist organization. Militant Islam is not a race.

Neither is Judaism, but the KKK is nearly as notorious for jewbashing as it is for its problem with uppity blacks.


No, Judaism is not a race.  A religion, a culture, a tribe, a nation.  But not a race.  There are some Jewish ethnic groups: the Mizrahi (from the Middle East and North Africa), the Sephardi (Spanish) and the Ashkenazi, (German, Polish, Russian and other Eastern European), the Beta Yisrael of Ethiopia, and the Cochin of India.  That idea that Judaism is a race was put forth by Adolph Hitler.  The KKK are twits. 



_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: The US got this right. - 1/9/2013 12:52:30 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

Yeah, I see your point, and I'm open for suggestions as to a good term to distinguish the elitist vs beneathist flavors.

Socially speaking, it's a more unified phenomenon, with the two flavors often cooccuring; like, if you're a Zionist, the Jews are above the Gentiles, and Arabs are beneath the regular Gentiles.

The unified phenomenon poses a single problem, hence me using a single term, but as usual it would be good to have a more precise one on hand, even if it'll shift over time (I sometimes wish that Haspelmath and Chomsky would do a collaborative work on semantic evolution in the same context as the Propaganda Model; it would be naïve to think it hasn't occured to Murdoch et al, and good to know more about its characteristics).

IWYW,
— Aswad.



What we are dealing with here in regard to the EDL is 'class' in the good old fashioned way Marx used it and how it is really valid today in all countries I've visted. Elites or 'upper classes' don't like using class because it immediately identifies economic advantages of one group and disadvantages of another along with who is exploiting who.

The EDL is a predominantly white working class group, the exact class that has been economically disadvantaged by excessive immigration which lowered wages and employment prospects of the working class (and for the black working class too). What the EDL see themselves defending is what they see as their birthright but what they don't see, in this time of globalisation, the idea of seeing ones national identity any more than incidental, is not keeping up with changing events. The EDL would be far more successful had they read a few more books, particularly Marx, then they could have articulated their anger into a reasoned debate that would have gained more supporters and scared the powers that be.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: The US got this right. - 1/9/2013 8:53:53 AM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

The EDL, a nasty lot in my mind.

He has been barred entry previously because the government may bar noncitizens from entering the United States because of what they've said or are likely to say, even if the speech would have been constitutionally protected if said by a citizen. See Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972).

So this time he tried to travel under a different name - a separate violation.

And trust me, we have enough citizens here who are nasty in the same way - and saying all of the same hateful stuff. No shortage of nasty. No shortage of hate....

From the pov of a Liberal I can't say I agree with Kleindienst v Mandel. Barring political, even racist provocateurs from entering the country while at the same time we allow the KKK to stage a parade seems a contradiction, and a paternalistic action by my Government. "Kleindienst" was born of fear of Communists for heaven's sake. Get over it. Americans have heard plenty of racist and political nonsense from our very own kooks. The fabric of the nation is not likely to be frayed by allowing extranational asswipes to speak here. Always up for a good comedy show.


Many other countries have entry requirements, and they are free to deny entry for any reason. How, by international law standards, is this any different?

For example, if you have DUI convictions in the U.S. that can prevent you from crossing the border in Canada. This doesn't mean that Canada sends Canadians with DUI convictions out of their own country. It doesn't mean Canadians with DUI convictions are not currently on the road. It just means Americans with DUI convictions can be denied entry. Do you really feel that countries do not have the right to determine what risks they are willing to take on, and to make a distinction between allowing "new", "foreign" risks in vs. handling home-grown risks of exactly the same nature? Just because Canadians with DUI convictions might be on Canadian highways/roads, do Canadians have to permit American drivers the same rights?

So what do you consider a valid reason to deny someone entry? Because other than entering without a visa or valid passport, nothing else, constitutionally would ever count. Even convictions of serious crimes would not count as a basis for denial of entry because certainly we have convicted rapists and murderers on the streets here, too. I just don't see why, for example, a murderer who has served his time in another country should be allowed into the U.S. simply because American murderers who have served their time are released back into society. I really don't see what the constitutional rights of our own citizens has to do with that. So again, I'm curious. What would constitute a valid reason to deny someone entry?


_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: The US got this right. - 1/9/2013 9:35:43 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
Many other countries have entry requirements, and they are free to deny entry for any reason. How, by international law standards, is this any different?

It isn't.
This is typical liberal handwringing over the fact that applying the law might be oppressing somebody.
Of course, a little thought would reveal that he isn't being repressed, and he's just having to face the consequences of his actions, so fuck him. With a big spikey cactus, and no lube.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: The US got this right. - 1/9/2013 9:52:24 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

. . . . so fuck him. With a big spikey cactus, and no lube.


Weather getting bad up there again, is it, Moony?

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: The US got this right. - 1/9/2013 12:08:50 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		Yep. And I've just scraped my hand up something rotten falling off a ladder. I might need to get a tetanus shot in the morning.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: The US got this right. - 1/9/2013 12:30:50 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Many other countries have entry requirements, and they are free to deny entry for any reason. How, by international law standards, is this any different?

It is different in one essential way. It is an issue of freedom of speech. Not the speech of this Brit fellow but the right of Americans to be free from censorship. Particularly political and religious censorship. The very First Amendment to our Constitution. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. I submit that SCOTUS succumbed to anti communist hysteria in 1972.

In Kleindienist, which you cited: "The alien had been found ineligible for admission under 212 (a) (28) (D) and (G) (v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, barring those who advocate or publish "the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism."

I don't give a rat's ass about Tommy Robinson. My concern is with the impediment of our rights to receive information and opinion even if it is distasteful. The right to hear freely is implicit in the right to speak freely.

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: The US got this right. - 1/9/2013 12:43:59 PM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Many other countries have entry requirements, and they are free to deny entry for any reason. How, by international law standards, is this any different?

It is different in one essential way. It is an issue of freedom of speech. Not the speech of this Brit fellow but the right of Americans to be free from censorship. Particularly political and religious censorship. The very First Amendment to our Constitution. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. I submit that SCOTUS succumbed to anti communist hysteria in 1972.

In Kleindienist, which you cited: "The alien had been found ineligible for admission under 212 (a) (28) (D) and (G) (v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, barring those who advocate or publish "the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism."

I don't give a rat's ass about Tommy Robinson. My concern is with the impediment of our rights to receive information and opinion even if it is distasteful. The right to hear freely is implicit in the right to speak freely.


Unless you think ideas are somehow grounded only in a particular individual of foreign nationality then I'm not sure I agree. As you yourself stated in your post we have plenty of people in the U.S. who agree with Tommy Robinson. And these ideas are floating all over the Internet. So how exactly are our rights to receive information and opinion impeded? Unless you feel the ONLY way to communicate information and opinion is for a person like Tommy Robinson to appear in person.

I had no problem opposing apartheid in South Africa without ever having met anyone South African or hearing Nelson Mandela speak in person. Ideas transcend individuals.

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: The US got this right. - 1/9/2013 12:51:13 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		I would agree.

In the realm of 'It all depends on what you mean by is', it is well settled that no right spelled out in the Constitution is literally unlimited.
The legal premise of reasonableness cuts both ways, so even freedom of speech has its limits when it exceeds a tipping point between public safety, etc.

But specifying 'communism' whether the idea or the ideology, as being on the same side of the scales as 'Kill the President', or 'Fire' in a croweded theater, is an absurdity.

Outside of that specific rational failure, if we let homegrown extremists vent up to the point that everyone can laugh at how foolish they are, surely visitors should be extended the same courtesy?


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Many other countries have entry requirements, and they are free to deny entry for any reason. How, by international law standards, is this any different?

It is different in one essential way. It is an issue of freedom of speech. Not the speech of this Brit fellow but the right of Americans to be free from censorship. Particularly political and religious censorship. The very First Amendment to our Constitution. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. I submit that SCOTUS succumbed to anti communist hysteria in 1972.

In Kleindienist, which you cited: "The alien had been found ineligible for admission under 212 (a) (28) (D) and (G) (v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, barring those who advocate or publish "the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism."

I don't give a rat's ass about Tommy Robinson. My concern is with the impediment of our rights to receive information and opinion even if it is distasteful. The right to hear freely is implicit in the right to speak freely.



< Message edited by Powergamz1 -- 1/9/2013 12:53:29 PM >

_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: The US got this right. - 1/9/2013 12:59:36 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Many other countries have entry requirements, and they are free to deny entry for any reason. How, by international law standards, is this any different?

It is different in one essential way. It is an issue of freedom of speech. Not the speech of this Brit fellow but the right of Americans to be free from censorship. Particularly political and religious censorship. The very First Amendment to our Constitution. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. I submit that SCOTUS succumbed to anti communist hysteria in 1972.

In Kleindienist, which you cited: "The alien had been found ineligible for admission under 212 (a) (28) (D) and (G) (v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, barring those who advocate or publish "the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism."

I don't give a rat's ass about Tommy Robinson. My concern is with the impediment of our rights to receive information and opinion even if it is distasteful. The right to hear freely is implicit in the right to speak freely.


Unless you think ideas are somehow grounded only in a particular individual of foreign nationality then I'm not sure I agree. As you yourself stated in your post we have plenty of people in the U.S. who agree with Tommy Robinson. And these ideas are floating all over the Internet. So how exactly are our rights to receive information and opinion impeded? Unless you feel the ONLY way to communicate information and opinion is for a person like Tommy Robinson to appear in person.

I had no problem opposing apartheid in South Africa without ever having met anyone South African or hearing Nelson Mandela speak in person. Ideas transcend individuals.

I think the advocate lends texture to the idea. The current example on our side of the pond is Alex Jones advocacy for gun rights. It is one thing to read of the ideas but another to get a sense of the additional dimensions and ramafications that surround them. I know very little about the issue of immigration and racism in the UK except I have the impression their issue is different from ours because of their involvement with the EU and because from what I read about 50% of our British cousins would vote to leave the EU. If Tommy Robinson's rhetoric is part of that larger issue we shoud hear it.

Citizens of other nations claim Americans are isolated and ignorant of the rest of the world. I think there is a truth in that. We are cocooned by two oceans and a selective Media. Events and opinions in other nations are too distant from us. The more direct contact we have the better as far as I am concerned. The more we travel the better. And the more travelers we receive the better. To have ideas filtered to us by Corporate Media is less than satisfactory, imo.

< Message edited by vincentML -- 1/9/2013 1:01:31 PM >

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: The US got this right. - 1/9/2013 1:47:13 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline 		For once, we agree, vincentML.

It is better to allow the message to be transmitted in full, in person. Hell, if he's anything like the nutjobs we have where I live, it will be even more obvious that he's a nutjob when heard and seen in person, which makes for firm resistance to his ideas, rather than a lukewarm ambivalence. You either trust people to decide for themselves, or you throw democracy out the window along with anything resembling freedom.

If one is concerned about public good, have a counterpropaganda office to argue against "dangerous" ideas.

And while you're at it, redefine "free speech" into "free communication", explicitly mentioning "one to one", "one to (m)any", "many to one" and "many to many", that exhaustively, so that it will never be unclear what is meant by this freedom ever again. Let the exemptions be limited to a simple "you can't shove it down my throat" thing, i.e. listening being optional. If you're really ambitious, put privacy in there along with the rest. You can shave one in ten dollars off your national budget in the process if you do that, I expect.

I speak up against a lot of crap. Legislating against it is a different matter entirely.

ETA: In the process, you might get a sense of just how dangerous the world is getting as a consequence of the economic effects of your national and international politics, and it might also be clearer how your own right wing resembles something you might more clearly recognize as downright fascistoid sentiments elsewhere.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


< Message edited by Aswad -- 1/9/2013 1:50:06 PM >

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: The US got this right. - 1/9/2013 2:09:45 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
If Tommy Robinson's rhetoric is part of that larger issue we shoud hear it.


I wouldn't count on anything intelligent enough to call 'rhetoric'.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: The US got this right. - 1/9/2013 2:34:52 PM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Many other countries have entry requirements, and they are free to deny entry for any reason. How, by international law standards, is this any different?

It is different in one essential way. It is an issue of freedom of speech. Not the speech of this Brit fellow but the right of Americans to be free from censorship. Particularly political and religious censorship. The very First Amendment to our Constitution. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. I submit that SCOTUS succumbed to anti communist hysteria in 1972.

In Kleindienist, which you cited: "The alien had been found ineligible for admission under 212 (a) (28) (D) and (G) (v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, barring those who advocate or publish "the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism."

I don't give a rat's ass about Tommy Robinson. My concern is with the impediment of our rights to receive information and opinion even if it is distasteful. The right to hear freely is implicit in the right to speak freely.



p.s. vincent, a couple of things. One, I think I overstated when I described the Robinson denial of entry in 2010 as being due solely to his views (and in doing so I feel I misrepresented the true holding of Kleindienst). Was in a rush and dashed off a response without being careful. Happens. I have not been able to determine specifically why Robinson was refused entry in 2010. For the record, in 2010 all other EDL members traveling with him were allowed entry and were allowed to participate in the protest they had come to attend. However, under Kleindienst, the government only needs specific and legitimate reasons (see below) to deny someone a waiver or deny someone entry.

Two, I would appreciate knowing why you disagree with Kleindienst. Here is my reading of the case:

The plaintiff-appellee in this case, Mandel, an American, had invited a Belgian journalist to speak at a conference. The journalist was found ineligible for admission by the Immigration act. Mandel then sought to compel Attorney General Kleindienst to waive ineligibility (which the Attorney General has the power to do under the Immigration Act - in other words, the Attorney General waive the act's rule and agree to allow the foreign journalist into the U.S. to speak. Attorney General Kleindienst declined to waive ineligibility because on a previous visit by the same journalist to the U.S., where the journalist received a waiver, he engaged in unscheduled activities that went beyond the scope of the waiver. The same journalist had visited the U.S. twice previously under waivers both times. Only the third time was a waiver not granted because he did not comply with the terms of the waiver.

Specifically, it had been determined that the 1968 activities while in the United States "went far beyond the stated purposes of his trip, on the basis of which his admission had been authorized and represented a flagrant abuse of the opportunities afforded him to express his views in this country." The letter concluded that favorable exercise of discretion, provided for under the Act, was not warranted and that Mandel's temporary admission was not authorized.

In the opinion of the Supreme Court if you look at section V Kleindienst decision it sounds to me like the Supreme Court does go through all of the constitutional law dealing with Congressional authority over non-citizens. It also makes very clear that the appellees felt the First Amendment claim should prevail, at least where no justification is advanced for denial of a waiver. But the court goes on to state that the Attorney General did inform Mandel's counsel of the reason for refusing him a waiver and that that reason was facially legitimate and bona fide. The government asked the court to hand down a broader decision, namely that Congress had delegated the waiver decision to the Executive in its sole and unfettered discretion, and any reason or no reason may be given but the court actually chose NOT to grant the government that authority because they didn't have to in order to decide this case. In this case the Attorney General had given specific and legitimate reasons for denying the waiver.

The specific facts of this case don't seem that egregious to me. The man was allowed to enter the country twice to talk about his ideas under waivers. The second time he overstepped the scope of his visa. So the third time he tried to enter the country he was not given a waiver.

It should also be noted that although he was declined entry to the country, Mandel's address to the New York meeting was delivered by transatlantic telephone. His ideas were certainly not barred from the country.

So the specific thing the court decided was the narrow issue of whether the First Amendment gave the appellees the right to force the Attorney General to admit someone into the country and the court stated that the Attorney General is not required to allow someone to enter the country when the Attorney General has a legitimate reason (in this case the violation of the visa requirements during the second visit).

It seems to me that the journalist was given ample opportunity to speak his mind. It was his own choice to engage in activities outside of the scope of his entry visa. A similar example would be someone entering the U.S. on a tourist visa is not authorized to work in the U.S. Visas are always granted with restrictions. I don't see how entry allows someone to do whatever they feel like, and then not pay the consequences for that. When you go to a foreign country do you feel you can violate the terms of your entry? For example, if the visa is only valid for 14 days, are you entitled to stay longer?

Am I misreading this case?

And if not, and if I read all of this correctly, there are extenuating circumstances preventing Robinson from entering the country - it is not solely his views, as other EDL members were allowed entry in 2010. It must have to do with other things he has done, either here or in the U.K. that the U.S. feels is legitimate enough to deny him entry despite the impact of the First Amendment rights of people in the U.S.







< Message edited by fucktoyprincess -- 1/9/2013 2:35:28 PM >

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: The US got this right. - 1/9/2013 4:25:21 PM   
tj444


Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
My concern is with the impediment of our rights to receive information and opinion even if it is distasteful. The right to hear freely is implicit in the right to speak freely.

Isnt that basically what Assange was doing??? free speech.. except at least one politician (was it Biden?) was calling him a "terrorist" cuz of it..

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: The US got this right. - 1/9/2013 4:53:37 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

Isnt that basically what Assange was doing??? free speech.. except at least one politician (was it Biden?) was calling him a "terrorist" cuz of it..


The Assange thing was a disgrace, whatever one might say about the man himself.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: The US got this right. - 1/9/2013 5:12:12 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		Lest we forget, Tommy Robinson was refused entry for one reason. He has been to prison for violent offences.

On a personal level I would be fine if he had been refused entry for being a racist shit. Just as I would be fine if a Muslim firebrand was refused entry for the same reason.

One EDL member explaining his reasoning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32qQGLVHiHk

(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The US got this right. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109