Before Entering US, Travelers May Have To Provide Their Social Media Passwords, Suggests DHS Head

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

I think that term is generally referring to Facebook, Twitter, etc. The most popular platforms. At least, that would be the sites and platforms they'd mostly be targeting. They wouldn't go too granular, unless you were for some reason already flagged.

I've been questioned as to why I'm wearing a long sleeved shirt and jeans on a sunny day when crossing the border, so anything's possible.

 

 

In practice, yes, they'll be targeting the most popular social media sites. But the term "social media" refers to a tech platform with a community or discussion or other social aspect. LTT Forum is just as much a social media platform as Facebook is, under the actual definition of the word.

 

I always love it when someone says they don't have a social media account, while posting on a social media account

[knightslugger]

35 minutes ago, stconquest said:

What is Anti-American?

 

You also implied the US constitution does not apply to any non US citizen (on US soil).  Can you please explain how that works?

"Death to America!" i would consider anti-american... Not saying that's what was on the phone, but that's not what you asked.

 

It works as we are a sovereign nation with our own laws, which which we daw our power to create law through the constitution which only applies to the citizens of the United States of America. If we create a law that says "it shall be unlawful for any person to eat a lollipop on sunday after 1pm" it only applies to US citizens, and not say, A German, or an Aussie, or Japanese in their country, just as their laws do not apply to us. We are not their citizens, they are not our citizens.

 

Our laws still apply even if we are not on American soil. If i murder another american in England, i'm still on the hook for it here in the states.

 

pretty straight forward.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

"Death to America!" i would consider anti-american... Not saying that's what was on the phone, but that's not what you asked.

 

It works as we are a sovereign nation with our own laws, which which we daw our power to create law through the constitution which only applies to the citizens of the United States of America. If we create a law that says "it shall be unlawful for any person to eat a lollipop on sunday after 1pm" it only applies to US citizens, and not say, A German, or an Aussie, or Japanese in their country, just as their laws do not apply to us. We are not their citizens, they are not our citizens.

 

pretty straight forward.

There's one flaw with your argument.

 

The 14th Amendment to the US constitution grants protections to non-citizens.

https://ricochet.com/archives/constitutional-rights-for-non-citizens/

 

Now, you only hold these protections and rights while within America and on American Soil. So no, American laws and the US Constitution doesn't apply to a German in Germany. But if that German is sitting on a bus in New York City, then yes, the Constitution does apply to him.

 

Keep in mind, many parts of the constitution specifically mention a citizen as part of the specific text or section. So one section might make a differentiation between Citizens and Residents, while another section applies to anyone, even if they aren't a Citizen.

[Michael McAllister]

2 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

"Death to America!" i would consider anti-american... Not saying that's what was on the phone, but that's not what you asked.

 

It works as we are a sovereign nation with our own laws, which which we daw our power to create law through the constitution which only applies to the citizens of the United States of America. If we create a law that says "it shall be unlawful for any person to eat a lollipop on sunday after 1pm" it only applies to US citizens, and not say, A German, or an Aussie, or Japanese in their country, just as their laws do not apply to us. We are not their citizens, they are not our citizens.

 

pretty straight forward.

 

That is in no way related to this situation so I'm not sure why you would bring it up.  Of course, phrases like that would be of concern.  Harmless mosque pictures do not fall into that category.

[ThinkWithPortals]

So, what happens if I tell them, truthfully, that I don't have a Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/Whatever account? Will they think I'm lying? How can they prove me wrong? How do I prove myself right? What's to stop people just saying they don't have an account? There are so many problems with this.

[knightslugger]

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

There's one flaw with your argument.

 

The 14th Amendment to the US constitution grants protections to non-citizens.

https://ricochet.com/archives/constitutional-rights-for-non-citizens/

 

Now, you only hold these protections and rights while within America and on American Soil. So no, American laws and the US Constitution doesn't apply to a German in Germany. But if that German is sitting on a bus in New York City, then yes, the Constitution does apply to him.

 

Keep in mind, many parts of the constitution specifically mention a citizen as part of the specific text or section. So one section might make a differentiation between Citizens and Residents, while another section applies to anyone, even if they aren't a Citizen.

Whoa whoa whoa, the 14th amendment was about slaves being recognized as Citizens of the US, not aliens here on vacation... Jesus.

 

5 minutes ago, Michael McAllister said:

 

That is in no way related to this situation so I'm not sure why you would bring it up.  Of course, phrases like that would be of concern.  Harmless mosque pictures do not fall into that category.

You don't know WHAT they found on those cellphones... none of us do.

[knightslugger]

2 minutes ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

So, what happens if I tell them, truthfully, that I don't have a Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/Whatever account? Will they think I'm lying? How can they prove me wrong? How do I prove myself right? What's to stop people just saying they don't have an account? There are so many problems with this.

This was addressed prevously.

[Michael McAllister]

2 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

Whoa whoa whoa, the 14th amendment was about slaves being recognized as Citizens of the US, not aliens here on vacation... Jesus.

 

You don't know WHAT they found on those cellphones... none of us do.

 

Guilty until proven innocent?

[stconquest]

Excerpt:  “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

[knightslugger]

2 minutes ago, Michael McAllister said:

 

Guilty until proven innocent?

It's immigration, not justice.

[knightslugger]

1 minute ago, stconquest said:

Excerpt:  “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Verbatum:

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

so you missed the entire CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES part there... convenient of you to do so.

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, knightslugger said:

Verbatum:

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

so you missed the entire CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES part there... convenient of you to do so.

Legalese:  Citizen and person might not be the same thing.  Law dictionary required.

[knightslugger]

5 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Legalese:  Citizen and person might not be the same thing.  Law dictionary required.

Section 1 is clearly speaking to citizens. citizens are persons. not dogs, not bears, not bald eagles. persons. It is absurd to believe that the passage of the 14th amendment was designed to grant any person existing (meaning being present on our soil) here in the US full citizenship rights just for walking off the ferry. The right to Vote, keep and bear arms, become sitting congressmen or presidents... utterly absurd.

[Centurius]

Guess I'm not going to travel to the US for a while.

[dalekphalm]

38 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

Whoa whoa whoa, the 14th amendment was about slaves being recognized as Citizens of the US, not aliens here on vacation... Jesus.

 

You don't know WHAT they found on those cellphones... none of us do.

You obviously didn't read the link.

Quote

“the Constitution follows the flag,” and that the flag did not extend beyond the territory of the United States. This meant two things. First, the Constitution applied everywhere in U.S. territory, but that it did not outside U.S. territory. Within U.S. territory, non-citizens have rights because of the 14th Amendment, which declares “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

 

And further:

Quote

Notice that the 14th Amendment uses citizens in one places, and persons in another. This has long been thought to mean that non-citizens (“persons”) have due process and equal protection rights, once in the territory of the United States. The Fifth Amendment (which applies to the federal government) likewise uses the phrase “no person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

 

So yeah. It uses "citizen" and "person" in the same article. Which leads me to believe (And law professionals) that these are... separate things.

 

It doesn't matter what the reason behind creating the 14th Amendment was (Slavery) - since it extends protections to other people as well.

[stconquest]

Imagine, protections with the force of law are not granted to anyone visiting the USA.  In the eyes of the law, non citizens do not exist.  If a US citizen murders a visitor from Australia on US soil he cannot be prosecuted because you cannot commit murder against someone that does not exist.

 

It's the Moral Wild West out there in the good 'ole U.S. of A.!

[Scruffy90]

8 hours ago, BH2062 said:

I doubt they will do that, im sure that's against the law

And thats stopped the US before why?

[Michael McAllister]

13 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

Section 1 is clearly speaking to citizens. citizens are persons. not dogs, not bears, not bald eagles. persons. It is absurd to believe that the passage of the 14th amendment was designed to grant any person existing (meaning being present on our soil) here in the US full citizenship rights just for walking off the ferry. The right to Vote, keep and bear arms, become sitting congressmen or presidents... utterly absurd.

 

That is incorrect.  Noncitizens do have rights under the 14th Amendment via the Equal Protection clause.

 

Quote

The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the second president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."

 

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory."

 

[knightslugger]

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

You obviously didn't read the link.

 

And further:

 

So yeah. It uses "citizen" and "person" in the same article. Which leads me to believe (And law professionals) that these are... separate things.

Zadvydas was convicted of a felony and instead of jailed, he was ordered removed. He was detained beyond the statutory limit because Germany wouldn't take him and neither would Lithuania. That is a 5th amendment issue that bars the government from indefinite detention and does NOT mention citizens specifically but rather applies to any person. I reiterate: The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with immigration and was written to give slaves US Citizenship.

 

That is all.

 

To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

[Michael McAllister]

4 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

Zadvydas was convicted of a felony and instead of jailed, he was ordered removed. He was detained beyond the statutory limit because Germany wouldn't take him and neither would Lithuania. That is a 5th amendment issue that bars the government from indefinite detention and does NOT mention citizens specifically but rather applies to any person. I reiterate: The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with immigration and was written to give slaves US Citizenship.

 

That is all.

 

To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

 

There were multiple cases which addressed this issue.  It is a well-established precedent.  Did you read the entire article that I provided?

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

Zadvydas was convicted of a felony and instead of jailed, he was ordered removed. He was detained beyond the statutory limit because Germany wouldn't take him and neither would Lithuania. That is a 5th amendment issue that bars the government from indefinite detention and does NOT mention citizens specifically but rather applies to any person. I reiterate: The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with immigration and was written to give slaves US Citizenship.

 

That is all.

 

To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

So I guess you didn't read the link, then? To suggest otherwise, is what many legal experts do. If, in the 14th Amendment, it was purely about citizens, why would it say citizen in one sentence of the same amendment, then "people" in the other? That implies that they are different things. People, does not inherently mean "citizens".

[Michael McAllister]

OP updated.

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

There's one flaw with your argument.

 

The 14th Amendment to the US constitution grants protections to non-citizens.

https://ricochet.com/archives/constitutional-rights-for-non-citizens/

 

Now, you only hold these protections and rights while within America and on American Soil. So no, American laws and the US Constitution doesn't apply to a German in Germany. But if that German is sitting on a bus in New York City, then yes, the Constitution does apply to him.

 

Keep in mind, many parts of the constitution specifically mention a citizen as part of the specific text or section. So one section might make a differentiation between Citizens and Residents, while another section applies to anyone, even if they aren't a Citizen.

Also keep in mind that a non-US citizen at border patrol is either on international soil or not-American soil. So, US rights don't exactly apply. 

 

7 minutes ago, Michael McAllister said:

OP updated.

Wonderful.....not that I agree with how the ban was done, but something is needed as it's even been said that we can't effectively vet immigrants (re: syrian refugees).

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Also keep in mind that a non-US citizen at border patrol is either on international soil or not-American soil. So, US rights don't exactly apply. 

At the border, yes. Because until you cross the border, you're basically in International Waters.

 

But @knightslugger was attempting to say that non-US Citizens weren't protected by the Constitution, even while inside the US.

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Also keep in mind that a non-US citizen at border patrol is either on international soil or not-American soil. So, US rights don't exactly apply. 

 

Wonderful.....not that I agree with how the ban was done, but something is needed as it's even been said that we can't effectively vet immigrants (re: syrian refugees).

What evidence is there that the US even needs additional vetting processes? The vast majority of terrorists who've attacked on US soil have either been American Citizens, or long term residents, and their "corruption" into terrorists happened after they came to America. Additional vetting likely wouldn't have stopped any of them - or if any, only a handful.

 

I understand doing something to make you more secure. But this feels like an "ineffective" strategy to simply make Americans feel better, even if they are no more or less safe then before.