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

[captain_to_fire]

What is so good about America nowadays anyway? Just go to some other countries.

 

[SansVarnic]

9 hours ago, Michael McAllister said:

According to TechCrunch, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) head, John Kelly, suggested that some travelers may be required to provide their social media passwords prior to being granted entry into the United States.

Good luck with that ... 

[knightslugger]

40 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

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

LOOKING TO IMMIGRATE or here illegally. Look, we cannot vette these people because either the government doesn't exist, is hostile towards the unted states, or their tracking system is so unbelievably bad that we can't tell if they're Iraq or Syria or the EAU!

 

46 minutes ago, Michael McAllister said:

OP updated.

This is so stupid! What irreparable harm will Washington State suffer due to immigration halt from those in Iran!? This liberal court is out of control. See you in court indeed. They have WAY overstepped their authority here.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

LOOKING TO IMMIGRATE or here illegally.

 

This is so stupid! What irreparable harm will Washington State suffer due to immigration halt from those in Iran!? This liberal court is out of control. See you in court indeed. They have WAY overstepped their authority here.

The issue is going to the US Supreme Court, at this point. The Office of the President will no doubt appeal this decision all the way to the top. Let the USSC decide the issue. And since the court is currently split "4-4" dem/rep, if the court throws it out again, we will know it's not a "liberal" thing.

 

It doesn't matter if you're looking to immigrate or already there illegally. If you're inside the country, the 14th and 5th amendments provide you with certain protections and rights within the US Constitution. Of course, any provision within the Constitution that specifically says "citizen" won't apply to them. But other portions most certainly do apply.

 

Now, if you're at the border trying to get in? You're in International Waters, and therefore the Constitution doesn't apply.

 

You've provided no source to back up your claim that the Constitution only applies to American Citizens.

[Michael McAllister]

5 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

This is so stupid! What irreparable harm will Washington State suffer due to immigration halt from those in Iran!? This liberal court is out of control. See you in court indeed. They have WAY overstepped their authority here.

Even if I did agree with the immigration ban on the seven countries, it does not make much sense in terms of national security.  No terrorists originated from the listed countries.

[SansVarnic]

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

<snip>

 

You've provided no source to back up your claim that the Constitution only applies to American Citizens.

Gonna have to disagree with you there. Its a given that the US Constitution covers only US Citizens. This country has not been a county of immigrants for quite sometime.

I know this has been in controversy for some time now but it is time to acknowledge this fact.

[knightslugger]

10 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

And since the court is currently split "4-4" dem/rep, if the court throws it out again, we will know it's not a "liberal" thing.

oh bullshit. even the SCotUS is at least 1/2 liberal, and they know it. Activist courts such as the 9th and at times the SCotUS constantly try to seize power they are not constitutionally allowed to have. and congress lets them have it!

10 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

If you're inside the country, the 14th and 5th amendments provide you with certain protections and rights within the US Constitution.

The 14th does not as I've repeatedly stated, and the 5th only does if you are detained for a period exceeding 90 days. You and I may disagree on the 14th, and it blows my brain apart that you (and legal "professionals") legitimitly believe that the 14th amendment, which was designed to give slaves citizenship AND NOTHING MORE, gives 5th amendment protections to non-citizens simply because it says "persons". It's just like a liberal to apply modern meanings to constitutional era thinking to erode it's legitimacy. It's disgusting.

 

Why stop at the 5th? Why not let them buy fully automatic machine guns and destructive devices (2A)? Why not let them Vote (15A) in our elections? Is that what you want? Foreign nationals, LIKE PUTIN, to vote in our elections?

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, SansVarnic said:

Gonna have to disagree with you there. Its a given that the US Constitution covers only US Citizens. This country has not been a county of immigrants for quite sometime.

I know this has been in controversy for some time now but it is time to acknowledge this fact.

How is that a given? I've provided a source above that explains how Immigrants/permanent residents, and other non-citizens are covered by the Constitution while inside the US.

 

You can disagree with me all you want. But backup your statement with a source.

 

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, knightslugger said:

oh bullshit. even the SCotUS is at least 1/2 liberal, and they know it. Activist courts such as the 9th and at times the SCotUS constantly try to seize power they are not constitutionally allowed to have. and congress lets them have it!

The 14th does not as I've repeatedly stated, and the 5th only does if you are detained for a period exceeding 90 days. You and I may disagree on the 14th, and it blows my brain apart that you (and legal "professionals") legitimitly believe that the 14th amendment, which was designed to give slaves citizenship AND NOTHING MORE, gives 5th amendment protections to non-citizens simply because it says "persons". It's just like a liberal to apply modern meanings to constitutional era thinking to erode it's legitimacy. It's disgusting.

We can agree on one thing, at least. Yes, the SCOTUS is half liberal. The other half is conservative. It's a 4-4 split right now. This is generally accepted fact.

 

As for the rest of your statement. Please, back it up with some sources. I don't care why Congress made the 14th Amendment. The intended purpose of it, does not change the powers it gives. Your brain can be blown apart as many times as you wish, but please, provide me with some sources that at least try to counter my argument. I'll read them, and then we can compare the sources and their interpretations.

 

Also, calling me "a liberal", like it's some sort of insult? Okay.

 

If "Constitutional Era" thinking is to use two different words in the same paragraph to talk about the exact same thing, then... well that's very odd, and not good grammar, isn't it? If they meant citizens, throughout the entire 14th amendment, they would have used the word citizen. They did use it at least once, so we know they know what that word is.

[knightslugger]

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

How is that a given? I've provided a source above that explains how Immigrants/permanent residents, and other non-citizens are covered by the Constitution while inside the US.

 

You can disagree with me all you want. But backup your statement with a source.

 

What you have sited is little more than an op ed.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

What you have sited is little more than an op ed.

And what you have cited is little more then... well.. nothing at all.

 

What I have cited is someone taking the text, and actually analyzing what the text says. The differences in words used. We have to assume the words used were chosen on purpose, otherwise it would be impossible to interpret any of the Constitution or its various amendments.

 

@Michael McAllister also provided a source. No one has tried to disprove either of our posts with sources of their own.

 

Your argument, so far, has amounted to "But sir, I disagree!", without a proper detailed explanation as to how my interpretation is wrong, nor any sources to back up your position.

[Cryptonite]

Canada doesn't fall under state law does it? Why was she denied access?

 

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Cryptonite said:

Canada doesn't fall under state law does it? Why was she denied access?

 

Ultimately, we don't know. The US Border Agency claims that she had "Anti-American" media on her phone. She claims otherwise. She said that the media was of prayer services at her Mosque.

 

Canada doesn't fall under US Law, but Canadians trying to enter the US, of course, does.

[Cryptonite]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Ultimately, we don't know. The US Border Agency claims that she had "Anti-American" media on her phone. She claims otherwise. She said that the media was of prayer services at her Mosque.

 

Canada doesn't fall under US Law, but Canadians trying to enter the US, of course, does.

Thanks, glad Canada isn't messed up haha, I'd like to visit there some day

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, Cryptonite said:

Thanks, glad Canada isn't messed up haha, I'd like to visit there some day

Well, we certainly have our own problems. Every country does. But I'm still (for now) proud to be a Canadian.

[knightslugger]

39 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I don't care why Congress made the 14th Amendment.

well then why the hell am i even talking to you then?

 

ETA: Progressive liberals don't care about old documents. they want to invent new meanings for everything.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, knightslugger said:

well then why the hell am i even talking to you then?

I don't know. You've still yet to back up your assertion. Again, fully willing to read the sources you provide.

[Michael McAllister]

22 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

well then why the hell am i even talking to you then?

 

You have yet to address the several incidences of judicial affirmation that the 14th Amendment provides constitutional protections to non-citizens, especially under the Equal Protection clause.

[stconquest]

1 hour ago, SansVarnic said:

Gonna have to disagree with you there. Its a given that the US Constitution covers only US Citizens. This country has not been a county of immigrants for quite sometime.

 

I know this has been in controversy for some time now but it is time to acknowledge this fact.

Round and round in circles we go.

 

In the green bold we have a conflated argument with no attempt to address how one on assertion is related to the second.  What you are describing is that you have a system of law that deems only US citizen's have protection under the force of law while in the country's borders.  This effectively means that no other than US citizens, while on US soil, exist in the eyes of the law.

 

Are you saying that if a visitor from a foreign country is mugged on the streets of New York, the mugger will not have to face prosecution in a US court if they are caught?  If not, please shut me up.

 

I could easily argue that what you are saying is not fact, but neither of us have spent the time to understand the law to a degree that we might be accurate in the particulars of the issue.  I could try but I am lazy.

 

What I am addressing is the logical fallacy of what you might be trying to present to this forum.  You provide no source for your claim of fact, or the nature of said controversy that you refer to.

[Mooshi]

$50 bucks says Trump will ultimately come out and just proclaim Muslims not allowed into the US or try to ban the religion indefinitely. Not like it can't be done, some nations that proclaim to be more tolerant than the US banned Scientology as a dangerous cult and no one batted an eye. 

 

I can only shrug either way as my family are native to North America and I'd rather shitty people stay/keep out of my country regardless of who they worship. 

[stconquest]

4 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

$50 bucks says Trump will ultimately come out and just proclaim Muslims not allowed into the US or try to ban the religion indefinitely. Not like it can't be done, some nations that proclaim to be more tolerate than the US banned Scientology as a dangerous cult and no one batted an eye. 

I see you like losing money.

 

Scientologists believe in alien overlords.  Religions are for real gods.  They are not the same thing...

 

...

 

[TetraSky]

So... What happens if you simply don't have any social media accounts? They don't believe you and turn you away?

[Mooshi]

7 minutes ago, stconquest said:

I see you like losing money.

 

Scientologists believe in alien overlords.  Religions are for real gods.  They are not the same thing...

 

...

 

Spoiler

Shhh I need that $50 for snack fooooods

 

[Michael McAllister]

1 minute ago, TetraSky said:

So... What happens if you simply don't have any social media accounts? They don't believe you and turn you away?

 

Let's not give them free advice, eh?  

[knightslugger]

@Michael McAllister @dalekphalm

 

8 U.S. Code 1182 states:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

 

(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

 

Where does it say that the judicial branch can say otherwise? The plenary power to manage immigration is vested within the executive branch. Period. The 14th amendment does not apply to immigrants. You want to scream at me about the equal protection clause? get bent! That applies to due process, and turning an immigrant away is not justice department business! They aren't being charged with a crime, there's no due process required!