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

[SansVarnic]

1 hour 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.

 

13 minutes ago, stconquest said:

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 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.

 

 

Honestly I should not said anything to begin with since I am not in the proper state of mind today to speak on this subject.

In an attempt to at least absolve myself at the moment I will leave it to this then move on without making anymore commentary.

 

I wont provide a source just my 2cents. As it is @dalekphalm is correct that there are provisions that protect those inside the US [non-citizen] such as common law for things like robberies, mugging and other low tier crimes etc... as mention by @stconquest, What I am not saying is the Constitution denies that non-citizens exist. Dont be over reading into what I wrote, I am tired so I may not have conveyed what I meant in my previous comment. We have all been here before I am sure you guys have a fair understanding of where I stand with these issues [in general]. When I refer to how the constitution defines laws and how they should held I usually try to go in the direction of the Founders intent when interpreting the document.

 

That said I will try to readdress my earlier comment.

I had to re-read your comment @dalekphalm so apologies it took me so long to get his typed up; (I work way to much and tired a lot these days).

 

I disagree that the 14th applies to non-citizens as it was written to specifically address the issue of post civil war slavery.

I also disagree that the 5th applies to non-citizens but this I will cover at a later time when I am more coherent [less tired] and can make a better argument.

 

The controversy I referred to is the same old argument that the Constitution applies to all who enter the US regardless because we are a country of immigrants, I wholeheartedly disagree with this since we are no longer a country of immigrants, we have not been for over 200+ years, we stopped being immigrants back in colonial days but this is my opinion based on history since the colonies have been on this soil since the late 1400's early 1500's. The revolution was an event that was in the making for just shy of 100 years. My source is colonial history - specific book titles not coming to mind atm.

 

I am sure I have more and you will probably want me to explain more but I cant right now. Sorry.

[Michael McAllister]

5 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

@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!

 

The key phraseology is, "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,..."  The class or group in question had no terrorists ties.  As a matter fact, the countries prohibited are war zones that the United States is bombing.  The 9/11 hijackers primarily came from Saudi Arabia, yet that region is not included in the list.  Saudi Arabia is the top ally of the United States, Donald Trump's business ties notwithstanding.

[knightslugger]

8 minutes ago, Michael McAllister said:

 

The key phraseology is, "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,..."  The class or group in question had no terrorists ties.  As a matter fact, the countries prohibited are war zones that the United States is bombing.  The 9/11 hijackers primarily came from Saudi Arabia, yet that region is not included in the list.  Saudi Arabia is the top ally of the United States, Donald Trump's business ties notwithstanding.

Iran is the leader in state sponsored terrorism and is a hostile state to the United States. Libya and Yemen have no government. Syria is under civil war with ISIS elements embedded. Iraq, Somalia, and Sudan are ISIS (Boku Haram) infested, who btw said they would secrete their soldiers into the refugee and immigration systems around the world. Worked real good for all those killed in Belgium, Germany, and France right? The Saudis have a vetting system the DHS is comfortable with. If you want to wear tinfoil hat while muttering something about corruption and crony capitalism, go ahead. i will utterly ignore you.

[Michael McAllister]

23 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

Iran is the leader in state sponsored terrorism and is a hostile state to the United States. The Saudis have a vetting system the DHS is comfortable with. If you want to wear tinfoil hat while muttering something about corruption and crony capitalism, go ahead. i will utterly ignore you.

 

Yes or no, are you bothered by the fact that many of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia?  If you are, why wouldn't it make sense to include Saudi Arabia on this list since the underlying impetus of the Executive Order is ostensibly to keep Americans safe?

 

Business Insider:

Quote

In fact, the executive order doesn't apply to any of the countries where the 9/11 attackers were from. Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Lebanon were also left off the list.

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by Michael McAllister

[stconquest]

31 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

Iran is the leader in state sponsored terrorism and is a hostile state to the United States. Libya and Yemen have no government. Syria is under civil war with ISIS elements embedded. Iraq, Somalia, and Sudan are ISIS (Boku Haram) infested, who btw said they would secrete their soldiers into the refugee and immigration systems around the world. Worked real good for all those killed in Belgium, Germany, and France right? The Saudis have a vetting system the DHS is comfortable with. If you want to wear tinfoil hat while muttering something about corruption and crony capitalism, go ahead. i will utterly ignore you.

How many attacks on US soil have come out of Iran, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Sudan before this attempt to ban Muslims by the president?  If the vetting process was working, the need for further security of this fashion is unexplained.  "Be scared", is not an explanation.

 

If the president was so keen on keeping American's safe, what is the point of killing dozen's of innocent men, women and children?  You lost a soldier and made many people lifelong enemies in the process. 

 

Weird how some will ignore the reasons many people around the world view the USA as a sponsor of terrorism.  From arms dealing to murder, I think you guys are high up on the list...  maybe #1

 

If you want to brandish your gun and talk about Obama and the liberal conspiracy, go ahead, I will utterly ignore you.

 

http://ijr.com/2015/03/279944-country-named-biggest-threat-world-peace/

[knightslugger]

26 minutes ago, Michael McAllister said:

 

Yes or no, are you bothered by the fact that many of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia?  If you are, why wouldn't it make sense to include Saudi Arabia on this list since the underlying impetus of the Executive Order is ostensibly to keep Americans safe?

 

Business Insider:

 

yes i am. It doesn't make sense because SINCE 9/11 their policing and reporting systems have improved tremendously, like many other countries have since 9/11. It's not as if after 9/11 good folks in the middle east have been saying, "Well, too bad...".

 

24 minutes ago, stconquest said:

How many attacks on US soil have come out of Iran, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Sudan before this attempt to ban Muslims by the president?  If the vetting process was working, the need for further security of this fashion is unexplained.  "Be scared", is not an explanation.

 

If the president was so keen on keeping American's safe, what is the point of killing dozen's of innocent men, women and children?  You lost a soldier and made many people lifelong enemies in the process. 

 

Weird how some will ignore the reasons many people around the world view the USA as a sponsor of terrorism.  From arms dealing to murder, I think you guys are high up on the list...  maybe #1

 

If you want to brandish your gun and talk about Obama and the liberal conspiracy, go ahead, I will utterly ignore you.

 

http://ijr.com/2015/03/279944-country-named-biggest-threat-world-peace/

It wasn't working! Obama made the exact same halt on the exact same countries in his first term, much to the applause of the left, and shrugged by the right. And I swear to Christ what is it with you Liberals? STOP CALLING IT A MUSLIM BAN. 85% of the Muslim world is completely unaffected by this temporary travel ban. I don't give a damn what Giuliani said. He doesn't speak for the president, and the EO doesn't state it. knock it off already. no one believes that load of crap.

 

Hey, if the men and leaders in those countries would stop teaching their children to kill people over their religion and doing so themselves, maybe we wouldn't be compelled to step in for humanitarian reasons. It's genocide. you seem perfectly OK with Genocide? because otherwise it'll make a few more enemies? warped.

[WkdPaul]

Locked.

 

Thread has turned into a political discussion, which is now against the Community Standards...

[WkdPaul]

Quote

No Trolling

• This includes flame wars such as NVIDIA vs AMD, political or religious debate.