6 ms·

> before we jump to any conclusions we should at least wait to see why exactly they were denied entry I understand it's not as easy, but we should at least try

by aqme28 7y ago

> before we jump to any conclusions we should at least wait to see why exactly they were denied entry I understand it's not as easy, but we should at least try for "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to the government denying privileges. I'm all for the government denying entry, but it should be clear what the offense was.

taxidump 7y ago
>we should at least try for "innocent until proven guilty" This method of justice is reserved for our court system inside the US and most likley not work for our borders due to the fact agents must make educated or gut decisions. >I'm all for the government denying entry, but it should be clear what the offense was. This seens to be a contradiction to your other thought.
- dragonsh 7y ago
  > This method of justice is reserved for our court system inside the US and most likley not work for our borders due to the fact agents must make educated or gut decisions. You mean there are two standards in USA one at the borders another in the country. So all countries denying reporters, human rights workers or dissidents or protestors to enter their borders are doing it correct, because the rule of law is inside borders not outside. So your thought justify very much the border agents analysing your phones and electronic media before entering, like the way in recent memories happening in Hong Kong borders due to protests. You might, but personally I cannot agree with such a notion of dual standards of law. I understand entry to a country and visa is a privilege not a right. But if a country believes in rule is law and on foundations of "Innocent until proven guilty", then it should abide by it.
  - throwaway77778 7y ago
    It is really a difficult call. On one hand, “first they came after the Jews”. On another, by Chinese laws their citizens have obligations to cooperate with their intelligence agencies. China is a technologically advanced mass surveillance state, with dictatorship regime on the rise. This dictatorship regime and its intelligence services have no issues with controlling their citizens by any means possible (from requests to follow their laws to intimidation of family members, etc).
    - dragonsh 7y ago
      > It is really a difficult call. In my view it isn't, USA has chosen common law jurisdiction which clearly states "Innocent until proven guilty". So it should not just put it on the books, but has to follow it in spirit. Don't create border buffer zones, guam to dilute it, this is taking USA to same level as other nations which it criticize for those violations. In Continental law in few jurisdiction like Japan (what happened with Carlos Ghosn) and China they follow "Guilty until proven innocent". In this jurisdiction the prosecutor exercise control on whom to prosecute, because onus is on plaintiff to prove innocence through evidence. Here the discussion is not about what is happening inside the country, but at the borders so surveillance state is not a question here. If you have discussion on surveillance, China is a transparent surveillance where citizens are aware of it, USA with NSA is an opaque surveillance state. I am sure I don't want either of them, but if forced prefer a transparent than an opaque system.
      - HillaryBriss 7y ago
        they didn't pronounce these students "innocent" or "guilty." this resembles the situation when a police officer arrests a US citizen. they do that thousands of times a day in the US without first determining innocence or guilt. it's just the first step. and US citizens are generally required to cooperate with law enforcement officer directives. the fact that police have certain, constitutionally limited powers doesn't mean the system has abandoned "innocent until proven guilty."
        dragonsh 7y ago
        > they didn't pronounce these students "innocent" or "guilty." Here student were already pronounced guilty and forcibly send back on return flight. > this resembles the situation when a police officer arrests a US citizen. Its not the same. When a police officer arrests a US citizen, they need to grant him rights and access to lawyer. If they want to take away that right, they need to have a strong reason and apply patriot act or some specific law. If there is a wrong application of law the police officer and department can be sued for wrongful arrest. Here the punishment has already been meted out by sending them back forcibly, without any due process, but based on border agents discretion.
  - HillaryBriss 7y ago
    Are there any countries that guarantee entry to every person unless a court denies that person entry? Is that a standard that any country adheres to?
    - HarryHirsch 7y ago
      The usual practice all over the world is that a visa very much guarantees entry to the country, if they deem you a security risk they won't even issue you a visa. Getting denied entry at the border is rare and usually the result of gross malfeasance. Turning a whole group of foreign students back at the border is very unusual, and it's unclear why the government wants to increase legal insecurity and broadcast that it can't be trusted.
      - HillaryBriss 7y ago
        This indicates that entry to the US is not guaranteed by a visa: Issuance of a visa does not guarantee entry to the United States. A visa simply indicates that a U.S. consular officer at an American embassy or consulate has reviewed the application and that officer has determined that the individual is eligible to enter the country for a specific purpose. The CBP Officer at the port-of-entry will conduct an inspection to determine if the individual is eligible for admission under U.S. immigration law. https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver-program/requirements-immigrant-and-nonimmigrant-visas https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waive...
  - taxidump 7y ago
    >You mean there are two standards in USA one at the borders another in the country. Yes. Also there are seperate policies and rules for citizens and non- citizens at the border. >So all countries denying reporters, human rights workers or dissidents or protestors to enter their borders are doing it correct, because the rule of law is inside borders not outside. This discussion pertains to entry into the US.
    - HarryHirsch 7y ago
      This discussion pertains to entry into the US Most of the students will have been in the US before, they are continuing their degree and just went home for the summer. If the FBI or whoever has something on them they can apply for a warrant and have them arrested. But the government instead chose not to admit them at the border. It goes the opposite way as well, if the student chooses not to leave the government has to find something of substance and convince a judge, just saying "I want you out" doesn't cover it. Nothing of this makes sense, and as far as national security goes, I find it hard to believe that students are permitted near classified data.
  - masonic 7y ago
    You don't know which government is the actor here. It could be that China revoked their travel privileges (i.e. for pro-HK activities). It's not like there's a blanket sanction against all Chinese students in progress.
  - surge 7y ago
    And how's that supposed to work exactly? A court room in the airport to deal with all cases. That's simply not practical. You go through any border at any country, and if anything seems off, they have a duty to deny entry. That's the law and that's how it works.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >due to the fact agents must make educated or gut decisions. That's one hell of an a priori you have there.
  - taxidump 7y ago
    Agreeded, what is the alternative? Due process at the border? Do you see the hold up this will cause? We have an appeal process for entry denial. Edit to add, citizens are entitled to due process while I am only referring to non-citizens
    - inflatableDodo 7y ago
      >Due process at the border? yes >Do you see the hold up this will cause? no
      - taxidump 7y ago
        Should we hold them in temporary confinement until we can complete their hearing, or just let them promice to return and plead their case?
        inflatableDodo 7y ago
        They are in an international airport. People in an international airport are already in voluntary temporary confinement. If people want to plead their case, provide them a hotel and fly them back if they abandon it. It really shouldn't be hard unless the amount of people you are refusing who already possess visas is extremely high.
HillaryBriss 7y ago
Isn't "innocent until proven guilty" a standard related to criminal punishment? This is merely denying someone entry to a country. That's quite a different outcome than a prison sentence.
- mikeash 7y ago
  For many people, such an outcome is basically exile. That’s different from prison but still pretty bad.
  - HillaryBriss 7y ago
    I thought exile meant that a person's country of citizenship is ejecting that person, making it illegal for that person to remain.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      It just means that you’re not allowed to return home. Often, a person’a home doesn’t correspond to their country of citizenship.
      - HillaryBriss 7y ago
        What standard should a country have to meet in order to exile someone from what that person considers their home? What is the legal definition of home for these purposes? What are the rules that countries and individuals ought to adhere to?
        mikeash 7y ago
        The standard should be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in criminal trials. The legal definition of home should probably match the legal definition of residency used for other purposes.
        HillaryBriss 7y ago
surge 7y ago
It's also important to understand that entry into the US is not a right for non-citizens and suspicion is generally enough reason to kick someone out at the border. I don't think its fair, but traveling to another country you're not a citizen of you have no reason to expect fairness. We don't expect free access to other sovereign countries. For instance, and China has a long history of kicking out foreigners for arbitrary reasons, targeting foreign bars for random drug testing, etc, and this is considered acceptable because that's the law there. Here, we don't target foreigners/outsiders (laowai) so harshly. We treat foreigners way more kindly than most countries. We still give out tons of visas every year to allow people various opportunities. What the CBP can and can not do is also dictated by law as a security mandate. The law says people can be denied entry for a variety of reasons. Until we know those reasons, if we can possibly tell those reasons, there isn't much to say.

by aqme28 7y ago

taxidump 7y ago

>we should at least try for "innocent until proven guilty" This method of justice is reserved for our court system inside the US and most likley not work for our borders due to the fact agents must make educated or gut decisions. >I'm all for the government denying entry, but it should be clear what the offense was. This seens to be a contradiction to your other thought.

dragonsh 7y ago
> This method of justice is reserved for our court system inside the US and most likley not work for our borders due to the fact agents must make educated or gut decisions. You mean there are two standards in USA one at the borders another in the country. So all countries denying reporters, human rights workers or dissidents or protestors to enter their borders are doing it correct, because the rule of law is inside borders not outside. So your thought justify very much the border agents analysing your phones and electronic media before entering, like the way in recent memories happening in Hong Kong borders due to protests. You might, but personally I cannot agree with such a notion of dual standards of law. I understand entry to a country and visa is a privilege not a right. But if a country believes in rule is law and on foundations of "Innocent until proven guilty", then it should abide by it.
- throwaway77778 7y ago
  It is really a difficult call. On one hand, “first they came after the Jews”. On another, by Chinese laws their citizens have obligations to cooperate with their intelligence agencies. China is a technologically advanced mass surveillance state, with dictatorship regime on the rise. This dictatorship regime and its intelligence services have no issues with controlling their citizens by any means possible (from requests to follow their laws to intimidation of family members, etc).
  - dragonsh 7y ago
    > It is really a difficult call. In my view it isn't, USA has chosen common law jurisdiction which clearly states "Innocent until proven guilty". So it should not just put it on the books, but has to follow it in spirit. Don't create border buffer zones, guam to dilute it, this is taking USA to same level as other nations which it criticize for those violations. In Continental law in few jurisdiction like Japan (what happened with Carlos Ghosn) and China they follow "Guilty until proven innocent". In this jurisdiction the prosecutor exercise control on whom to prosecute, because onus is on plaintiff to prove innocence through evidence. Here the discussion is not about what is happening inside the country, but at the borders so surveillance state is not a question here. If you have discussion on surveillance, China is a transparent surveillance where citizens are aware of it, USA with NSA is an opaque surveillance state. I am sure I don't want either of them, but if forced prefer a transparent than an opaque system.
    - HillaryBriss 7y ago
      they didn't pronounce these students "innocent" or "guilty." this resembles the situation when a police officer arrests a US citizen. they do that thousands of times a day in the US without first determining innocence or guilt. it's just the first step. and US citizens are generally required to cooperate with law enforcement officer directives. the fact that police have certain, constitutionally limited powers doesn't mean the system has abandoned "innocent until proven guilty."
      - dragonsh 7y ago
        > they didn't pronounce these students "innocent" or "guilty." Here student were already pronounced guilty and forcibly send back on return flight. > this resembles the situation when a police officer arrests a US citizen. Its not the same. When a police officer arrests a US citizen, they need to grant him rights and access to lawyer. If they want to take away that right, they need to have a strong reason and apply patriot act or some specific law. If there is a wrong application of law the police officer and department can be sued for wrongful arrest. Here the punishment has already been meted out by sending them back forcibly, without any due process, but based on border agents discretion.
- HillaryBriss 7y ago
  Are there any countries that guarantee entry to every person unless a court denies that person entry? Is that a standard that any country adheres to?
  - HarryHirsch 7y ago
    The usual practice all over the world is that a visa very much guarantees entry to the country, if they deem you a security risk they won't even issue you a visa. Getting denied entry at the border is rare and usually the result of gross malfeasance. Turning a whole group of foreign students back at the border is very unusual, and it's unclear why the government wants to increase legal insecurity and broadcast that it can't be trusted.
    - HillaryBriss 7y ago
      This indicates that entry to the US is not guaranteed by a visa: Issuance of a visa does not guarantee entry to the United States. A visa simply indicates that a U.S. consular officer at an American embassy or consulate has reviewed the application and that officer has determined that the individual is eligible to enter the country for a specific purpose. The CBP Officer at the port-of-entry will conduct an inspection to determine if the individual is eligible for admission under U.S. immigration law. https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver-program/requirements-immigrant-and-nonimmigrant-visas https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waive...
- taxidump 7y ago
  >You mean there are two standards in USA one at the borders another in the country. Yes. Also there are seperate policies and rules for citizens and non- citizens at the border. >So all countries denying reporters, human rights workers or dissidents or protestors to enter their borders are doing it correct, because the rule of law is inside borders not outside. This discussion pertains to entry into the US.
  - HarryHirsch 7y ago
    This discussion pertains to entry into the US Most of the students will have been in the US before, they are continuing their degree and just went home for the summer. If the FBI or whoever has something on them they can apply for a warrant and have them arrested. But the government instead chose not to admit them at the border. It goes the opposite way as well, if the student chooses not to leave the government has to find something of substance and convince a judge, just saying "I want you out" doesn't cover it. Nothing of this makes sense, and as far as national security goes, I find it hard to believe that students are permitted near classified data.
- masonic 7y ago
  You don't know which government is the actor here. It could be that China revoked their travel privileges (i.e. for pro-HK activities). It's not like there's a blanket sanction against all Chinese students in progress.
- surge 7y ago
  And how's that supposed to work exactly? A court room in the airport to deal with all cases. That's simply not practical. You go through any border at any country, and if anything seems off, they have a duty to deny entry. That's the law and that's how it works.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
>due to the fact agents must make educated or gut decisions. That's one hell of an a priori you have there.
- taxidump 7y ago
  Agreeded, what is the alternative? Due process at the border? Do you see the hold up this will cause? We have an appeal process for entry denial. Edit to add, citizens are entitled to due process while I am only referring to non-citizens
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    >Due process at the border? yes >Do you see the hold up this will cause? no
    - taxidump 7y ago
      Should we hold them in temporary confinement until we can complete their hearing, or just let them promice to return and plead their case?
      - inflatableDodo 7y ago
        They are in an international airport. People in an international airport are already in voluntary temporary confinement. If people want to plead their case, provide them a hotel and fly them back if they abandon it. It really shouldn't be hard unless the amount of people you are refusing who already possess visas is extremely high.

HillaryBriss 7y ago

Isn't "innocent until proven guilty" a standard related to criminal punishment? This is merely denying someone entry to a country. That's quite a different outcome than a prison sentence.

mikeash 7y ago
For many people, such an outcome is basically exile. That’s different from prison but still pretty bad.
- HillaryBriss 7y ago
  I thought exile meant that a person's country of citizenship is ejecting that person, making it illegal for that person to remain.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    It just means that you’re not allowed to return home. Often, a person’a home doesn’t correspond to their country of citizenship.
    - HillaryBriss 7y ago
      What standard should a country have to meet in order to exile someone from what that person considers their home? What is the legal definition of home for these purposes? What are the rules that countries and individuals ought to adhere to?
      - mikeash 7y ago
        The standard should be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in criminal trials. The legal definition of home should probably match the legal definition of residency used for other purposes.
        HillaryBriss 7y ago

surge 7y ago

It's also important to understand that entry into the US is not a right for non-citizens and suspicion is generally enough reason to kick someone out at the border. I don't think its fair, but traveling to another country you're not a citizen of you have no reason to expect fairness. We don't expect free access to other sovereign countries. For instance, and China has a long history of kicking out foreigners for arbitrary reasons, targeting foreign bars for random drug testing, etc, and this is considered acceptable because that's the law there. Here, we don't target foreigners/outsiders (laowai) so harshly. We treat foreigners way more kindly than most countries. We still give out tons of visas every year to allow people various opportunities. What the CBP can and can not do is also dictated by law as a security mandate. The law says people can be denied entry for a variety of reasons. Until we know those reasons, if we can possibly tell those reasons, there isn't much to say.