4 ms·
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 outc
by 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 agoFor many people, such an outcome is basically exile. That’s different from prison but still pretty bad.
- HillaryBriss 7y agoI thought exile meant that a person's country of citizenship is ejecting that person, making it illegal for that person to remain.
- mikeash 7y agoIt 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 agoWhat 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 agoThe 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 agoSo, each of these cases would need to go to trial?
- mikeash 7y agoRight.
- HillaryBriss 7y agoWhat should the punishment be for a government that fails to implement such a system? (e.g. UN censure? the imposition of economic sanctions? an invasion?)
- mikeash 7y agoI think we have to figure out the appropriate punishment for countries that enslave, torture, and murder people before we can figure out that. If we can’t even stop North Korea, what hope do we have of forcing other countries to have due process at border crossings? Why do you ask?
- HillaryBriss 7y agoi'm wondering how bad this is
- mikeash 7y agoI don’t see how the anarchic and deeply selfish world of international relations would shed any insight on that. I think you’re trying to make a point with all these questions, but damned if I know what it is. Maybe you could just say it?
- HillaryBriss 7y agoat this point i'm just trying to understand better what your proposed change to the system is. AFAICT, it's: 1. remove CBP's current right to summarily deny entry to visa holders (which is to say, remove that right from the aggregate of current US residents) 2. require the CBP (and thus current US residents) to argue all cases of entry denial at a trial in a court of law (after the visa holder has been granted free entry to the US) 3. expand the visa holder's right to include an inviolable guarantee to enter at the time of arrival (which might, in some cases, be revoked in the future, but only as the result of a court trial) 4. (possibly also, though I'm not sure you'd agree) provide government subsidized lawyers to all visa holders who may face a trial questioning their right to remain
- FireBeyond 7y agoMany countries will ask "have you ever been denied entry before to [any] country?", and proactively deny you entry. Seems a punishment to me, not necessarily a "mere" formality.
- HillaryBriss 7y agoI chose the words "merely denying someone entry to a country" because to me it seems much less severe than a prison sentence and/or denial of possessions, and the imposition of a criminal record. From the country's point of view, this policy seems like a conservative filter for entrants who might violate regulations, cause damage or even harm the existing residents. But, yes, there are false positives and false negatives to any such policy. And, of course, such a policy might include the provision for an appeal.