5 ms·

What 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 ago
I 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 ago
i'm wondering how bad this is
- mikeash 7y ago
  I 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 ago
    at 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
    - mikeash 7y ago
      Just to be perfectly clear: I’m not proposing anything in the realm of international relations trying to force countries to do anything. Regarding your specific points: 1. Yes. Maybe only for resident visas (arbitrarily turning away tourists and people on temporary business sucks but is a lot less dire). 2. Yes on the trial. Not necessarily on granting entry in the interim. It would presumably work like any other trial: you’re held temporarily and then get a quick hearing which determines whether you’re released or not, and under what conditions. 3. I don’t see how this is different from #1. 4. Yes, this should be a criminal trial and the defendant should have all the rights due to a criminal defendant, including the right to a public defender.

mikeash 7y ago

I 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 ago

i'm wondering how bad this is

mikeash 7y ago
I 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 ago
  at 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
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Just to be perfectly clear: I’m not proposing anything in the realm of international relations trying to force countries to do anything. Regarding your specific points: 1. Yes. Maybe only for resident visas (arbitrarily turning away tourists and people on temporary business sucks but is a lot less dire). 2. Yes on the trial. Not necessarily on granting entry in the interim. It would presumably work like any other trial: you’re held temporarily and then get a quick hearing which determines whether you’re released or not, and under what conditions. 3. I don’t see how this is different from #1. 4. Yes, this should be a criminal trial and the defendant should have all the rights due to a criminal defendant, including the right to a public defender.