4 ms·

Because you need proof, and proving that someone is a terrorist is a long expensive and not guarantied process, while the lying on a form thing is purposefully

Because you need proof, and proving that someone is a terrorist is a long expensive and not guarantied process, while the lying on a form thing is purposefully self evident.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago
But if you haven't proven they are a terrorist, how can you prove they are lying about being a terrorist? They might not be a terrorist, in which case they weren't lying.
- wholinator2 4y ago
  Well the form doesn't literally ask, "are you a terrorist? ". It's just a bunch of terroristic and criminal activities. So if you said no to "do you plan to commit any crimes" and then you rob a store or God forbid actually commit terrorism, which is a crime, you've lied on the form and can be expelled quickly
- pokot0 4y ago
  Jaywalking is illegal. It doesn't have to be the same illegal thing they want you out for. They're just giving them more options.
  - b112 4y ago
    The Freedom to Walk act, in California, just made it legal. (Not relevant to your point, just a side bit of interesting info). edit: Huh. These guys: https://www.dlawgroup.com/california-freedom-to-walk-act-for-jaywalking/ https://www.dlawgroup.com/california-freedom-to-walk-act-for... claim it is still illegal, but cannot be ticketed for without certain conditions. I wonder why, or if, this weird condition exists. (I see it is supposedly to prevent police harassment, but that doesn't explain the weird legal status)
    - Zak 4y ago
      The main purpose is likely to allow the police to cite a pedestrian who is at fault for an accident, which helps protect the other parties involved from civil liability.
      - b112 4y ago
        The law could be rewritten to take that into consideration. The current exception even has language in it to delineate its use.
- b112 4y ago
  It may be burden of proof. Where I live, criminal court is to be thought of as 99% proof of guilt, where as civil court, eg being sued, is more like 50.1%. So maybe an expulsion tribunal is 50.1% too?
- jrumbut 4y ago
  I doubt that this is the logic but there are different standards of evidence. If the traveler faces a criminal charge they'll get an attorney and the government will need to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, it's likely to be about the preponderance of evidence and in front of some non-court administrative body there may be no particular standard of evidence at all.
  - akiselev 4y ago
    Immigration courts aren’t real courts and the judges are part of the executive branch (Department of Justice), not the judicial branch [1]. Their evidentiary standards are closer to “nonexistent” than to preponderance of evidence. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Judge_(United_States) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Judge_(United_St...
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  I think there are following expected scenarios for this question: - If you answer "No": That's what they expect everyone will say, but having it in writing may still come in handy in international disputes. Say you're considered a terrorist in another country. The form, AFAIK, doesn't define by whose standards you are a terrorist, so it might be grounds to kick you out if the US isn't specifically interested in keeping you in. - If you answer "Yes": You most likely have mental issues. Entry denied. - If you stress too much over it: Entry denied, possibly notify relevant law enforcement. - If you start to ask questions about it, like precisely what is meant by this question and why: You either have mental issues, or are up to something. Either way, entry denied.

Because you need proof, and proving that someone is a terrorist is a long expensive and not guarantied process, while the lying on a form thing is purposefully self evident.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago

But if you haven't proven they are a terrorist, how can you prove they are lying about being a terrorist? They might not be a terrorist, in which case they weren't lying.

wholinator2 4y ago
Well the form doesn't literally ask, "are you a terrorist? ". It's just a bunch of terroristic and criminal activities. So if you said no to "do you plan to commit any crimes" and then you rob a store or God forbid actually commit terrorism, which is a crime, you've lied on the form and can be expelled quickly
pokot0 4y ago
Jaywalking is illegal. It doesn't have to be the same illegal thing they want you out for. They're just giving them more options.
- b112 4y ago
  The Freedom to Walk act, in California, just made it legal. (Not relevant to your point, just a side bit of interesting info). edit: Huh. These guys: https://www.dlawgroup.com/california-freedom-to-walk-act-for-jaywalking/ https://www.dlawgroup.com/california-freedom-to-walk-act-for... claim it is still illegal, but cannot be ticketed for without certain conditions. I wonder why, or if, this weird condition exists. (I see it is supposedly to prevent police harassment, but that doesn't explain the weird legal status)
  - Zak 4y ago
    The main purpose is likely to allow the police to cite a pedestrian who is at fault for an accident, which helps protect the other parties involved from civil liability.
    - b112 4y ago
      The law could be rewritten to take that into consideration. The current exception even has language in it to delineate its use.
b112 4y ago
It may be burden of proof. Where I live, criminal court is to be thought of as 99% proof of guilt, where as civil court, eg being sued, is more like 50.1%. So maybe an expulsion tribunal is 50.1% too?
jrumbut 4y ago
I doubt that this is the logic but there are different standards of evidence. If the traveler faces a criminal charge they'll get an attorney and the government will need to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, it's likely to be about the preponderance of evidence and in front of some non-court administrative body there may be no particular standard of evidence at all.
- akiselev 4y ago
  Immigration courts aren’t real courts and the judges are part of the executive branch (Department of Justice), not the judicial branch [1]. Their evidentiary standards are closer to “nonexistent” than to preponderance of evidence. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Judge_(United_States) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Judge_(United_St...
TeMPOraL 4y ago
I think there are following expected scenarios for this question: - If you answer "No": That's what they expect everyone will say, but having it in writing may still come in handy in international disputes. Say you're considered a terrorist in another country. The form, AFAIK, doesn't define by whose standards you are a terrorist, so it might be grounds to kick you out if the US isn't specifically interested in keeping you in. - If you answer "Yes": You most likely have mental issues. Entry denied. - If you stress too much over it: Entry denied, possibly notify relevant law enforcement. - If you start to ask questions about it, like precisely what is meant by this question and why: You either have mental issues, or are up to something. Either way, entry denied.