2 ms·

…and just to add to this list (and to get back to "deny entry into your own country"), … it doesn't stop the government from putting you on the no-fly list to p

…and just to add to this list (and to get back to "deny entry into your own country"), … it doesn't stop the government from putting you on the no-fly list to prevent you from testifying at trail against the government.[1] (I believe the government claimed this was an "error", … but that's exactly what you'd say.) [1]: https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/latif_et_al._v._holder_et_al._-_plaintiffs_second_notice_of_supplemental_authority_-_exhibit_a.pdf https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/lati..., "The bench trial then began on December 2, 2013. On the first day of trial, before opening statements, plaintiff’s counsel reported that plaintiff’s daughter — a United States citizen born in the United States and a witness disclosed on her witness list — was not permitted to board her flight from Kuala Lumpur to attend trial, evidently because she too was on a no-fly list." ; https://reason.com/2013/12/04/wanting-to-testify-in-no-fly-list-lawsui/ https://reason.com/2013/12/04/wanting-to-testify-in-no-fly-l...

lern_too_spel 3y ago
This case is different from the others and from the rest of the thread because the injured party is a nonimmigrant alien.
- deathanatos 3y ago
  No, the injured party (the woman denied boarding, the daughter, and thus, denied the ability to testify) was a US citizen. It's right there in the quote pulled from the legal doc. (IIRC, the mother was also on the no-fly list, and that was context of the case itself, even. One could rightly also refer to her as an injured party too.)
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    I had read the first document, which was about her mother, who isn't a US citizen and wasn't in the US.
    - deathanatos 3y ago
      The quote is from the first document. Again, yes, the mother isn't a US citizen, she's not the focus of my comment, the daughter is. The daughter is a US citizen, and she is additionally mentioned in the document.
      - lern_too_spel 3y ago
        The daughter immediately received remedy from the court. The mother did not despite her far more severe injuries because, as you now admit, she was a nonimmigrant alien outside the US.

lern_too_spel 3y ago

This case is different from the others and from the rest of the thread because the injured party is a nonimmigrant alien.

deathanatos 3y ago
No, the injured party (the woman denied boarding, the daughter, and thus, denied the ability to testify) was a US citizen. It's right there in the quote pulled from the legal doc. (IIRC, the mother was also on the no-fly list, and that was context of the case itself, even. One could rightly also refer to her as an injured party too.)
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  I had read the first document, which was about her mother, who isn't a US citizen and wasn't in the US.
  - deathanatos 3y ago
    The quote is from the first document. Again, yes, the mother isn't a US citizen, she's not the focus of my comment, the daughter is. The daughter is a US citizen, and she is additionally mentioned in the document.
    - lern_too_spel 3y ago
      The daughter immediately received remedy from the court. The mother did not despite her far more severe injuries because, as you now admit, she was a nonimmigrant alien outside the US.