4 ms·

If you read the article, these people are not citizens of the united states...

southernplaces7 2y ago
The first amendment (and to my knowledge most of them) at least in theory if not in shit-smeared practice, apply to all people within US borders, not just citizens. In any case, it's an absurd argument to essentially say, "meh, he was a foreigner, it's fine".
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > The first amendment (and to my knowledge most of them) at least in theory if not in shit-smeared practice, apply to all people within US borders Moreover, the First Amendment is held (not just philosophically, but this is the legal theory behind its incorporation against the states under the 14th Amendment) to be declarative of a universal right (a right "fundamental to ordered liberty"). It is therefore monstrous to try to excuse its violation by the US government against any person subject to its power under any circumstances.
anonzzzies 2y ago
> these people are not citizens of the united states Lovely stance... Also, the headline question is if it's safe to travel there.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  Being denied entry is not a threat to your safety.
  - anonzzzies 2y ago
    That depends what happens between being denied and getting back into a plane. Also, the current situation is not a guarantee for the future.
    - more_corn 2y ago
      The Canadian woman who had her visa revoked for no reason was subsequently incarcerated under deplorable conditions and denied access to council. If I recall correctly they held her for two weeks. In batch holding without proper clothing or heat and with 24hour lighting which I believe has been previously classified as torture. Sounds pretty unsafe to me.
  - grahar64 2y ago
    Safety is not just physical violence. The threat of violence (including incarceration) is enough to make a place unsafe.
    - clown_strike 2y ago
      Prosecution is not Persecution. Fugitives are not refugees.
  - ranger_danger 2y ago
    Illegally being sent to a hellish Salvadoran prison without due process sure is. https://time.com/7269604/el-salvador-photos-venezuelan-detainees/ https://time.com/7269604/el-salvador-photos-venezuelan-detai...
ant6n 2y ago
> As Justice Francis W. Murphy described the law in his concurrence in Bridges v. Wixon (1945), “the Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.” [1] [1] https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/
- throw0101b 2y ago
  * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridges_v._Wixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridges_v._Wixon
malfist 2y ago
The Constitution binds the government, it's not something applied to citizens. The government cannot infringe on speech period. Doesn't matter if they want to infringe on it for citizens, non citizens or someone living in a territory the government controls
protimewaster 2y ago
Various court findings have decided that the bill of rights applies to non-citizens on US soil, though.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  The border is where it is determined if you enter US soil or not. That's the entire point of border control.
  - jplrssn 2y ago
    This would imply that no part of the Constitution applies at the border either, which is surely not the case.
carlosjobim 2y ago
You don't deserve to be down voted by hackers for your comment. There is a huge difference between what rights you should have where you are born or are a citizen, and what rights you should have when you come as a guest to another country.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  What rights you think you should have has nothing to do with the law.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

The first amendment (and to my knowledge most of them) at least in theory if not in shit-smeared practice, apply to all people within US borders, not just citizens. In any case, it's an absurd argument to essentially say, "meh, he was a foreigner, it's fine".

dragonwriter 2y ago
> The first amendment (and to my knowledge most of them) at least in theory if not in shit-smeared practice, apply to all people within US borders Moreover, the First Amendment is held (not just philosophically, but this is the legal theory behind its incorporation against the states under the 14th Amendment) to be declarative of a universal right (a right "fundamental to ordered liberty"). It is therefore monstrous to try to excuse its violation by the US government against any person subject to its power under any circumstances.

anonzzzies 2y ago

> these people are not citizens of the united states Lovely stance... Also, the headline question is if it's safe to travel there.

carlosjobim 2y ago
Being denied entry is not a threat to your safety.
- anonzzzies 2y ago
  That depends what happens between being denied and getting back into a plane. Also, the current situation is not a guarantee for the future.
  - more_corn 2y ago
    The Canadian woman who had her visa revoked for no reason was subsequently incarcerated under deplorable conditions and denied access to council. If I recall correctly they held her for two weeks. In batch holding without proper clothing or heat and with 24hour lighting which I believe has been previously classified as torture. Sounds pretty unsafe to me.
- grahar64 2y ago
  Safety is not just physical violence. The threat of violence (including incarceration) is enough to make a place unsafe.
  - clown_strike 2y ago
    Prosecution is not Persecution. Fugitives are not refugees.
- ranger_danger 2y ago
  Illegally being sent to a hellish Salvadoran prison without due process sure is. https://time.com/7269604/el-salvador-photos-venezuelan-detainees/ https://time.com/7269604/el-salvador-photos-venezuelan-detai...

ant6n 2y ago

> As Justice Francis W. Murphy described the law in his concurrence in Bridges v. Wixon (1945), “the Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.” [1] [1] https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/

throw0101b 2y ago
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridges_v._Wixon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridges_v._Wixon

malfist 2y ago

The Constitution binds the government, it's not something applied to citizens. The government cannot infringe on speech period. Doesn't matter if they want to infringe on it for citizens, non citizens or someone living in a territory the government controls

protimewaster 2y ago

Various court findings have decided that the bill of rights applies to non-citizens on US soil, though.

carlosjobim 2y ago
The border is where it is determined if you enter US soil or not. That's the entire point of border control.
- jplrssn 2y ago
  This would imply that no part of the Constitution applies at the border either, which is surely not the case.

carlosjobim 2y ago

You don't deserve to be down voted by hackers for your comment. There is a huge difference between what rights you should have where you are born or are a citizen, and what rights you should have when you come as a guest to another country.

amanaplanacanal 2y ago
What rights you think you should have has nothing to do with the law.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]