3 ms·

So you are saying that anyone in the world has the rights listed in the US constitution?

by kreetx 1y ago

jakelazaroff 1y ago
When they are under the jurisdiction of US law enforcement? Yes, they do.
- kreetx 1y ago
  So I guess the neat way for US to deny entry to people is somehow have the denying done by non-law-enforcement and also perhaps somehow outside of its soil (if that matters)?
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    Or they could change the constitution if they don't want to abide to it?
    - kreetx 1y ago
      Yes, but isn't the current situation based on a technicality then? Assuming that reaching that when anyone reaches US law enforcement gets everything in the constitution applied to them and then must be let into the country because they only want freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. I guess the workaround for this would be to have outposts in other countries where non-US law enforcement personnel is denying entry - this would be ok, as the constitution doesn't yet apply. Or, I wonder if the the people for whom denying entry was wrong don't base their decision on a technicality, but would actually prefer foreign political activists to enter the country. I wonder if this is tied to the foreigner's specific agenda, or would they also like the opposing side to be let in. To me, this sounds either a way to get supporters for their own opinion, or, on the latter case, recipe to increase chaos.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        You should stop wondering and start actually loading the words in front of your eyes into your brain.
        kreetx 1y ago
        I say "I wonder", "perhaps" etc to simply be polite, tease out the content of your argument, and also due to the person we are talking about not providing the legal reason given to him of why he was denied entry.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        The person we are talking about literally did provide the reason given to him. To reiterate: when reading, load the words in front of you into your brain. > They just came out and said it: > “We both know why you’ve been detained…it’s because of what you wrote about the protests at Columbia”
        kreetx 1y ago
        He literally didn't, he just quoted what the police said. But I assume his visa was cancelled and thus he was denied entry. Is this legal, or would you say that anyone already in US soil should be let in, regardless of visa status, if they want to assemble (the constitutional right)?
      - jakelazaroff 1y ago
        What could the technicality possibly be? They explicitly said they deported him due to his speech! This is like the most egregious possible violation of the First Amendment. The police literally — in the fashion of a cartoon villain revealing their dastardly plot — copped to breaking the law. What the police did here doesn't hold up to even the most stringent possible definition of "freedom of speech", and it's also obviously unconstitutional. And there are still people trying to defend it. I'm honestly a little flabbergasted.

So you are saying that anyone in the world has the rights listed in the US constitution?

by kreetx 1y ago

So you are saying that anyone in the world has the rights listed in the US constitution?

jakelazaroff 1y ago

When they are under the jurisdiction of US law enforcement? Yes, they do.

kreetx 1y ago
So I guess the neat way for US to deny entry to people is somehow have the denying done by non-law-enforcement and also perhaps somehow outside of its soil (if that matters)?
- 1718627440 1y ago
  Or they could change the constitution if they don't want to abide to it?
  - kreetx 1y ago
    Yes, but isn't the current situation based on a technicality then? Assuming that reaching that when anyone reaches US law enforcement gets everything in the constitution applied to them and then must be let into the country because they only want freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. I guess the workaround for this would be to have outposts in other countries where non-US law enforcement personnel is denying entry - this would be ok, as the constitution doesn't yet apply. Or, I wonder if the the people for whom denying entry was wrong don't base their decision on a technicality, but would actually prefer foreign political activists to enter the country. I wonder if this is tied to the foreigner's specific agenda, or would they also like the opposing side to be let in. To me, this sounds either a way to get supporters for their own opinion, or, on the latter case, recipe to increase chaos.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      You should stop wondering and start actually loading the words in front of your eyes into your brain.
      - kreetx 1y ago
        I say "I wonder", "perhaps" etc to simply be polite, tease out the content of your argument, and also due to the person we are talking about not providing the legal reason given to him of why he was denied entry.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        The person we are talking about literally did provide the reason given to him. To reiterate: when reading, load the words in front of you into your brain. > They just came out and said it: > “We both know why you’ve been detained…it’s because of what you wrote about the protests at Columbia”
        kreetx 1y ago
        He literally didn't, he just quoted what the police said. But I assume his visa was cancelled and thus he was denied entry. Is this legal, or would you say that anyone already in US soil should be let in, regardless of visa status, if they want to assemble (the constitutional right)?
    - jakelazaroff 1y ago
      What could the technicality possibly be? They explicitly said they deported him due to his speech! This is like the most egregious possible violation of the First Amendment. The police literally — in the fashion of a cartoon villain revealing their dastardly plot — copped to breaking the law. What the police did here doesn't hold up to even the most stringent possible definition of "freedom of speech", and it's also obviously unconstitutional. And there are still people trying to defend it. I'm honestly a little flabbergasted.