So it's only Americans that can have illicit downloads, 🙄

3 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

There is no first amendment right to enter the US.

They would have been horrified at keeping people out based on their views. And nothing in the first amendment says it's for citizens only.

4 hours ago, novacova said:

Law and order,

What in America, so Americans don't break the law ?....

1 minute ago, brian69 said:

What in America, so Americans don't break the law ?....

What context is your aim?

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

They would have been horrified at keeping people out based on their views. And nothing in the first amendment says it's for citizens only.

 

Religious test were part of the law in US states, in MA and NC, for example, well into the nineteenth century. 

13 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

I call him that all the time. But if you're a foreign citizen entering the US, you're a guest, with no right to partake or interfere with the US political system. I know I hold my tongue when speaking about Thailand in any way other than as a guest grateful for the long term opportunity to visit. 

.But the guests weren't/aren't in the USA over the last 5 years when they badmouth Trump.

Are you saying they should never comment about US policy?

 

3 minutes ago, bannork said:

.But the guests weren't/aren't in the USA over the last 5 years when they badmouth Trump.

Are you saying they should never comment about US policy?

 

 

I'm saying a guest is given privileges, whereas a citizen is given rights. If a visitor demonstrates they will take actions that disrupt the lives of citizens (seen through evidence on their social media) then they shouldn't be allowed in. Don't forget that early US naturalization laws in the 1790s had a "good character" clause. So much for the "founding father" mythology we got a few posts earlier above. 

9 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

Religious test were part of the law in US states, in MA and NC, for example, well into the nineteenth century. 

Given that foreign citizens weren't eligible for office what's your point?

Volunteers needed! As a non US citizen have you ever posted any negative comments about Donald, now travelling to the US? Then keep us posted what happened. We need some "Guinea Pigs".

10 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

I'm saying a guest is given privileges, whereas a citizen is given rights. If a visitor demonstrates they will take actions that disrupt the lives of citizens (seen through evidence on their social media) then they shouldn't be allowed in. Don't forget that early US naturalization laws in the 1790s had a "good character" clause. So much for the "founding father" mythology we got a few posts earlier above. 

In other words, the US is not obligated to extend the full range of constitutional rights and protections that is extend to a US citizen. Pretty much the same in any other country. Just as here in th, in the US you are a guest until citizenship.

9 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

I'm saying a guest is given privileges, whereas a citizen is given rights. If a visitor demonstrates they will take actions that disrupt the lives of citizens (seen through evidence on their social media) then they shouldn't be allowed in. Don't forget that early US naturalization laws in the 1790s had a "good character" clause. So much for the "founding father" mythology we got a few posts earlier above. 

James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, definitely agreed with me.

5 hours ago, bannork said:

So much for free speech?

 

All tourists - including those from Britain - will have to undergo a social media screening before being allowed entry into the US under new plans being considered by the country's border force.

 

At the moment, Britons are among those who can visit for up to 90 days without a visa. They just have to obtain an electronic travel authorisation, known as an ESTA, for $40 (£30). The potential social media mandate being proposed by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would apply to anyone visiting, whether they require a visa or not.

 

According to a notice published in America's federal register on Tuesday, foreign tourists would need to provide their social media from the last five years.

It will be "mandatory" to hand over the information, and other details - including email addresses and telephone numbers used in the last five years, as well as the names, addresses, numbers, and birthdays of family members - will also be required.

 

 

 

US plans to start checking all tourists' social media

You people are someone else.

 

It's a proposal in the federal registor for public comment.  You people are act like it's in place.  

 

 

First "Tourists."  Then "Citizens." 

This is your brain on MAGA (make authoritarianism great again).  Just say "No" to MAGA.

4 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Given that foreign citizens weren't eligible for office what's your point?

 

The point is clear. A person seeking entry into the US and/or citizenship and who also, for example, declared their intent to replace the US Constitution with, for example, Sharia Law, would be in violation of Art. III of the Constitution and a variety of laws such as the Crimes Act (1790) and make them not only subject to refused entry but to the death penalty if citizen or foreigner. The US Constitution is not a suicide pact, where anyone with any view gets the rights of citizens, including entry into the country.

11 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

I'm saying a guest is given privileges, whereas a citizen is given rights. If a visitor demonstrates they will take actions that disrupt the lives of citizens (seen through evidence on their social media) then they shouldn't be allowed in. Don't forget that early US naturalization laws in the 1790s had a "good character" clause. So much for the "founding father" mythology we got a few posts earlier above. 

You keep on claiming but this is about keeping disruptive people out of the USA. Where's your evidence that this is who the Trump administration is aiming at? Where is your evidence that they are not aiming at people whose opinions they simply don't approve of?

1 minute ago, John Drake said:

 

The point is clear. A person seeking entry into the US and/or citizenship and who also, for example, declared their intent to replace the US Constitution with, for example, Sharia Law, would be in violation of Art. III of the Constitution and a variety of laws such as the Crimes Act (1790) and make them not only subject to refused entry but to the death penalty if citizen or foreigner. The US Constitution is not a suicide pact, where anyone with any view gets the rights of citizens, including entry into the country.

Guess what? The first amendment came after article 3 of The Constitution. So it supersede the authority of that article. And the supreme Court has ruled that advocating for unpopular views, even advocating for violent revolution in a general way, is constitutionally protected.

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You keep on claiming but this is about keeping disruptive people out of the USA. Where's your evidence that this is who the Trump administration is aiming at? Where is your evidence that they are not aiming at people whose opinions they simply don't approve of?

 

I don't know that that isn't the case. I do not endorse Trump. I regularly criticize him on this forum. But I am an immigration/borders hardliner. And I do believe those overseeing a defined process of immigration have the right to deny entry to disruptive people. BTW, there is a list of American citizens that is quite long who have been denied entry to a variety of European countries and Australia simply based on their political beliefs. And the Euros are much more free and easy about whom they restrict and deport. This is not some radical policy. It's commonplace across much of the world. I can guarantee you that were China PRC to check my social media, I'm fairly sure I'd be denied entry to the PRC>

3 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Guess what? The first amendment came after article 3 of The Constitution. So it supersede the authority of that article. And the supreme Court has ruled that advocating for unpopular views, even advocating for violent revolution in a general way, is constitutionally protected.

 

Nothing, absolutely nothing that you cite gives foreigners seeking entry into the US the right to do so. And nothing prohibits them from being deported for their views.

1 minute ago, John Drake said:

 

I don't know that that isn't the case. I do not endorse Trump. I regularly criticize him on this forum. But I am an immigration/borders hardliner. And I do believe those overseeing a defined process of immigration have the right to deny entry to disruptive people. BTW, there is a list of American citizens that is quite long who have been denied entry to a variety of European countries and Australia simply based on their political beliefs. And the Euros are much more free and easy about whom they restrict and deport. This is not some radical policy. It's commonplace across much of the world. I can guarantee you that were China PRC to check my social media, I'm fairly sure I'd be denied entry to the PRC>

What have other countries got to do with this? And your raising the issue of what China would do if they checked your social media is just bizarre. Apparently you believe the standards imposed by that orwellian state, are also justifiable for use by the United States.

7 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Guess what? The first amendment came after article 3 of The Constitution. So it supersede the authority of that article. And the supreme Court has ruled that advocating for unpopular views, even advocating for violent revolution in a general way, is constitutionally protected.

 

You keep saying the "founding fathers" would have thought so and so. Well, art III and the Crimes Act of 1790 is EXACTLY what the founding fathers thought.

4 hours ago, carlyai said:

He must be a good man, look at his wife she's beautiful. 🙂

Yes you are right,lots and lots of pictures of only her!

3 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

What have other countries got to do with this? And your raising the issue of what China would do if they checked your social media is just bizarre. Apparently you believe the standards imposed by that orwellian state, are also justifiable for use by the United States.

 

Let me explain this S L O W L Y. Every country in the world has a process to keep out undesirables. Again, it's commonplace with immigration rules virtually anywhere. I would likely be undesirable for the PRC and probably lots of Euro countries as well. It is what you call an "anecdotal reference." Understand, now?

7 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

Nothing, absolutely nothing that you cite gives foreigners seeking entry into the US the right to do so. And nothing prohibits them from being deported for their views.

Actually something does prohibit them from being deported for their views

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/135/

 

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Even Russia doesn't do that for all tourists!

you're funny who's applying for a visa to go to Russia!!

 

 

Who wants to visit that third world country anyway?

6 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Actually something does prohibit them from being deported for their views

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/135/

 

No, you're wrong. It simply says you must go through the correct process, which today means actions taken through immigration courts. This has been adjudicated this current year, even. There is no restriction on deportation or how fast and nimble the immigration courts need to be with their decisions. And Trump was allowed to go around them altogether by applying the Alien Enemies Act (1798) based on national security. 

Just now, bubblegum said:

Who wants to visit that third world country anyway?

You can't afford it. 

28 minutes ago, TedG said:

You people are someone else.

 

It's a proposal in the federal registor for public comment.  You people are act like it's in place.  

 

 

Exactly how is criticizing a proposal in the Federal register, acting like it's in place? Should we wait until it's put into practice before criticizing it? What's your point? Is

3 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

No, you're wrong. It simply says you must go through the correct process, which today means actions taken through immigration courts. This has been adjudicated this current year, even. There is no restriction on deportation or how fast and nimble the immigration courts need to be with their decisions. And Trump was allowed to go around them altogether by applying the Alien Enemies Act (1798) based on national security. 

I just signed into you a major piece of case law which found against that.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

She's on a contract. Everything to do with Trump is transactional. 

 

So last time you spoke to her did she tell you how much per transaction? 

Is there different amount for different types of transactions?  Please tell us....you have the biggest scoop on Trump please speak to the news channels so 

you can tell everyone about this.

How long have you guys been friends?