Skip to main content

View Diary: German Critic of NSA Denied Entry into the US (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  may be insignificant incidence on a larger (23+ / 0-)

    scale, but a telling one.

    So, does that mean now, if I sign a petition here with similar intentions, I have to worry to not be able to return to the US, when I fly back to Germany, when I visit my family? What a ridiculous thought. But can't help the thought is coming up.

    •  This is HUGE! We are now officially a repressive (16+ / 0-)

      regime!  When did we become everything we were taught we were against, i.e. freedom of speech, ability to criticize our government.

      Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

      by Einsteinia on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 08:25:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  reagan blocked foreign policy critics (6+ / 0-)

        from entering the country from central and south america.

        farley mowat was denied entry, and some college professor who had become a mexican citizen.

      •  You have the Freedom of Speech (0+ / 0-)

        and you can criticize your government, and are currently doing so.

        You have these as an American citizen.  What state was Ilija Trajanow born in?

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 09:42:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Rights of his US citizen hosts were violated (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mrkvica, sacrelicious

          The only winning move is not to play. - Joshua

          by FightersFate on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 10:03:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  LOL.. um...well.. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GoGoGoEverton, jrooth

            First, I appreciate ANYONE on this site for actually going out and doing legal research rather then just using their own intuition of what the Constitution should mean or referencing such things as the Mirrian-Webster dictionary or something.

            So, seriously, I appreciate the link.  I am not being snarky or sarcastic.   But...

            You missed a key word of that summary:  Reversed

            The SCOTUS ruled that the Attorney General DOES have the right to refuse entry of anyone into the United States.

            It is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 whereby Congress authorizes the Executive (and thereby the Attorney General as delegated from the President) to exclude aliens and prescribe the conditions for entry into the US.

            Kleindienst was specifically related to barring people that had advocated for Communism, but the ruling would hold on any grounds.

            Held: In the exercise of Congress' plenary power to exclude aliens or prescribe the conditions for their entry into this country, Congress in § 212(a)(28) of the Act has delegated conditional exercise of this power to the Executive Branch. When, as in this case, the Attorney General decides for a legitimate and bona fide reason not to waive the statutory exclusion of an alien, courts will not look behind his decision or weigh it against the First Amendment interests of those who would personally communicate with the alien. Pp. 408 U. S. 761-770.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 10:20:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, sadly that is still the controlling precedent (0+ / 0-)

              Wrongly decided, in my humble opinion, and both dissents, that of Justice Douglas and of Justice Marshall (Justice Brennan joining) are worth reading for the First Amendment analysis which the majority (after ably describing the First Amendment question) declined to consider in favor of Congress' "plenary power to exclude aliens or prescribe the conditions for their entry into this country."

              "That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything ... There would be no place to hide." - Senator Frank Church

              by jrooth on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 11:25:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Ouch... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mrkvica

          unalienable rights apparently don't belong to people if they aren't American born....or...check again:

          http://www.unalienable.com/...

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
          •  DoI is not law, its a Declaration of War (0+ / 0-)

            Legally it is a "moral guide" for interpreting the Constitution, a position most notably argued by Abraham Lincoln.  It has no statutes.  It was ratified by no states.  It authorizes no government.

            US Laws, rights and punishments, do not apply to non-US citizens any more than EU Rights can be legally claimed by US citizens.

            Im not sure what you are arguing here.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 10:26:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY
              US Laws, rights and punishments, do not apply to non-US citizens any more than EU Rights can be legally claimed by US citizens.
              Of course EU rights can be legally claimed by US citizens in EU courts. And this is the case in most countries of the world. I find it disturbing that the (wrong) notion of non-US citizens not having rights seems to become more and more widespread.
    •  Yes (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Betty Pinson, mookins, JesseCW, mrkvica

      Bullies that they are, their goal is to make examples of people. So if you are, say, an author, or heading towards a conference, you make a good example, since only those who tend to read the sort of thing you write, or attend the sort of conferences you do are likely to hear about your being bullied. And those are just the people out government wants to intimidate, without necessarily broadcasting its bullying to the whole world.

      So signing a petition probably doesn't make you a target. Other signers of the petition won't be aware of your being locked out of the country, so the example serves no purpose. But being a regular here, since we are a population with lots of dissenters about the United Stasi of Anglia, can make you a good example for us.

      With luck, they'll put you on the no-fly list first. Then you won't get shut out of the country unless you go to Canada or Mexico by land.

    •  This is exactly what makes it like 1984. (7+ / 0-)

      (The book, I mean.)

      A government doesn't have to directly control people when the fear of being watched, and the fear of reprisal, makes them control themselves.

      Knowing all my internet communications and activities are being collected by "Big Brother," I too now feel like I have to second-guess everything I do on the internet, and self-censorship kicks in:  

      Not being able to write freely, even in emails to my family, because I'm worrying about how anything I write might be misinterpreted;  worrying that what I do today might be deemed unacceptable by a future extremist administration or Congress;  worrying that any petition -- or pattern of petitions -- I've signed might be used against me ...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (123)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (45)
  • Elections (37)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (34)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (28)
  • Barack Obama (27)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Culture (23)
  • Economy (20)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Labor (18)
  • Senate (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site