Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

(G) Foreign government officials who have committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom
Any alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section 6402 of title 22, is inadmissible.

That someone could hypothetically claim that President Trump is responsible for some extra  territorial possession, or maybe qualifies as a government official for whatever country us troops are occupying, then deny him entry into the country on the grounds that denying people entry to the on the grounds of religion is illegal?

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with it, although I'm pretty sure that he could finagle through with executive actions.

[Morrigi]

(G) Foreign government officials who have committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom
Any alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section 6402 of title 22, is inadmissible.

That someone could hypothetically claim that President Trump is responsible for some extra  territorial possession, or maybe qualifies as a government official for whatever country us troops are occupying, then deny him entry into the country on the grounds that denying people entry to the on the grounds of religion is illegal?

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with it, although I'm pretty sure that he could finagle through with executive actions.

No, that Trump's suggestion of banning all Muslims from entering the country is technically legal.

[Strife26]

Sure, it's legal to ban them. However, it's not legal for a foreign official to do that, according to code.

[Lord Shonus]

(G) Foreign government officials who have committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom
Any alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section 6402 of title 22, is inadmissible.

That someone could hypothetically claim that President Trump is responsible for some extra  territorial possession, or maybe qualifies as a government official for whatever country us troops are occupying, then deny him entry into the country on the grounds that denying people entry to the on the grounds of religion is illegal?

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with it, although I'm pretty sure that he could finagle through with executive actions.

No, that Trump's suggestion of banning all Muslims from entering the country is technically legal.

I assume you're referring to

(F) Association with terrorist organizations

Any alien who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.

This does NOT make it legal to bar all Muslims from entry. It allows the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to, on an individual basis deny the entry of a terrorist affiliate if they believe that that affiliate is going to pose a danger.

[Strife26]

No, I'm referring to the idea that restricting entry to a country purely on religious grounds would qualify as "particularly severe violations of religious freedom"

[smjjames]

heh, Donald Trump ban petition reaches 156,000 and counting, could go to parliament even.

I wonder if they'd enforce that ban if he becomes president? Because that's a pretty dang major thing.

[mainiac]

Trump is a winner so he would start a negotiation and after a little magic from the art of the deal he would get an agreement where he isn't allowed in the UK but nothing else happens.

[Bohandas]

There must've been cases of Americans - or at least British - citizens volunteering for the Wehrmacht in WWII. Who here would say it'd be illegal to shoot them as part of normal military action?

Not me. And I'm in favor of drone strikes too. And assassinations. Provided that they don't take place on American soil. This brings me to my next point:

Furthermore, the question of the drone strikes' legality isn't a matter for the US government because they occur outside of US jurisdiction; whether it's murder is a question for the local government of the area where it took place, and even then the question is only relevant if we have an extradition treaty with them.

EDIT:

Careful. Due process is for all.

Due process is the law of the land. Specifically this land (and Canada and Western Europe). Certainly not that land.

[Bauglir]

Furthermore, the question of the drone strikes' legality isn't a matter for the US government because they occur outside of US jurisdiction

that isn't how law works

the united states government, inasmuch as it has a physical location, remains within the united states at all times*, and moreover the constitution that literally defines that same government doesn't stop delimiting its acceptable actions if they want to fuck around somewhere else

i mean sure, they're also liable for violation of local laws, except not really if it's an act of war because of the way the laws of war work

please study constitutional and international law at least a little, i can supply you with some good book references to start with if you'd like

*EDIT: yes, this matters, because if you want to talk criminal law the location where the criminal was during the commission of the act, the location where the crime was committed, and the location where the victim was located during the commission of the act, not to mention (in international law) the nations whose citizens were involved in any way at all, all theoretically have jurisdiction and in reality it comes down to who gets the person first

[Bohandas]

What? You'd it to be a requirement that someone find a President to be a good choice for President before they can be President?

I'd at least ban businessmen from holding the office. And possibly reality TV stars too.

We need a new amendment.

EDIT:
In fact I'd ban c-level business executives and directors (and business lobbyists) (and anyone who owned more that 10% of a major corporation) from even entering Washington DC

[Bohandas]

Furthermore, the question of the drone strikes' legality isn't a matter for the US government because they occur outside of US jurisdiction

that isn't how law works

the united states government, inasmuch as it has a physical location, remains within the united states at all times, and moreover the constitution that literally defines that same government doesn't stop delimiting its acceptable actions if they want to fuck around somewhere else

United States law does not apply outside of the United States. Just as Russian or Chinese law has no bearing here (with the exception of treaties between the US and one of the aforementioned countries).

The drone strokes may violate international law, but that's a matter for the Hague, not our judicial system.

[smjjames]

There must've been cases of Americans - or at least British - citizens volunteering for the Wehrmacht in WWII. Who here would say it'd be illegal to shoot them as part of normal military action?

Not me.

Same here on the not illegal because if they get captured, they could rightfully (and should) be tried for treason and if they die in battle, then they died fighting for the other side. That's pretty much been standard more or less for a long time.

It just becomes murky when you're dealing with a non-state and unmanned drones are a new tool which the usage is still evolving as far as what's okay and what's not. There may have to be a geneva convention addition eventually covering the use of the new tool eventually because AFAIK, there's no language in it that covers unmanned drones in a concise way.

Also ninjas

[Bauglir]

United States law does not apply outside of the United States. Just as Russian or Chinese law has no bearig here.

it does apply to the actions of the United States because by definition the actor is located within the jurisdiction of the United States

and if it was a rogue soldier then obviously military law applies (i'm not familiar with that though)

but yeah, if you've got a private actor like a business (not under contract to a government) or an individual who strapped an AK to a commercial drone or whatever, then yes, US law doesn't matter

[smjjames]

What? You'd it to be a requirement that someone find a President to be a good choice for President before they can be President?

I'd at least ban businessmen from holding the office. And possibly reality TV stars too.

We need a new amendment.

Uh, there have been plenty of presidents who dabbled in business, so that isn't a good category.

Yes, I know you guys are being sarcastic.

United States law does not apply outside of the United States. Just as Russian or Chinese law has no bearig here.

it does apply to the actions of the United States because by definition the actor is located within the jurisdiction of the United States

and if it was a rogue soldier then obviously military law applies (i'm not familiar with that though)

but yeah, if you've got a private actor like a business (not under contract to a government) or an individual who strapped an AK to a commercial drone or whatever, then yes, US law doesn't matter

What about international law coming into play?

[Frumple]

... US law explicitly applies to US citizens (and US based businesses, for what that's worth) regardless of where they are. This is why you can bring up people on charges for accepting bribes in some other country, imprison people for sex tourism, and so on. Fairly sure most other countries have similar provisions -- Russian law may not apply to a US citizen in US territory, but it's pretty damn likely it would apply to a russian citizen in US territory.

Ninja'd a little, I think, but still.