I understand it's not as easy, but we should at least try for "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to the government denying privileges. I'm all for the government denying entry, but it should be clear what the offense was.
This method of justice is reserved for our court system inside the US and most likley not work for our borders due to the fact agents must make educated or gut decisions.
>I'm all for the government denying entry, but it should be clear what the offense was.
This seens to be a contradiction to your other thought.
You mean there are two standards in USA one at the borders another in the country.
So all countries denying reporters, human rights workers or dissidents or protestors to enter their borders are doing it correct, because the rule of law is inside borders not outside.
So your thought justify very much the border agents analysing your phones and electronic media before entering, like the way in recent memories happening in Hong Kong borders due to protests.
You might, but personally I cannot agree with such a notion of dual standards of law. I understand entry to a country and visa is a privilege not a right. But if a country believes in rule is law and on foundations of "Innocent until proven guilty", then it should abide by it.
In my view it isn't, USA has chosen common law jurisdiction which clearly states "Innocent until proven guilty". So it should not just put it on the books, but has to follow it in spirit. Don't create border buffer zones, guam to dilute it, this is taking USA to same level as other nations which it criticize for those violations.
In Continental law in few jurisdiction like Japan (what happened with Carlos Ghosn) and China they follow "Guilty until proven innocent". In this jurisdiction the prosecutor exercise control on whom to prosecute, because onus is on plaintiff to prove innocence through evidence.
Here the discussion is not about what is happening inside the country, but at the borders so surveillance state is not a question here.
If you have discussion on surveillance, China is a transparent surveillance where citizens are aware of it, USA with NSA is an opaque surveillance state. I am sure I don't want either of them, but if forced prefer a transparent than an opaque system.
this resembles the situation when a police officer arrests a US citizen. they do that thousands of times a day in the US without first determining innocence or guilt. it's just the first step. and US citizens are generally required to cooperate with law enforcement officer directives. the fact that police have certain, constitutionally limited powers doesn't mean the system has abandoned "innocent until proven guilty."
Here student were already pronounced guilty and forcibly send back on return flight.
> this resembles the situation when a police officer arrests a US citizen.
Its not the same.
When a police officer arrests a US citizen, they need to grant him rights and access to lawyer. If they want to take away that right, they need to have a strong reason and apply patriot act or some specific law. If there is a wrong application of law the police officer and department can be sued for wrongful arrest.
Here the punishment has already been meted out by sending them back forcibly, without any due process, but based on border agents discretion.
Turning a whole group of foreign students back at the border is very unusual, and it's unclear why the government wants to increase legal insecurity and broadcast that it can't be trusted.
Issuance of a visa does not guarantee entry to the United States. A visa simply indicates that a U.S. consular officer at an American embassy or consulate has reviewed the application and that officer has determined that the individual is eligible to enter the country for a specific purpose. The CBP Officer at the port-of-entry will conduct an inspection to determine if the individual is eligible for admission under U.S. immigration law.
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waive...
Yes. Also there are seperate policies and rules for citizens and non- citizens at the border.
>So all countries denying reporters, human rights workers or dissidents or protestors to enter their borders are doing it correct, because the rule of law is inside borders not outside.
This discussion pertains to entry into the US.
Most of the students will have been in the US before, they are continuing their degree and just went home for the summer. If the FBI or whoever has something on them they can apply for a warrant and have them arrested. But the government instead chose not to admit them at the border.
It goes the opposite way as well, if the student chooses not to leave the government has to find something of substance and convince a judge, just saying "I want you out" doesn't cover it. Nothing of this makes sense, and as far as national security goes, I find it hard to believe that students are permitted near classified data.
That's one hell of an a priori you have there.
Edit to add, citizens are entitled to due process while I am only referring to non-citizens
yes
>Do you see the hold up this will cause?
no
I don't think its fair, but traveling to another country you're not a citizen of you have no reason to expect fairness. We don't expect free access to other sovereign countries. For instance, and China has a long history of kicking out foreigners for arbitrary reasons, targeting foreign bars for random drug testing, etc, and this is considered acceptable because that's the law there. Here, we don't target foreigners/outsiders (laowai) so harshly. We treat foreigners way more kindly than most countries. We still give out tons of visas every year to allow people various opportunities. What the CBP can and can not do is also dictated by law as a security mandate. The law says people can be denied entry for a variety of reasons. Until we know those reasons, if we can possibly tell those reasons, there isn't much to say.
Why do you ask?
I think you’re trying to make a point with all these questions, but damned if I know what it is. Maybe you could just say it?
1. remove CBP's current right to summarily deny entry to visa holders (which is to say, remove that right from the aggregate of current US residents)
2. require the CBP (and thus current US residents) to argue all cases of entry denial at a trial in a court of law (after the visa holder has been granted free entry to the US)
3. expand the visa holder's right to include an inviolable guarantee to enter at the time of arrival (which might, in some cases, be revoked in the future, but only as the result of a court trial)
4. (possibly also, though I'm not sure you'd agree) provide government subsidized lawyers to all visa holders who may face a trial questioning their right to remain
Regarding your specific points:
1. Yes. Maybe only for resident visas (arbitrarily turning away tourists and people on temporary business sucks but is a lot less dire).
2. Yes on the trial. Not necessarily on granting entry in the interim. It would presumably work like any other trial: you’re held temporarily and then get a quick hearing which determines whether you’re released or not, and under what conditions.
3. I don’t see how this is different from #1.
4. Yes, this should be a criminal trial and the defendant should have all the rights due to a criminal defendant, including the right to a public defender.
From the country's point of view, this policy seems like a conservative filter for entrants who might violate regulations, cause damage or even harm the existing residents. But, yes, there are false positives and false negatives to any such policy. And, of course, such a policy might include the provision for an appeal.