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