Hacker News Reader

Comment by LudwigNagasena | Hacker News Reader

Why would it be easier to deport someone for lying on a form rather than for being a terrorist?

Because you need proof, and proving that someone is a terrorist is a long expensive and not guarantied process, while the lying on a form thing is purposefully self evident.

But if you haven't proven they are a terrorist, how can you prove they are lying about being a terrorist?

They might not be a terrorist, in which case they weren't lying.

I doubt that this is the logic but there are different standards of evidence. If the traveler faces a criminal charge they'll get an attorney and the government will need to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a civil case, it's likely to be about the preponderance of evidence and in front of some non-court administrative body there may be no particular standard of evidence at all.

Immigration courts aren’t real courts and the judges are part of the executive branch (Department of Justice), not the judicial branch [1].

Their evidentiary standards are closer to “nonexistent” than to preponderance of evidence.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Judge_(United_St...

Jaywalking is illegal. It doesn't have to be the same illegal thing they want you out for. They're just giving them more options.

The Freedom to Walk act, in California, just made it legal. (Not relevant to your point, just a side bit of interesting info).

edit:

Huh. These guys:

https://www.dlawgroup.com/california-freedom-to-walk-act-for...

claim it is still illegal, but cannot be ticketed for without certain conditions. I wonder why, or if, this weird condition exists.

(I see it is supposedly to prevent police harassment, but that doesn't explain the weird legal status)

The main purpose is likely to allow the police to cite a pedestrian who is at fault for an accident, which helps protect the other parties involved from civil liability.

The law could be rewritten to take that into consideration. The current exception even has language in it to delineate its use.

I think there are following expected scenarios for this question:

- If you answer "No": That's what they expect everyone will say, but having it in writing may still come in handy in international disputes. Say you're considered a terrorist in another country. The form, AFAIK, doesn't define by whose standards you are a terrorist, so it might be grounds to kick you out if the US isn't specifically interested in keeping you in.

- If you answer "Yes": You most likely have mental issues. Entry denied.

- If you stress too much over it: Entry denied, possibly notify relevant law enforcement.

- If you start to ask questions about it, like precisely what is meant by this question and why: You either have mental issues, or are up to something. Either way, entry denied.

Well the form doesn't literally ask, "are you a terrorist? ". It's just a bunch of terroristic and criminal activities. So if you said no to "do you plan to commit any crimes" and then you rob a store or God forbid actually commit terrorism, which is a crime, you've lied on the form and can be expelled quickly

It may be burden of proof. Where I live, criminal court is to be thought of as 99% proof of guilt, where as civil court, eg being sued, is more like 50.1%.

So maybe an expulsion tribunal is 50.1% too?

The Oz government used some similar loophole (or threatened to use it) with the Djokovic covid saga at the Australian open. As I recall, a judge said that he could get a visa for whatever covid medical exemption reasons, but on his immigration form he said that he hadn't been travelling elsewhere. Social media proved otherwise, so he was caught in an easily provable lie on an immigration form. He was then able to be refused entry for reasons unreleated to the covid rules. In the end, they didn't have to rule on whether or not the Oz tennis association could issue a medical exemption for covid - they could kick him out on a much clearer legal basis. I don't recall the exact details, but that is the gist of some of the legal drama.

All it did was reflect poorly on Australia.

>All it did was reflect poorly on Australia

I'm not Australian, but did follow the story with some interest as I do like professional tennis.

I thought it reflected much more poorly on Djokovic than on Australia. They set the visa rules, Djokovic violated those rules (and not subtly either).

It was too bad that he was unable to play at the AO last year, but that was (AFAIK) specifically due to his actions in violation of Australian law.

Those actions being lying on visa forms. And he did so regarding something that could be easily checked and confirmed/debunked.

Had he not lied, he probably would have gotten his visa.

Eh, I thought the fact rich celebrities were held to the same standards as us normal people reflected pretty well on Australia.

From the outside it seemed like lets go hard on this foreign player from an eastern European country no one cares about hurting relations with. He didn't get the vaccine and we are still trying to push lockdowns hard locally lets use this to score political points.

I feel bad for him that he got caught up in local politics. I understand those normal people ate up the rich guy foreign ploy. What they missed was their rights were being trampled on while the rest of the world opened up and they were distracted by a fake booeyman.

You don't have any right to travel to a foreign country. You only get in if you convince them you won't be a troublesome guest.

If i was to guess i would say the same as for Al capone, easier to prosecute for an administrative issue for which there is clear evidence and a fast-lane of application rather than go through heavy procedure required for heavy crime for which you may not have clear evidence

If I said, in the US, "Peter Thiel is a woman-hating monster and the country would be better if he and every politician on his payroll was swinging from a lamppost Mussolini style" it would be difficult to make any case that I was doing anything not covered by first amendment protections.

If I'm a visitor to the country and say the same thing having signed an affirmation that I'm not going to advocate for violent overthrow of the US government it's not a first amendment case, it's a lying-on-immigration-forms case and out I do.

I don’t think death threats are covered by the first amendment.

Where's the death threat?

That paragraph is not much different from what you'll find from self-described stocastic terrorist LibsofTikTok.

And, you know, I certainly agree that this kind of speech is terrible! But just as the US first amendment has protected, for example, supplying lists of doctors providing women with healthcare, showing crosshairs over them, putting red crosses over ones who have been murdered, and so on, the US has decided over the years that you have to issue very direct threats, or very clear instructions, to be held liable for speech that could incite harm.

For the purposes of the first amendment, this isn't a death threat, it's the expression of an opinion.

Even advocating for violence is constitutionally protected.

A credible threat would, generally consist of specific actions that the person would have means to carry out.

This is not legal advice but I think they are. See Brandenburg v Ohio.

"Brandenburg was convicted of violating a criminal law that prohibited speech that advocates crime, sabotage, violence, and other similar acts after he spoke at a KKK rally. The Supreme Court found that the law infringed on Brandenburg's First Amendment rights, and created the imminent lawless action test. In order for speech to fall out of First Amendment protection, it must 1) be directed at producing imminent lawless action and 2) it is likely to produce such action."

I think there is an exception for ones made against certain public officials, which IMO are likely unconstitutional, but no one is really excited about challenging those.

https://www.thefire.org/supreme-court/brandenburg-v-ohio

It’s cheaper to demonstrate a lie than to have people testify, etc.

If they commit a crime there is the question of whether they should be imprisoned or deported. That likely involves a court case, something US prosecutors famously hate (just look at all the plea bargains).

If you lie on your immigration form, you gained entry under false pretenses. Nothing complicated or grey about that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com