← Back to context

Comment by kreetx

2 days ago

So I guess the neat way for US to deny entry to people is somehow have the denying done by non-law-enforcement and also perhaps somehow outside of its soil (if that matters)?

12 comments

kreetx

Reply
1718627440  1 day ago

Or they could change the constitution if they don't want to abide to it?

  • kreetx  1 day ago

    Yes, but isn't the current situation based on a technicality then? Assuming that reaching that when anyone reaches US law enforcement gets everything in the constitution applied to them and then must be let into the country because they only want freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. I guess the workaround for this would be to have outposts in other countries where non-US law enforcement personnel is denying entry - this would be ok, as the constitution doesn't yet apply.

    Or, I wonder if the the people for whom denying entry was wrong don't base their decision on a technicality, but would actually prefer foreign political activists to enter the country. I wonder if this is tied to the foreigner's specific agenda, or would they also like the opposing side to be let in. To me, this sounds either a way to get supporters for their own opinion, or, on the latter case, recipe to increase chaos.

    • jakelazaroff  1 day ago

      What could the technicality possibly be? They explicitly said they deported him due to his speech! This is like the most egregious possible violation of the First Amendment. The police literally — in the fashion of a cartoon villain revealing their dastardly plot — copped to breaking the law.

      What the police did here doesn't hold up to even the most stringent possible definition of "freedom of speech", and it's also obviously unconstitutional. And there are still people trying to defend it. I'm honestly a little flabbergasted.

      5 replies →