Well, we don't know the legal reason he was denied entry. Given that this is a foreign student and a protester, it could be that his permission to enter the country was revoked due to exceeding his purpose to be in the US.
I'm not debating what the legal formulation was, I just don't get the people who think he should have been let in. Since as in computer programming and in law, you can't nail down any circumstance in existence - you sometimes need apply the "do what I mean" rather than "do what said". In this case it does seem that the government did what the population would have liked it to have done. Though, I guess if he would sue, then you would do well in being his lawyers.
> “We both know why you’ve been detained…it’s because of what you wrote about the protests at Columbia”
I have no clue if this is actually true, but operating from the same set of facts that you have: we know exactly why he was detained, and assuming the facts we've been provided, we know for sure that it is unconstitutional
> it does seem that the government did what the population would have liked it to have done
You have no clue what "the population would have liked," and neither do I, and neither does the state. That's why we have the First Amendment, to preclude them from attempting such ridiculous assertions of omniscience.
Nobody said you can't deny entry. There is an infinitely long list of reasons they can deny entry including "because we said so."
However, they cannot deny entry on the basis of protected speech.
You're the only one struggling with this.
Well, we don't know the legal reason he was denied entry. Given that this is a foreign student and a protester, it could be that his permission to enter the country was revoked due to exceeding his purpose to be in the US.
I'm not debating what the legal formulation was, I just don't get the people who think he should have been let in. Since as in computer programming and in law, you can't nail down any circumstance in existence - you sometimes need apply the "do what I mean" rather than "do what said". In this case it does seem that the government did what the population would have liked it to have done. Though, I guess if he would sue, then you would do well in being his lawyers.
Good fucking lord dude.
FTA
> “We both know why you’ve been detained…it’s because of what you wrote about the protests at Columbia”
I have no clue if this is actually true, but operating from the same set of facts that you have: we know exactly why he was detained, and assuming the facts we've been provided, we know for sure that it is unconstitutional
> it does seem that the government did what the population would have liked it to have done
You have no clue what "the population would have liked," and neither do I, and neither does the state. That's why we have the First Amendment, to preclude them from attempting such ridiculous assertions of omniscience.
1 reply →