"Peace Plane" diverts, Cat Stevens removed

[atrdriver]

but if a person is denied, then that person must be given due process to the reasons he was denied.

Wrong. A non citizen of the US does not need to be given a reason why entry into our country is denied, nor is a non citizen entitled to due process under our law. US law was drafted for US citizens. If you are a legal alien, then you are afforded access to our legal system. If you are a non citizen (living somewhere else), or an illegal alien, you are not entitled to any protection under our laws.

atrdriver

 

[gfvalvo]

Lets just agree to disagree.

We may not have to. I think we're getting closer to agreement. You've conceded:
"...its not a right to enter this country..."

Now let's tackle:
"...but if a person is denied, then that person must be given due process to the reasons he was denied..."

I have to admit that I don't know if this is true or false. Can you supply a reference to any law or legal precedence establishing a right to "due process" in a situation like this? Lacking laws to the contrary, I'd say granting or denying the privilege of entering this country to a non-citizen is entirely at the discretion of the government.

I'm open to being proven wrong on this, just provide the legal references. However, just because you want it to be true (and vigorously assert that it is) doesn't make it so. Provide the proof.

 

[Sir Humpalot]

GF wrong again. I will give you an example of why an illegal alien is given the same right as a citizen. In california, a law was passed that illegal aliens have the same state rights as a citizen. From the case of an illegal who came to work for his uncle and his uncle promised him a house and a job. That same uncle never paid him and he had to sleep on the floor. When the INS found out, they sued that uncle for treatment of his nephew and gave that nephew a hearing and protected his rights. I remember reading about it a month ago but i will research that link and PM you.

Just because someone is illegal doesnt mean that that person should be treated any less. As far as conceding, this is a conversation and not a rhetorical debate and life is not about wrong or right, but instead of trying to learn another person's viewpoint.

I already said that it is a privilige to live in america, but that privilige should be afforded to everyone and not just people from european descent. Equal representation and due process...thats all i believe in. So its okay if someone can move here from europe but not from south america. If you think that everyone has an equal opportunity under the american system, then i have a bridge to sell you.

Whatever the case may be, this is still the greatest country and thats why everyone wants to come here....to get the same opportunity that was afforded to your ancestry.

 

[schafjet]

Sir Hump,

I am sure that Cat will get his due process whether it is his "right" or not. It's the American way to be politically correct. If he doesn't get his due process, he can sue. That'st the American way too.

 

[gfvalvo]

GF wrong again. I will give you an example of why an illegal alien is given the same right as a citizen. In california, a law was passed that illegal aliens have the same state rights as a citizen. ......

1. I didn't say anything about the rights of illegal aliens who are currently in the country by whatever means (you may be referring to ATRDRIVER's post). I certainly don't want to open THAT can of worms at this time. Perhaps we'll save it for a different discussion.



2. Please try to stay on-topic. Like I said, I'm willing to be educated here. You are asserting that a non-citizen who has been denied entry to this country is entitled to "due process to the reasons he was denied" My question is simple: can you supply any legal references supporting your assertion? US Constitution or Federal law will do nicely. PLEASE, confine your answer to this specific context. The California case you sited doesn't appear to be relevant as that person was already in the country.

 

[TonyC]

GF wrong again. I will give you an example of why an illegal alien is given the same right as a citizen. In california, a law was passed that illegal aliens have the same state rights as a citizen.

Sir Humpalot . . . turn down your emotions for a minute (they're not bad emotions, they're just distorting your vision right now) and focus on logic.

IF . . . big word there, IF - - two letters, more powerful than a locomotive... IF an illegal alien has the same rights as a citizen, WHY did California pass a law tha gives illegal aliens the same rights as a citizen? IF they (these rights) were already there, what effect would such a state law have?

Why, no effect at ALL! The very fact that some fruits and nuts in the left-coast state of pandemonium would suggest a law giving illegal aliens the same rights as citizens PROVES that those rights did not formerly exist.

Think about it, would it make sense for The Great State of Tennessee to pass a law giving all of the citizens of Tennessee the Right of Free Speech? Would it make sense for the Commonwealth of Louisiana to pass a law giving all of the citizens of Louisiana the Right to Assemble? Of course not, since both of these freedoms are already afforded by the Constitution of the United States. To propose either of these laws would in effect be proclaiming that the right did not already exist.

California's attempt to afford citizen rights to illegal aliens admits in the beginning that those rights do not (did not?) presently exist.


Let's make this simple.

US citizens have rights of US citizens; Non-US citizens do not.

Non-US citizens do not have right of free entry into our country - - it is a privilege that our country extends to non-US citizens on our terms, nobody else's. We owe Non-US citizens NOTHING - - no explanation, no rationale, no apology.

If our policies and procedures identify an individual as a threat to national security, they don't come in - period.