2 Lodi residents refused entry back into U.S.

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | August 26, 2006 | Demian Bulwa

[kcvl]

What a surprise.

My thoughts exactly.

[daylate-dollarshort]

Yes you can.

[BobL]

"So Americans who are Muslim don't have 5th Ammendment rights?! That's unAmerican."

So is a lot of things done by that culture that would have gotten them hanged 50+ years ago.

Times have changed. I had suggested to Bush's campaign that they actively target Muslims and Arabs for votes (especially with Lieberman on the opposing side). By 2002, it was obvious that pandering to this bunch (such as slackening the extra security that had even been in place in 2000) was going to get a LOT of Americans killed. In the 1990s, I used to say that I'd send my kid to an Islamic school before I'd send him to a public school (as I greatly respected the way that Islam told children their place in society - i.e., none of this "child-centered" crap we get from liberals). Now I see Muslim parents proud to strap bombs on their kids, as long as the target is "the Infidel".

If you come here or convert or our born here, play by the rules, and make sure your kids and peers do. Otherwise expect some group profiling - Israel HAS to do that to stay alive, and we (and especially Britain) are figuring out that we must do the same.

Here is one thing that might change my mind: When the Hezbos fire missiles from civilian sites, I would greatly appreciate seeing some Muslim leaders get mad AT THE HEZBOS, for violating all rules of warfare, and putting civilians at risk. I'm sick of seeing Israel being told that retaliating directly against these sites is their fault.

I'll give more examples about grown-up behaviour in later posts.

[endthematrix]

Re: They don't have to answer a few questions.

Yes they do...and it's called the Fourth Amendment.

[FreedomPoster]

I was just thinking they could probably fly to Canada, then drive across.

[endthematrix]

"To summarize:

1. we are not at war "

dissent in part:

1.You are delusional

____________

Also, on your previous point of police questioning of subjects having "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity" you also have no background on the Fourth Amendment.

You have the right to disagree, but it's not the prevalent decision.

[BobL]

"Make DAMNED sure that any law / action / whatever is not going to pich if it is ever turned on you."

I do not have a problem being questioned by the FBI, and disallowed re-entry if I don't comply. I have been questioned oversees, in Western Europe, in a friendly country, prior to leaving for my return to the US (on a US airline, well prior to 9/11). I noted it was a bit strange and to this day I don't know who questioned me or why, but I really didn't care. I simply answered all of the questions. It was a business trip for a legit company and I simply told the truth. It wasn't very hard on me.

I have no doubt that, at least the Muzzie kid, would have been allowed to return to the US if and when he answered the questions. He may not have liked the results if the FBI determined that he was training for American Jihad (i.e., jail somewhere), but he should have expected such. America does not (yet) leave its native-born citizens hanging overseas with no way home - but we also will not take back people who don't play by the rules when it comes to re-entry responsibilities. As to the father (naturalized), I think there may be legal ways to pull his citizenship, but I'm not sure, and it wasn't discussed here.

[endthematrix]

Be the name Matthew or Muhammand, if you are associated with elements of terrorism you are under the scope of interrogation at best...at worst, you're dead.

[BobL]

You know, I don't care if there is a war on terror, or not.

If a country cannot control and monitor what passes through its borders, being people, things, or electronic transmissions, the country might just as well throw in the towel and let the Hoardes take over - because that will happen anyway.

It's that simple, no need for a war on terror, or any other reason. Every country in the world has the RIGHT to control their own borders (including the US) - that's it.

[BobL]

I threw in the Muhammand term to kick up some dust, but at this point, I wouldn't complain at all if a name like that got you further attention.

If Jews were flying planes into buildings, and then other Jews defended them and denied that it was even Jews being involved, I would greatly expect (and hope) people with Jewish names get a lot more attention at airports.

But the fact is that virtually all crimes committed by Muzzies that are targeted at non-Muzzies seems to acceptable (or at least understandable) to the Muslim culture. I know of no other culture that behaves that way, so we have a unique case, and in my opinion, all rights that they would otherwise have are throw out the door until they GROW UP, and behave.

[Centurion2000]

I do not have a problem being questioned by the FBI, and disallowed re-entry if I don't comply.

I do have a problem with feds asking questions and then abusing a person's civil rights (freedom of travel). Detain him, CHARGE him or let him go ... this is a load of B$ that the feds are pushing in the name of state security.

[Centurion2000]

Re: They don't have to answer a few questions.

Yes they do...and it's called the Fourth Amendment.

You're right ... to get back into the country the questions you have to answer are something like these

Are you carrying any live plants or animals?
Have you had contact with any animals?
Are you carrying contraband?

Anything else cannot be used to var a US citizen from re-entry to the USA.

Assisting law enforcement officers is NOT a condition to enter this country for a CITIZEN. There is a big damned difference between detaining someone and denying a US citizen entry because he wont answer questions.

I have no pity or sympathy for muslims in this country that are planning stuff and if he is (probably) I hope they fry him. What I have a serious problem with is setting a VERY dangerous precedent to allow an executive branch cop the ability to deny a citizen re-entry to this country without a warrant, a declaration of war or anything else for that matter.

Next time it could be democrats going after christian missionaires.

[Centurion2000]

No doubt that will happen just as soon as they agree to be "questioned" about their activity in Pakistan for the last 4 years...

Then charge them ... my whole point is that NO ONE has the power or right to deny a citizen entry back into the USA for not speaking.

I doubt our founders ever intended the rights delineated in the Constitution, required us to be stupid or to commit suicide by applying them indiscriminately...

I doubt our founders would have tolerated the boot licking fascism that is creeping into our daily lives either. Every time citizens rights have been put on the back burner has been during time of WAR

No declaration of war is on file. I am not about to entrust this level of power to the feds based on a Presidential Executive Order, War Powers act or anything else BUT a declaration of war.

[1rudeboy]

My sentiments exactly.

[pageonetoo]

And although at times we do not understand the workings of the American Legal system I have faith in it.

Need more?

[pageonetoo]

[MamaTexan]

The U.S. is their home, they are citizens.

One is a 'naturalized' citizen. Having taken the oath required, he is bound by it:

Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

If you ask the government to give you something tangible (like citizenship), they permanently maintain the right to take it back.

-----

The other, supposedly a 'US citizen' by birth, really isn't unless he was born in Washington, D.C. or in a port, fort or arsenal.

"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

----

I don't always like what the government does either, but that doesn't mean they don't have the legal right to do it anyway.

[BobL]

"Detain him, CHARGE him or let him go"

Actually there's not a whole lot the feds can do overseas. Keeping a person from boarding is probably it. If the person made it here and acted strange, then more options may exist.

So the question really is whether the person has a RIGHT to fly if he acts suspicious, regardless of citizenship. Maybe we differ here, but my answer is no. If one does not play by the rules, even if the rules change over time (as probably the case over the 4 years here), then, in my opinion, one has to find another way here - such as flying to Canada and then (legally) crossing at the border (for example). If US Customs simply refuses to let him into the country at that point, it gets a bit more tricky and you may have a point - but I don't think we do that.

[Jubal Harshaw]

1. WE (i.e. the USA) are not at war. Only congress can declare war. You do not have the power to declare war. I do not have the power to declare war. The President does not have the power to declare war. This is basic Constitutional Law. Congress has not declared war, so, as a matter of law, we are not at war.

2. The fourth amendment? Huh? No one is talking about searches. This case involves refusing to answer questions about a possible criminal matter. It involves the FIFTH, not the FOURTH amendment. Even congress cannot compell testimony in violation of the fifth amendment. Much less can an agent of the executive branch.

[Old_Mil]

There are two issues here.

For once, I agree with the ACLU - the Federal Government should not be in the business of denying American Citizens entry into the United States without being charged and demand that they be interrogated on foreign soil.

BUT

Unfortunately, the Feds have been in the business of handing out American passports like Candy to people who have no interest in being Americans .

So what to do?