Does US law already make aliens advocating hatred and violence removable?

[AmericanWannabe]

Tony Blair decided to take measures to exclude and deport those
advocating hatred and violence and take away citizenship of
those who even had UK passports.

Have USA alreadygot the same measures?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe...air/index.html

[arizonian]

AWB,

Don't know. If there is/will be such law, it will affect immigrants adversely if interpreted overly broadly. There will be many innocent people who will pay the price for the indiscretions of others.

That said, we need to get our loyalties straight. A particular immigrant needs to decide whether he/she wants bo be in the US or not. If yes, then there is no place for advocating hatred and violence. If they feel so strongly about it, they should stay in their home country and do whatever they think is right.

The rest of us who are here to work hard and make a better life suffer because of the actions of a these few.

How will we feel if people from other countries came to settle in our home country to enjoy the freedom and opportunity, and at the same time trying to spread hatred and violence?

[AmericanWannabe]

Originally Posted by ****

Won't work here. The 1st amendment to the US constitution allows even hate speech, even by non-citizens. The UK doesn't have a similar constitutional law.

The 1st amendment itself does not say it applies to non-citizens.
The 1st amendment can be interprested or re-interpreted
as only applicable to citizens. It takes Supreme Court to do
that and Supreme Court can reverse its own past rulings.

In cold wars, the noncitizens who voice communist belief
were deportables and inadmissble for immigration visa
and non-immigration visas and immigration visa still applies.
So I don't see why it can not be extended to other beliefs

[AmericanWannabe]

Originally Posted by ****

The US constitution applies to everybody under US jurisdiction. Some Congresspeople have tried to restrict the validity of the constitution, to get rid of that pesky 14th amendment...
But if the US constitution wouldn't apply to non-citizens, all other laws wouldn't, either. Hey, I could speed without getting any tickets...

But starting in 1998, non-immigrants were not allowed to own
firearms. So 2nd amendment is alrewady not applicable
to non-immigrants

[TheRealCanadian]

Originally Posted by ****

It says in the 2nd Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." So, that never applied to non-citizens.

Are you suggesting that people != citizens?

The First Amendment speaks of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". Are you suggesting that freedom of assembly does not apply to non-citizens?

The Fourth Amendment speaks of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". Are you suggesting that non-citizens do not obtain the protection of the 4th Amendment?

Jurisprudence has held that with the exception of aliens seeking admission to the US, the benefits of the Cosntitution and Bill of Rights apply equally to all people in the US, citizens or not.

[AmericanWannabe]

Originally Posted by ****

No, the other way around.. I am suggesting people == citizens.
Well, it sometimes doesn't seem so, when visitors on a bus are arrested just for looking different: http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/49796
Well, again, after 9/11, with the so-called Patriot Act, it in fact seems that the 4th amendment does not necessarily apply to non-citizens anymore.
Unfortunately, that hasn't been true for quite some time. Legacy INS has held people in deportation without access to counsel for years, even before 9/11. After 9/11, the "enemy combatant" classification seems to trump the Bill of Rights, with even US citizens being held without access to counsel.

They are exactly my points in my original post. Alien can be
made unprotected by 1st amendment for the purpose of
deportation.

[TheRealCanadian]

Originally Posted by ****

No, the other way around.. I am suggesting people == citizens.

But that would mean, as I pointed out, that the basic protections of the 1st and 4th Amendment would not apply to non-citizens since they mention the word people. Are you going to seriously suggest that the 4th Amerndment does not apply to non-citizens? Do you have caselaw?

Well, again, after 9/11, with the so-called Patriot Act, it in fact seems that the 4th amendment does not necessarily apply to non-citizens anymore.

The Patriot Act may reduce the protections available from search and seizure, but it has not discriminated on basis of alienage when reducing said protections.

After 9/11, the "enemy combatant" classification seems to trump the Bill of Rights, with even US citizens being held without access to counsel.

Clearly, just because the execute or legislative branches do something unconstitutional and the challenges are working their way through the courts, doesn't make said actions constitutional.

Again, do you have caselaw that suggests that the Bill of Rights does not apply to permanent residents?

[TheRealCanadian]

Originally Posted by ****

Currently, the Supreme Court has ruled along established lines

Oh please. For someone who picks hairs over non-immigrant vs. immigrant precdents, are you going to claim that a case over enemy combatants captured abroad means that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to me, and the local police can batter down my door without a warrant because I'm not a citizen?

People == people. Not citizens. If they wanted to mean citizens, they'd have said citizens.