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

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?
 
JoeF said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
JoeF said:
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...
Click to expand...

But starting in 1998, non-immigrants were not allowed to own
firearms. So 2nd amendment is alrewady not applicable
to non-immigrants
 
JoeF said:
It says in the 2nd Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." So, that never applied to non-citizens.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JoeF said:
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.
Click to expand...

They are exactly my points in my original post. Alien can be
made unprotected by 1st amendment for the purpose of
deportation.
 
JoeF said:
No, the other way around.. I am suggesting people == citizens.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
JoeF said:
Currently, the Supreme Court has ruled along established lines
Click to expand...

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.
 
TheRealCanadian said:
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.
Click to expand...

There was a lengthy debate about naturalized citizenship being second class, started by me where similar issues were discussed. The conclusion was as follows:
Although the first amendment clearly states that naturalized citizens are equal to US born citizens, there is a loophole which permits revocation based on ineligibality due improper conduct. This can be easily exploited by the govt. (real easy these days), to state that those spreading hate are not eligible for citizenship. Hence even naturalized citizens can be stripped and deported even if the offence is committed after naturalization. Non-citizens would not even stand a chance.
So the answer to is there a law similar to the UK law?:: No, but deportations are possible based on existing law.
 
hipka said:
.
So the answer to is there a law similar to the UK law?:: No, but deportations are possible based on existing law.
Click to expand...
If necessary and if thought as required--amendments can always be amended
or laws can be made with the requisite support as mandated.by constitution.
They were and can be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top