Deportation For Terrorist Enablers


PDA






Rebar
August 5, 2005, 09:38 AM
Prime Minister Tony Blair on Friday announced new deportation measures against people who foster hatred and advocate violence following last month's transportation attacks that killed 52 people and four suspected homicide bombers.

"Let no one be in any doubt that the rules of the games are changing," Blair said, promising to crack down on extremists blamed for radicalizing pockets of Muslim youth.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164830,00.html

Sounds like something we can do here - lets void the visa of any hate-preacher and send them back to whatever hellhole they came from.

If you enjoyed reading about "Deportation For Terrorist Enablers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TrybalRage
August 5, 2005, 11:19 AM
As fun as that sounds, it would set a dangerous precedent against the first amendment.

Rebar
August 5, 2005, 11:43 AM
As fun as that sounds, it would set a dangerous precedent against the first amendment.
If a non-citizen advocates violence, or supports those committing violence on American soil, I don't see it as a violation of the first amendment to deport them.

Derek Zeanah
August 5, 2005, 11:48 AM
As fun as that sounds, it would set a dangerous precedent against the first amendment.But they're terrorists. They follow a false god! They kill people!

Agreeing with terrorists should be a punishable offense. They're lucky they're just getting deported...

[/fear-mongering right-winger speak]

Derek Zeanah
August 5, 2005, 11:49 AM
If a non-citizen advocates violence, or supports those committing violence on American soil, I don't see it as a violation of the first amendment to deport them.So, for those that had citizenship, like the London bombers that were born in the UK, you'd support leaving them alone?

Rebar
August 5, 2005, 11:53 AM
So, for those that had citizenship, like the London bombers that were born in the UK, you'd support leaving them alone?
If by "leave them alone", you mean not deport them, then yes. If you mean not pay attention to them, then no.

If a citizen is a Klansman, and is preaching violence, the FBI would keep an eye on him, and rightly so. If a citizen is a reputed Mafia gangster, by all means, lets keep an eye on him. If a citizen is advocating jihad and fighting the great satan America, wouldn't be be prudent to keep tabs on this fellow? I say yes, lets watch him and who he associates with.

Waitone
August 5, 2005, 12:24 PM
Why deport anyone? The back door is off the hinges so why bother. Better yet, why spend any money on der motherland security.

Rebar
August 5, 2005, 12:51 PM
I agree we need to secure the borders, and it's probably a waste of time deporting Mexicans, since they'll just come right back. However, it's a little different sending someone back to the Middle East, to sneak back into the US from way out there is a lot harder.

R.H. Lee
August 5, 2005, 12:53 PM
Why are non-citizens even afforded constitutional protections?

shermacman
August 5, 2005, 12:57 PM
We have got the cart before the horse. By the time we have to start talking about deporting citizens for their spoken words we are in serious trouble.

Derek Zeanah
August 5, 2005, 01:05 PM
By the time we have to start talking about deporting citizens for their spoken words we are in serious troubleMore or less trouble than those "other" lines we hope never to cross, like imprisoning citizens for years without chrages, trial, or access to an attorney? Or maybe grabbing Canadians off of connecting flights in NYC and shipping them to Syria to be tortured for a month until they confess to everything they're presented with? Maybe that point where we overturn foreign governments using "secret" evidence that turns out to have been "flimsy" if anyone ever really believed it (wink wink)?

Dude, we're there. And the frightening thing is how many people embrace the turn our country has made. :(

Master Blaster
August 5, 2005, 01:12 PM
Ahhhh, Nothing like a liberal whos been mugged.

Just wait till the Dems gain control, here and something else happens.

With all these wonderful new laws keeping us safe from the dangers of too much liberty. You know all us nasty gun owners are enablers of violence as well, Just Ask Turdie, Diane, and John John, :cuss: :fire:

Now Mother May I, says you all snuggle up in your little blankie, and I will be keeping you safe-wayfee- from all those bad bad people.

rick_reno
August 5, 2005, 01:24 PM
Just wait till the Dems gain control, here and something else happens.

I'm not convinced it'll be much worse with a Democrat in control - the majority of this onerous legislation was passed with the Republicans in control. I'd worry about either McCain (who I believe still calls himself a Republican) as much as I'd worry about Hillary.

Rebar
August 5, 2005, 01:34 PM
By the time we have to start talking about deporting citizens for their spoken words we are in serious trouble.
You're twisting things around. No one is talking about deporting citizens. We're talking about those who are here on tourist, work, or religious visas, or illegally. Non-citizens spewing jihadist nonsense or other hateful propaganda being deported is the subject.

Flyboy
August 5, 2005, 01:57 PM
Why are non-citizens even afforded constitutional protections?
Because the Bill of Rights refers to "people," not citizens, and modern medical science has revealed that foreigners are, in fact, human?

Sindawe
August 5, 2005, 02:21 PM
Just my opinion, but those who are here on visas, be they tourist, work or religious visas, have the same constitutional protections that citizens do. However, they ARE here at the pleasure of those citizens. They are GUESTS in our land, and we citizens can tell them to leave at any time via the arm of our servant, the central government.

Just as when I go to visit friends in their home. I can speak my mind, but if I upset my hosts, they can kick me out.

Moondoggie
August 5, 2005, 02:25 PM
Actually, the Bill of Rights refers to "THE People", and I think that infers a smidgen of exclusivity. The framers weren't talking about "THE People" of Mexico, or the world for that matter, they were refering to citizens of our country, IMHO.

You can chase your tail extrapolating the Constitution to mean everything for everybody until you find a way to justify not being able to do anything.

Folks construe capital punishment to be "cruel and unusual", abortion is a facet of the right to privacy, foreigners who shout "Death to America" are merely exercising their First Amendment rights, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means no such thing....Yada, Yada, Yada.

What's next? Killing enemy combatants violates their "right" to be secure in their person???

Gimme a break! Lets just continue to be the doormat for the planet until somebody thinks to discard us in the dustbin of history, filed under "Idealism Run Amok".

Ideals are swell, but there come's a time when you simply have to roll up your sleeves and clean house!

R.H. Lee
August 5, 2005, 02:43 PM
Why limit deportation to suspected terrorists? Why not round up and deport ALL non-citizens who are here without visas or other official sanction?

Rebar
August 5, 2005, 03:49 PM
Why limit deportation to suspected terrorists? Why not round up and deport ALL non-citizens who are here without visas or other official sanction?
True enough, but we got to start somewhere, and deporting Islamofacists is a pretty good place to start.

Justin
August 5, 2005, 11:06 PM
lets void the visa of any hate-preacher and send them back to whatever hellhole they came from. Yeah, but what about the hate-preachers that were born here? Where do we send them? Cleveland?

Glock Glockler
August 6, 2005, 02:04 AM
Yeah, but what about the hate-preachers that were born here? Where do we send them? Cleveland?

How about France? :D

Destructo6
August 6, 2005, 03:08 AM
If a non-citizen advocates , or supports those committing on American soil, I don't see it as a violation of the first amendment to deport them.
That's generally the case as it is. The US has a right to decide which aliens it allows to remain in the US. We're stuck with bad US citizens, but we don't need to saddle ourselves with the detrius from the rest of the world.

longeyes
August 6, 2005, 03:28 AM
Exile is coming back. Just be patient.

c_yeager
August 6, 2005, 03:32 AM
Why are non-citizens even afforded constitutional protections?

The Bill of Rights doesnt bestow rights onto anyone, it restricts the government's ability to curtail the rights that people have by virtue of being people. We get to decide who we let into this country, and that is how we can pick and choose wether or not non-citizens get constitutional protection. If you live in this country legally, you get your human rights, period.

MrTuffPaws
August 6, 2005, 10:15 AM
The Bill of Rights doesnt bestow rights onto anyone, it restricts the government's ability to curtail the rights that people have by virtue of being people. We get to decide who we let into this country, and that is how we can pick and choose wether or not non-citizens get constitutional protection. If you live in this country legally, you get your human rights, period.

Thanks for saying much better than I could do.

This is one more step to the end for England. If this happened here, how many of us would be judged terrorists and, uh, well deported.

Also, about deporting them, wouldn't you just be sending them to someplace that you could not keep an eye on them. It would be like throwing a rabbit into a briar patch.

JERRY
August 6, 2005, 10:32 AM
That's generally the case as it is. The US has a right to decide which aliens it allows to remain in the US. We're stuck with bad US citizens, but we don't need to saddle ourselves with the detrius from the rest of the world.

the above is so clear, yet so many still just dont get it.


Tony Blair has the right idea, and seems to have calculated the oppositions efforts to help terrorist stay in the U.K.

the proposed legislation would basically say, if you disagree with something, fine, you can voice your concerns, domonstrate...et cetera, but if you speak for the use of violance, or enable, aid, or comfort those who do, youre out of here. if you are british born , its jail time instead of deportation.

the 1st Amdt folks here are surely going to abstract the intent, without pointing out that we already have a similar guidline, such as yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theator.

the British are simply expanding that to cover Terrorists and their supporters.

he also says, coming to Bitton is not a right, me thinks folks here need to be refreshed on that.

i wish "we" had the balls to do what Mr. Blair is proposing.

Old Fuff
August 6, 2005, 10:54 AM
I think that Derek Zeanah and others that are concerned about where this issue could go have some valid points, but I would observe that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 1st Amendment rights to free speech do not include yelling, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when there isn't one. I would have no objection to foreign nationals being deported for advocating violence, PROVIDED THEY HAD A FAIR HEARING IN COURT FIRST, AND THE CHARGES AGAINST THEM WERE PROVEN. What worries me the most is that under some of the new laws being enacted, valid civil rights can be stripped from a person without a court's approval or a fair hearing.

I would suggest that those who advocate the violence that some terrorists are using - both here and in England - could and should be charged and brought to trial as accessories before (and possibly after) the fact. This would apply to citizens and non-citizens equally and would provide a way to address the problem with reasonable legal safeguards still in place.

longeyes
August 6, 2005, 11:04 AM
"If this happened here, how many of us would be judged terrorists and, uh, well deported."

Who here is shouting "Death to America!" and "Nuke Washington?" The people on THR love America and don't want to see America destroyed. We are "guilty" of wanting the ability to protect our lives and property, under the color of law, as assured us by the Second Amendment. Comparing us to subversive zealots is a mighty, mighty stretch and would never wash with the majority of rational Americans.

Blair's recovering his common sense--and just when I had come to believe that an instinct for vigorous self-defense had been bred out of Britons...

JERRY
August 6, 2005, 11:54 AM
Tony Blair has stated over and over, that this new legislation would indeed need to include a court over sight to ensure that the undesirables are indeed trying to incite violence or aiding those who are.


no one ive seen on the "right" or over in England is proposing a mere actuzation for the means to deport or imprison somebody, but in fact have them brought before a court so that the proof can be aired for all to see.

Destructo6
August 6, 2005, 12:09 PM
This is one more step to the end for England. If this happened here, how many of us would be judged ists and, uh, well deported.
No US Citizen would be deported. Where would he be sent?

Flyboy
August 6, 2005, 12:42 PM
Who here is shouting "Death to America!" and "Nuke Washington?" The people on THR love America and don't want to see America destroyed.
Well, maybe not so overtly, anyway. I'll be the first to step up and say I think the government needs to be severely and dramatically cut and restricted--I'm not suggesting bombing monuments, but I'm still threatening the government. The problem with most of these sort of programs isn't what they're used for today, it's what they can be used for tomorrow.

A "reporter" on Good Morning America (or one of those other "news" shows) described an AK-47 as a "weapon of mass destruction." Think about what could happen when people like that get in power. Gunowners become terrorists. Read some of the cases of USA PATRIOT act abuse: a meth lab is a chemical weapons facility? A pipe bomb is a "weapon of mass destruction?" Going back to gunowners, I'd bet a large portion of us have sufficient quantities (i.e. any, if the prosecutor wants you bad enough) of explosives to make some highly interesting devices (smokeless and black are fun!). That we'd never do such a thing is irrelevant--"constructive posession" is real, and really will be used against you, and you all know it.

Consequently, the objection to a lot of these laws lies not only in their blatant disregard for liberty (a philosophical objection), but in their clear danger if abused (a practical objection). And don't you dare say they won't be abused and stretched beyond recognition--the government always stretches laws to maximum effect. The Founding Fathers even wrote words to that effect; it's the nature of the beast. Just think about "public use" if you need a good example.

Yeah, but what about the hate-preachers that were born here? Where do we send them? Cleveland?
Uh...I think there'd be an Eighth Amendment issue here. :neener:

mercedesrules
August 6, 2005, 02:29 PM
Sounds like something we can do here - lets void the visa of any hate-preacher and send them back to whatever hellhole they came from.

I'm against this proposal, but if someone's wacky ideas threaten me personally I might shoot them.

Chris Rhines
August 6, 2005, 02:31 PM
Blair's proposals also include criminalizing "glorifying" or "justifying" terrorism, stripping citizenship from terror suspects, and deporting people who visit websites or purchase reading material that the government deems inappropriate.

Great, huh?

If y'all think that this is a good idea, all I can do is shake my head in dismay.

- Chris

R.H. Lee
August 6, 2005, 02:40 PM
If y'all think that this is a good idea, all I can do is shake my head in dismay.
So it's preferable to allow foreign nationals to invade your country, foment hate and terrorism, and let innocent people be slaughtered????

longeyes
August 6, 2005, 04:07 PM
I'll be the first to step up and say I think the government needs to be severely and dramatically cut and restricted--I'm not suggesting bombing monuments, but I'm still threatening the government.

You know who you are. What can I say?

Most of us are sympathetic to libertarian ideals but this is not 1800. The whole concept of individualism is being called into question by modern technology. The irony is that while SCOTUS finds a right to "privacy" inherent in the BOR privacy and private property are obsolescent, rendered meaningless by digital replication, identity theft, surveillance tech, and, soon enough, genetic engineering. The rules of this debate have changed, forever.

When one man with a backpack nuke can erase a cultural legacy that involved millions of people and centuries of time, we are no longer in Kansas any more.

If you enjoyed reading about "Deportation For Terrorist Enablers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!