|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 9:39 am
Specifically: does a state have the right to deny people entry to their territory, when those people are not going to settle there (ie: are only there for a limited time). Recently the UK denied Geert Wilders access and this week they released a list of names of people they will prevent from entering the country. On that list are a number of religious speakers, white supremacists and an American radio host I don't know. You can look it all up here. That a state has this right is above discussion, a state can do whatever it wants for as far as the international community is concerned. Whether the people of that country will stand for it is a whole 'nother thing. Would you protest against your state for denying entry to certain people? Regardless of how corrupt and wrong these people are? On a similar note: the Italian navy has turned back illegal immigrants before these people even had the chance to request amnesty. The basis of any healthy immigration policy is that everyone is at least allowed to ask to be let in and that there are clear and proper rules to establish who gets in and who does not. Now that the army, without knowing exactly who was on these boats, has stepped over these basic principles organisations like Amnesty International are furious. So basically, any state can say 'no, we don't want you', but do you think they should be forced by the people of that country to always give a reason why? Feel free to take these two examples and apply them to your own country, if that is easier.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 12:52 pm
I think there's a big-a** difference between the borders of a country and the borders of a state. There's sovereignty issues and the sticky question of illegal aliens working without proper credentials and all that. Whereas the states...well...I'm guessing this might have something to do with out of state couples coming into the states that legalize gay marriage or have lesser smoking laws or some such...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 1:53 pm
RyanJakobi I think there's a big-a** difference between the borders of a country and the borders of a state. There's sovereignty issues and the sticky question of illegal aliens working without proper credentials and all that. Whereas the states...well...I'm guessing this might have something to do with out of state couples coming into the states that legalize gay marriage or have lesser smoking laws or some such... Sorry, I was trying to be technically correct by referring to Italy and Great Britain as 'states', as to make clear the difference between state and nation. The terms 'country' or 'land' are just very vague and are used very inconsequentially in popular literature. You see, the United States is called that because it consists of various states (or countries, if you will) teaming up to form the USA. If we take Ohio as an example: it can be said that Ohio is not a state, but a province and only a state by name. It has given up its sovereignty to a higher level: namely the United States of America. Just so we're absolutely clear: I define 'state' as a region with defined borders and of which the sovereignty is recognized by other states. So: Italy is a state, Kurdistan is not a state. (further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_westphalia )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 11:32 am
But...who'd want to go to Kurdistan WILLINGLY? stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 11:45 am
RyanJakobi But...who'd want to go to Kurdistan WILLINGLY? stare The Turkish army. Now can you please knock it off with the off-topic banter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 3:15 pm
Hell yeah, we do it to the Brits all the time too. Amy Winehouse didn't show for the Grammys a couple years ago because WE WOULDN'T LET HER DRUGGED-OUT PSYCHOTIC BEEHIVED a** IN.
Are you telling me that the UK should really welcome Fred Phelps to do his "God Hates Fags" shtick, when we don't even want him here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 3:29 pm
unethikul Hell yeah, we do it to the Brits all the time too. Amy Winehouse didn't show for the Grammys a couple years ago because WE WOULDN'T LET HER DRUGGED-OUT PSYCHOTIC BEEHIVED a** IN. Are you telling me that the UK should really welcome Fred Phelps to do his "God Hates Fags" shtick, when we don't even want him here? But where does this stop? Fred Phelps? OK, dude says mean things about people. Amy Winehouse? She's a bad role model...assuming anyone still looks up to her. Who else? The pope because he disallows condoms? Daila Lama because he would piss our trading partner China off? Sarah Palin because she says dumb things? Her daughter because she's saying dumb things as well? When does someone become such a bad person that we - as the people - say "no, stay away from us"? We're not talking about welcoming anyone, only about allowing people to enter our territory. If they break any laws, we arrest them. If we have reason to believe their sole purpose of entering a territory is to commit a crime we arrest them on account of planning a crime. It's not like allowing Fred Phelps to go on a holiday to London means he's allowed to drive over gays with a 4x4 all week long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 4:06 pm
I don't know much about immigration and visitation laws, so a lot of what I'm going to say here is just based on my feelings.
When it comes to banning radio hosts and spokespeople, doesn't that seem like another form of censorship? So Fred Phelps can be banned because he threatens a way of life for a large group of people. On the other hand, a gay rights activist might "threaten" a way of life for a very conservative state, but if he were banned, we'd call it morally unjust.
(Of course, the difference is that one promotes hate and the other promotes love... but I'm just sayin'.)
When you apply for a visa, you typically state your purpose for entering a country and agree to a length of time in which you'll stay there. Would a better solution than banning someone altogether be to limit their visitation time and the activities they're allowed to do? Like Aldo pointed out, if a person seems to want to enter a country for the sole purpose of committing a crime, they shouldn't be allowed in. And I think if someone has a lengthy track record of causing trouble, it's reasonable to deny them entry until they've proven themselves otherwise. But there's the other thing - being allowed to prove yourself, to request amnesty, to be given a valid reason if you're turned away.
I feel pretty similarly about immigration, and really detest the idea of an "illegal human" based on their nationality. I'm not saying everyone should be allowed to roam freely, but it seems fair that if a person qualifies, there should be steps to either requesting a visa or naturalization even if they've illegally crossed the border (with some kind of penalty, perhaps? Surely something's gotta motivate them to do it right the first time, other than flat-out deportation?) In the USA, people often forget that at one point we were ALL immigrants and we treat other immigrants a bit too cruelly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 5:22 am
Fred Phelps was going to London to protest outside soldiers' funerals and inform their families that the dead soldiers deserved to die and are in hell. He does this in front of armed soldiers. I don't know about you, but I'd qualify that as harassment and inciting a riot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 12:17 pm
unethikul Fred Phelps was going to London to protest outside soldiers' funerals and inform their families that the dead soldiers deserved to die and are in hell. He does this in front of armed soldiers. I don't know about you, but I'd qualify that as harassment and inciting a riot. See, that's a valid reason to disallow someone access. In my opinion it should be a case by case situation, I don't see much of a point in denying someone access on the premise of 'it's because you're you'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 4:58 pm
Wheras Phelps' past activities seem to suggest that this man does little else, and that he is more than likely to do this, whatever he claims he's going somewhere for. I understand where you're going with this, Aldo. I really do. I can't blame you. At the same time, we're not talking about North Korea here. While these people were denied entry for potentially questionable reasons, it's fair to say that they would be more likely than most to cause trouble, and that police would eventually be involved. When I went to Canada last month, they asked me what the purpose of my visit was. If I'd said "I'm here to do a radio show about how niggers are gonna poison your nation," I highly ******** doubt I would've been let in. The law the brits are using is pretty clear. The article Since 2005, the UK has been able to ban people who promote hatred, terrorist violence or serious criminal activity. Unless we see some clear abuses of this law, I really don't feel it's particularly troubling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 2:06 am
That's banning *after* the person has violated the law. This is like pre-emptive banning. It should also be noted that a law like that is aimed at people who are not British citizens, citizens who violate that law get fined/sent to prison. Foreigners who do that get shipped back to where they came from. It all sounds way too ambiguous to me.
I mean, I agree that denying someone a visa because he's only entering to violate the law is good business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 11:20 am
Aldo RyanJakobi But...who'd want to go to Kurdistan WILLINGLY? stare The Turkish army. Now can you please knock it off with the off-topic banter? Yeah, my bad. I tend to do that. But on a somewhat related tact, the right of a sovereign authority to regulate their borders has been set out since time immemorial. Now common sense would indicate you would not want people who wish the destabilization of your government into your country, and as such you would want to take measures to put immigration laws in place to counter this. Course, other countries may look at you funny if you single out specific nationalities, religious groups, or racial minorities for your "you ain't getting in" policies, and with the development of more Politically-Correct (GOD I hate that term so much) mores, those sorts of restrictions are now few and far between. Now in England's case, they knew that there were certain rabble rousers who would probably cause more harm than help if they decided to come into the country. But then again, they also let Auguste Pinochet crash on their sofa as well, so I'm not sure they should be overdoing their moral high ground stance either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:52 am
UK--- Is it perhaps possible that the UK is actually protecting these people?
Scenario 1. The UK let's all the bad behaver's in to run a muck and they get a more radical protest that they would have never seen in the states (USA). This protest could result in innocent people getting injured, mobs, vandalism and all the craziness that comes from a large group of pissed off people. Not to mention radical dumbasses being killed and reaching marterdom status. I can see where the UK is coming from if that's the case. it's really to protect and prevent chaos and they have had their far share of chaos in the last few years.
Scenario 2. The UK is showing off their mightier then thou authority by making a naughty list for any disapproved behavior by their governments standards. if that's the case. shame, shame, shame to all.
Italy--- What, what what???
I know that Italy is having over crowding and waste management issues, but there actions are not fixing these current problems at hand. There are basic human rights recognized by the entire globe that Italy pretty much spat on and said "******** it" we do what we want! Tsk tsk, Italy. talk2hand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
