Tourist 'refused entry into US' and jailed over bald JD Vance meme

[Grizzly Adams]

It did not get him charged, which means it was not enforced and there is an act that precludes federal authorities from acting on that particular law. Not illegal.

He was never charged, nor could he be since there was an act in place that prevented it.

Don't know what act you're talking about, but charged or convicted doesn't matter when he admits the essential elements.

 

[roguenuke]

This is a wonderful reason to never rely on executive action, clemency, or discretion when Congress should be the one doing its job.

Like passing an act that says states can handle their own drug law enforcement in regards to cannabis use?

 

[roguenuke]

Don't know what act you're talking about, but charged or convicted doesn't matter when he admits the essential elements.

I provided a link.

And it our legal system doesn't work that way. How long ago was the act? Were there any acts that would not allow the federal government to waste money going after, charging for possession or use of marijuana active at the time?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I provided a link.

Looks like it only applies to interfering with state medicinal authorizations. That doesn't legalize it, and refusing an alien who violated federal law doesn't interfere anyway.

And it our legal system doesn't work that way.

Immigration law does. Read it for yourself. 8 USC 1182(a)(2)(A)(i).

 

[roguenuke]

Looks like it only applies to interfering with state medicinal authorizations. That doesn't legalize it, and refusing an alien who violated federal law doesn't interfere anyway.


Immigration law does. Read it for yourself. 8 USC 1182(a)(2)(A)(i).

It means they can't interfere with enforcement.

Also, did you miss this part?

ExceptionClause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed only one crime if—
(I)
the crime was committed when the alien was under 18 years of age, and the crime was committed (and the alien released from any confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for the crime) more than 5 years before the date of application for a visa or other documentation and the date of application for admission to the United States, or

(II)
the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was convicted (or which the alien admits having committed or of which the acts that the alien admits having committed constituted the essential elements) did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the alien was convicted of such crime, the alien was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months (regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately executed).

Since you only have him admitting to one single potential offense, and not any valid evidence of abuser or addict, then he fits the exception.

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/HTML/IF12715.web.html

As with other controlled substances obtained without a valid prescription, simple possession of marijuana carries a penalty of up to one year in prison and/or a minimum fine of $1,000. Possession of a "personal use amount" of marijuana and certain other controlled substances is subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000. Relatively few offenders are sentenced for marijuana possession in federal court, and the majority of cases originate from the Southwest border.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

It means they can't interfere with enforcement.

They can't interfere with states implementing medicinal exceptions. Recreational is different. Either way, refusing someone who broke federal drug laws is not interfering with the states setting up medicinal use laws.

Allso, did you miss this part?

Since you only have him admitting to one single potential offense, and not any valid evidence of abuser or addict, then he fits the exception.

He does not meet that exception. He was refused under a 2A2 charge, and the petty offense exception only applies to a 2A1 charge, as noted at the very beginning of your quote of the statute where it says "clause (i)(I)."

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Yes, he did.


It is not legal in the US. Regardless of state laws, it is federally prohibited across the US. The snippet you quoted from the article you linked even says so.

It just seem absurd that Americans can legally use, posses and sell majiuna in New Mexico. While tourists are being denied entry for trying marijuana once in New Mexico. That such interpretation of the law will lead to tourists and academics staying away from the USA.

The US brain drain has begun

The White House appears hell-bent on destroying not just economic and political paradigms, but a higher education system that really did make America great.

www.politico.eu

Especially since it's many more examples of abuse of power.

Rumeysa Ozturk: Turkish Tufts University student released on bail

Her arrest followed the White House's crackdown on what it has classified as antisemitism on US campuses.

www.bbc.com

 

[roguenuke]

They can't interfere with states implementing medicinal exceptions. Recreational is different. Either way, refusing someone who broke federal drug laws is not interfering with the states setting up medicinal use laws.


He does not meet that exception. He was refused under a 2A2 charge, and the petty offense exception only applies to a 2A1 charge, as noted at the very beginning of your quote of the statute where it says "clause (i)(I)."

He does meet the exception. This is excessive nitpicking that any reasonable person knows was just retaliation against the person for not liking the current President/VP.

He didn't break federal law if that law is not being actively enforced. Show that this is regularly used to refuse people entry into the US, every single time. Only use of marijuana.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

That's nice. You gloriously stopped a Norwegian tourist.

Dangerous fellows, those Norwegians. He might have been smuggling lutefisk.

This whole premise of the thread is if this meme was the reason he was denied entry. It wasn’t, it was because of his drug use. Everything else is quibbling over an already existing federal law.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

One government guy majes an excuse and thats what you believe?.

Lol

The law isn’t an excuse, it’s a valid reason to deny entry when a visitor doesn’t deny drug use.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

It just seem absurd that Americans can legally use, posses and sell majiuna in New Mexico.

They can't, actually. It is still illegal everywhere in the US.

While tourists are being denied entry for trying marijuana once in New Mexico.

Pretty much every country has different standards for its citizens than it does for foreigners.

That such interpretation of the law will lead to tourists and academics staying away from the USA.

If you mean "people who break the law," then good. People who are lawfuly admitted and don't violate their status have little to fear.

Especially since it's many more examples of abuse of power.

Refusing admission to someone who is, by law, inadmissible to the United States doesn't seem like an abuse of power to me, but whatever.

 

[TobyOne]

Of all the things that never happened, this never happened the most.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The law isn’t an excuse, it’s a valid reason to deny entry when a visitor doesn’t deny drug use.

He didn't just not deny it; he, by his own statements, fully admitted to it.

 

[NolanVoyd]

The law isn’t an excuse, it’s a valid reason to deny entry when a visitor doesn’t deny drug use.

Oh come on.

Seriously?

What is wrong with you people?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

He does meet the exception.

<sigh>

Y'know, you could have just dispassionately read the statute, seen what it says, then come back with a "looks like I misread the statute, thanks for helping me out, Grizz." Instead you have to try to flail around like a fish on the boat deck, desperately trying to save yourself. I tried to just toss you back in the water. I really tried.

8 USC 1182(a)(2)(A) states:

(i) In general

Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of—​

(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, or​

(II) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21), is inadmissible.​

(ii) Exception

Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed only one crime if—​

(I) the crime was committed when the alien was under 18 years of age, and the crime was committed (and the alien released from any confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for the crime) more than 5 years before the date of application for a visa or other documentation and the date of application for admission to the United States, or​

(II) the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was convicted (or which the alien admits having committed or of which the acts that the alien admits having committed constituted the essential elements) did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the alien was convicted of such crime, the alien was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months (regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately executed).​

The only part of the statute to which clause (ii) (the petty offense exception) aplies is clause (i)(I). Clause (i)(I) deals with crimes involving moral turpitude. Clause (i)(II) deals with violations of laws relating to controlled substances. Although the top line in clause (i) states the inadmissibilities listed are subject to the exceptions contained in clause (ii), the terms of clause (ii) cabin its applicability to clause (i)(I) -- crimes involving moral turpitude. Clause (i)(II) remains unaffected by the petty offense exception. He does not meet the exception.

This is excessive nitpicking

"Excessive nitpicking" is what happens in the law. THis "nitpicking" happens all the time.

that any reasonable person knows was just retaliation against the person for not liking the current President/VP.

Would someone care to present evidence that they knew it was Vance, that they were offended by it, and that the refusal was based on that offense rather than the utterly plain-Jane reason that he admitted to violating a law of the United States relating to controlled substances?

He didn't break federal law if that law is not being actively enforced.

Of course he did. A law can be broken even if no one cares you broke it.

Show that this is regularly used to refuse people entry into the US, every single time. Only use of marijuana.

I don't know where you think I'm supposed to dig up figures like that, but here's a story from 2019 where a lawyer tells you exactly what I've been telling you. Here's another one published eleven years ago, before the Dark Times where a celebrity was refused for admitting unlawful drug use.

Unlawful drug use makes you inadmissible. Just like I've been saying.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Oh come on.

Seriously?

What is wrong with you people?

Give it up already. No amount of whining from you is going to change the law.

 

[Peter]

Cannabis is legal in New Mexico and in Germany, at least know. So it was not illegal to use them depending on the time he did it

Also how exactly does using it twice in his lifetime make him a threat to the US?
I could understand if he was a hardcore crack addict but canabis twice in a few decades?

 

[Peter]

Don't know what act you're talking about, but charged or convicted doesn't matter when he admits the essential elements.

So, anyone whose ever used canabis should be barred from entry into ther US for a visit?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Also how exactly does using it twice in his lifetime make him a threat to the US?

What's the "right" number, then? The law says a single violation is enough. Get it changed if you don't like it.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Give it up already. No amount of whining from you is going to change the law.

You ran away from my question.

Why is that?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

So, anyone whose ever used canabis should be barred from entry into ther US for a visit?

That's not what the law says. It says that violating a controlled substance law makes you inadmissible. You can do it all you want if it's legal where you do it (which DOES NOT INCLUDE THE UNITED STATES). If you've violated such a law, you're not even "banned" from the US. You just can't enter without a visa in the application for which you've disclosed your previous violation.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

You ran away from my question.

Why is that?

I already told you. Short memory?

 

[NolanVoyd]

I already told you. Short memory?

No, you refused to answer.

What are you afraid of?

 

[Peter]

What's the "right" number, then? The law says a single violation is enough. Get it changed if you don't like it.

I'd have a tough job given I'm British.
I'm fairly certain US lawmakers will ignore any advice I give them and I don't blame them.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

No, you refused to answer.

What are you afraid of?

I don't give a shit about your dumbass ****ing irrelevant stupidity. My opinion regarding the law doesn't change it. Is that really too ****ing complicated for you to comprehend?