White House weighs plan to keep out US citizens and legal residents

[TU Curmudgeon]

From the BBC

White House weighs plan to keep out US citizens and legal residents
​

The US is weighing new rules that would temporarily bar US citizens and legal residents from entering the US to control a surge in coronavirus cases.

US media say the proposal would affect people suspected of having been exposed to or infected with the virus.

President Donald Trump has often touted his travel bans on foreigners as key to curbing the spread of the virus.

But US citizens and lawful residents have so far been exempt from travel restrictions regarding entering the US.

It is unclear whether the proposed measures will move forward.

What's in the draft proposal?

COMMENT:-

Since the US does NOT have a section that is the equivalent to Section 6. (1) of the Canadian "Charter of Rights and Freedoms"

"Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada."
​

it would NOT be "unconstitutional" to bar American citizens from entering the United States of America.

Since the US does NOT have any specific legislative provisions that are the equivalent to Section 6. (1) of the Canadian "Charter of Rights and Freedoms"

Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
​

it would NOT be "illegal" to bar American citizens from entering the United States of America.

The only reason why American citizens have the "right" to enter the United States of America is "tradition" (read as "the (unwritten) rights of Englishmen" [that the Founding Fathers said they were fighting to preserve in the American colonies]) and governmental action has the power to oust "tradition" as long as it has been exercised by someone with the authority to do so.

Mr. Trump appears to believe that the President of the United States of America has the authority to do anything that he wants to do.
​

 

[vanceen]

It's by no means necessarily true that the lack of a specific clause about entry and residence in the US for citizens means that it would not be unconstitutional to implement a ban on Americans entering and remaining in the US.

The Constitution and its amendments are not meant to be a comprehensive and exclusive list of rights. That's why the 10th amendment exists. It could be reasonably argued that entering and remaining in the country is an understood right of the people.

A similar point would be that barring of citizens is not among the powers specifically enumerated to the US government, therefore it would be unconstitutional.

 

[Drawdown]

If Trump is doing it, it has to be, illegal, unconstitutional, and a way to make money, or so some would seem to believe.

Personally, I am not sure denying US citizens the right to return is legal as opposed to forced quarantine upon their return, but law really is meaningless in this day and age.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It's by no means necessarily true that the lack of a specific clause about entry and residence in the US for citizens means that it would not be unconstitutional to implement a ban on Americans entering and remaining in the US.

Quite right, the right to enter your own country is one of those elusive "Rights of Englishmen" that the Founding Fathers said that they were fighting to preserve.

HOWEVER, it is also an "unwritten right", which means that "black letter law" can extinguish it.

If there is no "black letter law" to spell it out, then the only way that the right can be recognized is through judicial interpretation and that means that some [Pick ONE of the two following options]

ACTIVIST JUDGE

"ad – tiv – ist ju – d - ge"

NOUN PHRASE

"a judicial officer who makes a decision that I do not like, regardless of how well founded that decision is in law and how closely that decision bears on the actual facts of the case"

[See also – “LEARNED JUDGE”]

[From the AKME Dictionary of Current American Political Usage - still in pre-press preparation]
​

LEARNED JUDGE

"lear - ned ju – d - ge"

NOUN PHRASE

"a judicial officer who makes a decision that I do like, regardless of how poorly founded that decision is in law and how little that decision bears on the actual facts of the case"

[See also – “ACTIVIST JUDGE”]

[From the AKME Dictionary of Current American Political Usage - still in pre-press preparation]
​

has to interpret the laws of the country in that manner.

The Constitution and its amendments are not meant to be a comprehensive and exclusive list of rights. That's why the 10th amendment exists.

That's the opinion of the VAST majority of constitutional law scholars.

It could be reasonably argued that entering and remaining in the country is an understood right of the people.

That would most certainly be how the Founding Fathers would have viewed it.

A similar point would be that barring of citizens is not among the powers specifically enumerated to the US government, therefore it would be unconstitutional.

Then the entire "immigration" branch of American law would also have to be tossed out since there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the US Constitution that deals with "immigration". In fact, if that were the case, then the US government would not be able to prevent anyone from entering the United States of America for any reason whatsoever and that would mean that Mr. Trump's "travel bans" would have no basis in law whatsoever.

Admittedly, if that were the case then the several states could restrict who could enter their territory and "State A" could prohibit anyone entering its territory from "State B" (regardless of citizenship).

 

[d0gbreath]

Then we could easily talk don into visiting putin, and he could ****ing stay there!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Then we could easily talk don into visiting putin, and he could ****ing stay there!

Issuing an EO that directs the CBP folks that the only acceptable form of identification for people who are claiming to be American citizens is the in person testimony of two people (both of whom are personally known to the CBP officer) that the person seeking admission holds American citizenship and that US passports are no longer acceptable for that purpose due to "massive passport fraud", would do the trick.

After all, you already DO have to establish that you are an American citizen in order to enter the United States of America (unless you establish yourself as the citizen of some other country [the residents of which are not prohibited from entering the United States of America]) so that would simply be a minor modification of already existing administrative requirements.

 

[mrdeltoid]

From the BBC

White House weighs plan to keep out US citizens and legal residents
​

The US is weighing new rules that would temporarily bar US citizens and legal residents from entering the US to control a surge in coronavirus cases.

US media say the proposal would affect people suspected of having been exposed to or infected with the virus.

President Donald Trump has often touted his travel bans on foreigners as key to curbing the spread of the virus.

But US citizens and lawful residents have so far been exempt from travel restrictions regarding entering the US.

It is unclear whether the proposed measures will move forward.

What's in the draft proposal?

COMMENT:-

Since the US does NOT have a section that is the equivalent to Section 6. (1) of the Canadian "Charter of Rights and Freedoms"

"Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada."
​

it would NOT be "unconstitutional" to bar American citizens from entering the United States of America.

Since the US does NOT have any specific legislative provisions that are the equivalent to Section 6. (1) of the Canadian "Charter of Rights and Freedoms"

Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
​

it would NOT be "illegal" to bar American citizens from entering the United States of America.

The only reason why American citizens have the "right" to enter the United States of America is "tradition" (read as "the (unwritten) rights of Englishmen" [that the Founding Fathers said they were fighting to preserve in the American colonies]) and governmental action has the power to oust "tradition" as long as it has been exercised by someone with the authority to do so.

Mr. Trump appears to believe that the President of the United States of America has the authority to do anything that he wants to do.
​

Do you post on any Canadian forums? I'm curious. You seem to have an intense dislike for the U.S.A.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Do you post on any Canadian forums? I'm curious. You seem to have an intense dislike for the U.S.A.

Since I have, on many occasions indicated that I have a great respect for "The American Ideal", "The American Dream", and that version of what the United States of America both started out to be and is today that is taught to innocent young American school children, I don't think that it is quite correct to say that I "have an intense dislike for the U.S.A.".

Possibly you are confusing "the actions of the government of the United States of America" or "the government of the United States of America" with "the -actions of the government of the- United States of America".

 

[mrdeltoid]

Since I have, on many occasions indicated that I have a great respect for "The American Ideal", "The American Dream", and that version of what the United States of America both started out to be and is today that is taught to innocent young American school children, I don't think that it is quite correct to say that I "have an intense dislike for the U.S.A.".

Possibly you are confusing "the actions of the government of the United States of America" or "the government of the United States of America" with "the -actions of the government of the- United States of America".

Oh I see. I was just curious. One thing I realized a long time ago, whoever is in power, half the country will not like their policies. I am so sick of party politics. I don't see why we can't have a generic position sheet with the list of issues, have the candidates state what their position is, their strategy, and how they plan to address each issue (tactically).
For example: Strategy: Job creation Tactics: deregulation, cut corporate taxes. That way, we would have some idea what their vision is, what and how they are going to do it.
We would have a record of what their position on the issues were, hold their feet to the fire to live up to the positions they took. Today, politicians with no core values can just tell you what you want to hear, to gain power.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Oh I see. I was just curious. One thing I realized a long time ago, whoever is in power, half the country will not like their policies. I am so sick of party politics. I don't see why we can't have a generic position sheet with the list of issues, have the candidates state what their position is, their strategy, and how they plan to address each issue (tactically).
For example: Strategy: Job creation Tactics: deregulation, cut corporate taxes. That way, we would have some idea what their vision is, what and how they are going to do it.
We would have a record of what their position on the issues were, hold their feet to the fire to live up to the positions they took. Today, politicians with no core values can just tell you what you want to hear, to gain power.

An interesting idea with those "position sheets", but you would have to pre-print them all with "Whatever will increase my chances of getting elected/re-elected the most and/or do the most to ensure me a really high income once I leave office" in the "What are you going to do about it" column (unless you had some sort of constitutional amendment that prohibited an office holder from running for re-election unless they had actually supported no less than [let's say] 75% of what they had said they would support when running for election/re-election).

 

[mrdeltoid]

An interesting idea with those "position sheets", but you would have to pre-print them all with "Whatever will increase my chances of getting elected/re-elected the most and/or do the most to ensure me a really high income once I leave office" in the "What are you going to do about it" column (unless you had some sort of constitutional amendment that prohibited an office holder from running for re-election unless they had actually supported no less than [let's say] 75% of what they had said they would support when running for election/re-election).

That's the beauty of having a record to refer to. No need for an amendment. All candidates receive the same boiler plate position sheet with goals, "strategery" and tactics. Then, the next election, post the position sheet from the incumbents last election. It will show what they said they would do, and the voters can contrast that to what they actually did. If your satisfied, vote for the same candidate. If not, vote for a different candidate. No partisan bias, no spin, just the facts. Would that be so hard? I mean seriously, can it be any worse than what we have? Think of it, no "majority party congress" to blame. If congress blocks a bill, look at the ones that voted no, and vote THEM out. None of this " oh, the democrats blocked it" or "the republicans blocked it", nobody to blame but the ones that blocked it. Oh, BTW I didn't miss your sarcasm, and yes, I laughed and you make a good point. I'm just so frustrated. Oh, well, I can dream, can't I.eace

 

[j brown's body]

From the BBC

White House weighs plan to keep out US citizens and legal residents
​

The US is weighing new rules that would temporarily bar US citizens and legal residents from entering the US to control a surge in coronavirus cases.

US media say the proposal would affect people suspected of having been exposed to or infected with the virus.

President Donald Trump has often touted his travel bans on foreigners as key to curbing the spread of the virus.

But US citizens and lawful residents have so far been exempt from travel restrictions regarding entering the US.

It is unclear whether the proposed measures will move forward.

What's in the draft proposal?

COMMENT:-

Since the US does NOT have a section that is the equivalent to Section 6. (1) of the Canadian "Charter of Rights and Freedoms"

"Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada."
​

it would NOT be "unconstitutional" to bar American citizens from entering the United States of America.

Since the US does NOT have any specific legislative provisions that are the equivalent to Section 6. (1) of the Canadian "Charter of Rights and Freedoms"

Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
​

it would NOT be "illegal" to bar American citizens from entering the United States of America.

The only reason why American citizens have the "right" to enter the United States of America is "tradition" (read as "the (unwritten) rights of Englishmen" [that the Founding Fathers said they were fighting to preserve in the American colonies]) and governmental action has the power to oust "tradition" as long as it has been exercised by someone with the authority to do so.

Mr. Trump appears to believe that the President of the United States of America has the authority to do anything that he wants to do.
​

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

And when you repeatedly put your _[fill in the blank]_ on the block, that can get rather painful.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Oh I see. I was just curious. One thing I realized a long time ago, whoever is in power, half the country will not like their policies. I am so sick of party politics. I don't see why we can't have a generic position sheet with the list of issues, have the candidates state what their position is, their strategy, and how they plan to address each issue (tactically).
For example: Strategy: Job creation Tactics: deregulation, cut corporate taxes. That way, we would have some idea what their vision is, what and how they are going to do it.
We would have a record of what their position on the issues were, hold their feet to the fire to live up to the positions they took. Today, politicians with no core values can just tell you what you want to hear, to gain power.

Foreigners have long involved themselves in US politics, even predating 1776. And it's always the same excuse. I love the American people BUT...

Anti-Americanism has a long tradition in Europe, and in Canada as well, though usually not as vehement. And of course none of the countries are in a position to advise anyone but it may give them a feeling of their own underlying superiority, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Foreigners have long involved themselves in US politics, even predating 1776. And it's always the same excuse. I love the American people BUT...

Anti-Americanism has a long tradition in Europe, and in Canada as well, though usually not as vehement. And of course none of the countries are in a position to advise anyone but it may give them a feeling of their own underlying superiority, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Have you considered

and

​

after all this is supposed to be a thread about COVID-19.

PS - Even though it was invaded by Americans in 1775, 1812, 1836, 1837, and 1866, Canada has absolutely no cause whatsoever to doubt that the United States of America would never even think about invading and conquering Canada. (Mainly because we're pretty sure that the Americans have learned their lesson and won't try again.)