OT: Soon you'll need Big Nanny's permission to leave the country

0 views
Skip to first unread message

A Man Beaten by Jacks

unread,
Nov 5, 2006, 11:34:56 PM11/5/06
to
Way to go Repugs! Enjoy your "freedom."
Thanks a fuckload, you stupid goddamn fucks.
Just keep goosestepping your way to slavery, you
hellbound fucks!

If you ask nicely, though, maybe Big Mommy will let you
play fucking tiddlywinks. You goddamn dumb bastards.

http://sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3023
We're All Prisoners, Now: US Citizens to be Required ''Clearance'' to Leave USA

International Politics October 26, 2006

Forget no-fly lists. If Uncle Sam gets its way, beginning on Jan. 14,
2007, we'll all be on no-fly lists, unless the government gives us
permission to leave-or re-enter-the United States.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (HSA) has proposed that all
airlines, cruise lines-even fishing boats-be required to obtain
clearance for each passenger they propose taking into or out of the
United States.

It doesn't matter if you have a U.S. Passport - a "travel document"
that now, absent a court order to the contrary, gives you a virtually
unqualified right to enter or leave the United States, any time you
want. When the DHS system comes into effect next January, if the
agency says "no" to a clearance request, or doesn't answer the
request at all, you won't be permitted to enter-or leave-the United
States.

Consider what might happen if you're a U.S. passport holder on
assignment in a country like Saudi Arabia. Your visa is about to
expire, so you board your flight back to the United States. But wait!
You can't get on, because you don't have permission from the HSA.
Saudi immigration officials are on hand to escort you to a squalid
detention center, where you and others who are now effectively
"stateless persons" are detained, potentially indefinitely, until
their immigration status is sorted out.

Why might the HSA deny you permission to leave-or enter-the United
States? No one knows, because the entire clearance procedure would be
an administrative determination made secretly, with no right of
appeal. Naturally, the decision would be made without a warrant,
without probable cause and without even any particular degree of
suspicion. Basically, if the HSA decides it doesn't like you, you're
a prisoner - either outside, or inside, the United States, whether or
not you hold a U.S. passport.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized there is a constitutional
right to travel internationally. Indeed, it has declared that the
right to travel is "a virtually unconditional personal right." The
United States has also signed treaties guaranteeing "freedom of
travel." So if these regulations do go into effect, you can expect a
lengthy court battle, both nationally and internationally.

Think this can't happen? Think again. It's ALREADY happening. Earlier
this year, HSA forbade airlines from transporting an 18-year-old a
native-born U.S. citizen, back to the United States. The prohibition
lasted nearly six months until it was finally lifted a few weeks ago.
Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are two countries in recent history
that didn't allow their citizens to travel abroad without permission.
If these regulations go into effect, you can add the United States to
this list.

For more information on this proposed regulation, see http://
hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-APIS-comments.pdf.

Comments?

OrangeSFO

unread,
Nov 5, 2006, 11:41:06 PM11/5/06
to
STAY THE COURSE!

God's Own Party is here to protect you.

beerboy

unread,
Nov 6, 2006, 1:44:20 AM11/6/06
to
In news:8retk2depvmrhm8k3...@4ax.com,
A Man Beaten by Jacks <nob...@fool.foo> typed:

| Way to go Repugs! Enjoy your "freedom."
| Thanks a fuckload, you stupid goddamn fucks.
| Just keep goosestepping your way to slavery, you
| hellbound fucks!
|
| If you ask nicely, though, maybe Big Mommy will let you
| play fucking tiddlywinks. You goddamn dumb bastards.
|
<snip>

Fuckin scary.

http://www.mls.ca/ <-- in case of emergency dictatorship, click link.

yw

--
_____________________

9/11 - The World's Biggest Lie

What happened to Building 7?
What hit the Pentagon if it wasn't flight 77?
Where is the wreckage of flight 77?
What do Controlled Demolitions have to with 9/11?

http://www.physics911.ca
http://physics911.ca/video/2005/loose_change_2.mov
http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/911_mainstream_media.htm
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

________


Paul Popinjay

unread,
Nov 6, 2006, 3:24:52 AM11/6/06
to
Holy shit. And I try to stay up on things, but I missed this. You can bet
I'll be talking to people about this tomorrow.

Thanks for the headsup, Jacks, but you, and people like Chris Robin, are
missing the mark, I think. You still think this is a "republican thing."

Interesting that there are only two responses to this seemingly monumental
announcement, one, of course, being a typical nuthing statement by
OrangeSFO, the biggest phony on this newsgroup. Just wondering, where are
the Bush-boot-lickers?

-Paul


"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nob...@fool.foo> wrote in message
news:8retk2depvmrhm8k3...@4ax.com...

Gary Carson

unread,
Nov 6, 2006, 4:45:44 AM11/6/06
to


On Nov 5 2006 11:34 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:

>
> The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized there is a constitutional
> right to travel internationally. Indeed, it has declared that the
> right to travel is "a virtually unconditional personal right."

Do you have a cite for that?  Becuase I'd thought they said the opposite about
domestic travel (I don't have a cite and might be wrong).


Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

beerboy

unread,
Nov 6, 2006, 5:12:51 AM11/6/06
to
In news:1162806344$900...@recpoker.com,
Gary Carson <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> typed:

taken from http://hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-APIS-comments.pdf (the link at the
bottom of the OP's article).

<begin cut n paste>
A. International travel is a Constitutionally protected right.

The CBP has conceded in an earlier stage of this rulemaking that, "CBP
recognizes, as the Supreme Court has stated, that the right to travel is an
important and long-cherished liberty." 68 Federal Register 292 (January 3,
2003).

The Supreme Court has long recognized that there is a Constitutional right to
travel internationally. The right to travel is "not a mere conditional liberty
subject to regulation and control under conventional due process or equal
protection standards . . .," but "a virtually unconditional personal right."
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 642-643 (1969); see also Aptheker v.Secretary
of State, 378 U.S. 500, 505 (1964); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126 (1958)
("Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a
livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of
what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic to our scheme of
values.").

The U.S. government has reiterated in its most recent report to the United
Nations Human Rights Committee that, "As reported in the Initial Report, in the
United States, the right to travel - both domestically and internationally - is
constitutionally protected." (Second and Third Periodic Reports of The U.S.
Concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Paragraph
203,

28 November 2005, CCPR/C/USA/3, available at
<http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044f331/01e6a2b492ba27e5c12570fc003f558b/$FILE/G0545268.pdf>,referring
to Initial Report by the U.S. Concerning Its Compliance with the International
Covenant onCivil and Political Rights, July 1994, CCPR/C/81/Add.4 and
HRI/CORE/1/Add.49, available at

<http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/erc/law/covenant94/Specific_Articles/12.html>).

pokerchimp

unread,
Nov 6, 2006, 7:22:35 AM11/6/06
to
another thread to bring me to tears.....

"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nob...@fool.foo> wrote in message
news:8retk2depvmrhm8k3...@4ax.com...

A Man Beaten by Jacks

unread,
Nov 6, 2006, 7:43:43 AM11/6/06
to
On Mon, 06 Nov 06 9:45:44 GMT, Gary Carson <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu>
wrote:

>On Nov 5 2006 11:34 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:

>> The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized there is a constitutional
>> right to travel internationally. Indeed, it has declared that the
>> right to travel is "a virtually unconditional personal right."

>Do you have a cite for that?  Becuase I'd thought they said the opposite about
>domestic travel (I don't have a cite and might be wrong).

It's cited in the PDF at
http://hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-APIS-comments.pdf

However, they misquote it. That case mentions international travel, but
contrasts it with domestic travel, in that one right is nearly absolute, but
international travel is subject to regulation within the confines of due
process. It even puts "right" in quotes.

n1 By contrast, the "right" of international travel has been considered to be no
more than an aspect of the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125; Aptheker v. Secretary of
State, 378 U.S. 500, 505-506. As such, this "right," the Court has held, can be
regulated within the bounds of due process. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1.

It barely matters, though. Presumptively denying travel without affirmatively
granting permission doesn't fit due process, either.

From the Kent v. Dulles case, which actually IS about international travel.

"A citizen's right of exit can be regulated only pursuant to the lawmaking
functions of the Congress; and if that power is delegated, the standards must be
adequate to pass scrutiny by the accepted tests." Kent v. Dulles, 2 L. Ed. 2d
1204

"The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which a citizen cannot be
deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
Kent v. Dulles, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1204

Though frankly, I'd have the right to leave this country whatever the fuck
the Supreme Court or anyone else said, and the right to come back,
and for that matter, the right to circumvent unlawful attempts
to stop me from doing so by any means necessary.

chan0011

unread,
Nov 6, 2006, 9:23:00 AM11/6/06
to


On Nov 6 2006 4:22 AM, pokerchimp wrote:

> another thread to bring me to tears.....

SOOOOO ditto chimp/RGP. 

Man I am sure getting sick of these tears. I HATE to cry! (refuse to watch E.T.
or Free Willy........)

:(  :(   :(   :(   :(

m.


> "A Man Beaten by Jacks" wrote in message

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

atticus

unread,
Nov 6, 2006, 10:49:00 AM11/6/06
to

hey Irish Mike, if you plan to go to Ireland anytime soon, please start
making plans now.

atticus

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages