Slashdot Mirror

So what do we do with the child, when her father commits a a crime by entering the US illegally and brings her with him? Should we separate the child from the father? Do we put them on buses (which is what happened) and drive them to a place where they can be processed, and then split them up?

Home owners are responsible for their sidewalks, trees, etc

Sometimes.

road upkeep is the reason for gas tax - you drive more on roads, you pay more in gas tax.

Partially.

To conflate it all is disingenuous.

I don't see anything being conflated at all.

Under U.S. law, anyway, "asylee" is not synonymous with "refugee;" it's a subset of refugee, with different legal procedures and consequences. See https://www.uscis.gov/humanita... , http://www.alllaw.com/articles... , https://www.dhs.gov/immigratio... , https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... , and--if you want the statute-- https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... .

http://www.alllaw.com/articles...

If my video is taken down, that implies I broke the law.

No it does not. It simply is a reflection of someone accusing you of violating their copyright. Furthermore it appears in this case that the person who posted the video likely DID violate copyright - just not Warner Music's copyright.

That's defamation of character.

Insert eyeroll here. No it is almost certainly not defamation of character. For it to be defamation there has to be real and quantifiable damage. While possible in certain circumstances the mere act of issuing a DCMA takedown request or asserting a copyright (even when non exists) would be unlikely to result in provable harm (financial, reputational, or otherwise) to anyone in the overwhelming majority of cases. If there is no provable damage then by definition it is not defamation of character.

There are legal avenues one can take to combat frivolous copyright claims but defamation of character would be a really stupid one in most cases.

Even if it's small claims.

Small claims court is very rarely an appropriate venue for libel cases. Libel cases are difficult to prove and typically require the aid of a lawyer. Small claims courts are for small and simple contractual disputes. While it's theoretically possible to take a libel claim to small claims court it's probably a really dumb idea.

So why are we discussing a hypothetical scenario

Because you're ignorant? I have simply been trying to explain to you the rationale behind existing US law.

Existing US law requires that in order to enter the US as a visitor, you provide evidence that:

the reason for your trip is for pleasure (or else medical treatment)
you plan to stay in the U.S. for only a specific, limited period
you have sufficient funds to cover your expenses while visiting the U.S. (particularly important because if you run out of money, the authorities assume you might violate your visa by working in the U.S.)
you have compelling social and economic ties in your home country, such as a job or schooling and family, and
you have a house, apartment, or other residence outside the U.S. as well as other binding ties that will ensure your return when your permitted stay is over.

You don't like it or don't like the rationale behind it? Tough shit, take it up with politicians. I'm just explaining the thinking to you since you seem utterly ignorant of how this stuff work. But, personally, I think these rules make a lot of sense. They are pretty much the same rules most civilized countries use.

BTW, this looks like a pretty good summary:

http://www.alllaw.com/articles...

They don't get to "continue to enter the country", they have to meet the religious persecution test before being granted sanctuary. The rules are tougher for everyone from those seven countries, not just one specific religion like many people claim.

It's far easier to apply for, and receive asylum once you enter into the US. Second best chance at gaining asylum is to request it at immigration. So, yes, there is a chance that they can be granted asylum at immigration.

And why is there a problem that we make special provisions for those suffering from persecution?

There is no problem with that at all. However, Donald Trump has said several times that he intended to ban Muslim immigration then you can see why such special provisions could be considered a violation of the first amendment of the constitution when they specifically work against the religion that Trump has promised to discriminate against.

And Buddhism. And Jews. And Every Other Religion you can name. There was no specificity in that order towards ANY specific religion.

Again you're technically correct but, as we've shown before, Trump has specifically said that he planned to discriminate against a specific religion. Besides, how many Jews, Buddhist, and FSM worshipers do you expect to find in Iran or Syria, for instance? In Iran less than 1% of the population is non-muslim. Syria only shows four religions: Islam, Christianity, Druze (a semi-nomadic group that has been in the region for a long time) and, Judaism (not even giving a percentage, just stating that there are few Jews in the country, and only in Aleppo and Damascus). I highly doubt the Druze are planning to leave Syria. So that basically means this executive order targets two religious groups with respect to Syria. When you look at the other countries, it is the same with over eighty percent of the population being Muslim and the remaining 0-20% basically being Christian.

No, it does not. Find the words, then you can claim "specifically."

Why do you have a problem that religious persecution is an exemption? Do you think that the exemption should seriously apply to people of the majority religion? Kinda hard to say it's being persecuted when it is the majority, huh?

I know that critical thinking is hard, so let me spell this out for you. The only exemption to the order is religious persecution. Therefore, it requires you read between the lines and see that only non-Muslims are prevented from being able to enter the US. That does not mean that people of other religions cannot be denied entry, but it absolutely 100% means that Muslims in those countries cannot enter the US. Period. Therefore the executive order specifically bars Muslims.

No, I'd say it was a de facto admission that getting the job done now is more important than wasting months in court getting the Ninth's typically poor decision overturned.

And how long did it take for the 9th circuit to review the case? How long would it have taken for the Supreme Court to address the issue? I mean, he's been president since January 20th. It hasn't even been six weeks yet. The 9th Circuit took the case on February 7th. Trump had been president for exactly 18 days at that point. The restraining order against the federal government was entered on February 3rd. That means that it took four days for the US Justice Department to get an appeal. Exactly what do you think was going to happen while the legal process expedited the review of this order? These people were all granted visas by the State Department. A lot of these people had been traveling home on extend

I guess you didn't realize that an H1-B can be coverted to a green card.

However, if they try to put this in my car...it will be disconnected quickly.

First off, asking questions about the law on Slashdot is a futile endeavour. The best that can happen is that you don't get any answers at all. The worst is that you do, but they're all wrong.

I managed to find some general info on the net for you though; check this and this. I have no idea of whether or not they are relevant to your inquiry. I just happened to stumble upon them while googling for an answer to an even more general question, namely: "what the #%&! are 'zoning restrictions'?" (I'm not a US citizen and therefore have no idea.)