beachmouse

Not quite there yet, but don't give them any ideas. Instead, they've got the magnetometers set up so sensitive they'll pick up rivets on your blue jeans, and everyone gets wanded in a second pass.

satz

You're generous...

cbn42

So then what do you consider to be a right, and how is a right different from a privilege?

GUWonder

The issue was about the claim about the lawful authority to enter a country other than that which has issued an individual's passport. Any semantic debate about a rights - privileges distinction won't change the fact that there are foreigners who cannot be lawfully denied entry to some other country/countries than that of their citizenship.

cbn42

No, there aren't. Any laws allowing foreigners to enter some other country/countries than that of their citizenship are subject to modification or repeal at any time, with or without explanation.

This is especially true in Europe. In the US, we have constitutional rights, which cannot be infringed by the government. But in the UK, for example, Parliament is supreme and their laws cannot be challenged before a court or any other body on the basis that they violate the "rights" laid out in some higher document.

GUWonder

The above post's second paragraph runs contrary to facts too.


There are foreigners who cannot be lawfully denied entry to some other country/countries than that of their citizenship.

You can believe what you wish, to the contrary of fact as I am here again communicating in this post.

cbn42

Rather than repeating the same thing you wrote earlier, why not 1) read the rest of my post, instead of just the first three words, and 2) giving an example or other clarification?

Barcky

My favorite FT story about the former President. Certainly not a DYKWIA attitude.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/13487336-post153.html

Black Adder

Great story!

GUWonder

I read the entire part of your post, including the part of mine you clipped and attempted to deny.

I already pointed to examples validating exactly that which you attempted to deny. Trying to play semantics won't change a thing about the factual nature of some foreigners' entry rights to a country other than that of one's own citizenship(s).

cbn42

You can write it off as "playing semantics", but there is a very significant difference between a right and a privilege, which you are refusing to discuss.

GUWonder

It is not a matter of writing it off. Rather the matter of fact is that some foreigners have a right to enter and/or reside in a country other than that of their own citizenship (if any) because of the web of lawful requirements, applicable to various countries, that cannot be lawfully changed on a dime. These matters have come up repeatedly in courts of law and in justice/home/interior/intelligence/immigration type of government departments/agencies/ministries and complicated matters in North America and Europe because the rights exist, including as I indicated with multiple references in this thread.

cbn42

I'm not sure what you mean by "on a dime", but any country that has granted foreigners the ability to enter can easily take it away at any time, without approval of the foreign country, simply by modifying the relevant laws.

You cited the example of a US citizen parent of a Swedish citizen, who has the "right" to enter the EU. However, this is simply a matter of EU law, which can easily be changed without the consent of the US. Would you also say that UK citizens have the "right" to enter the US through VWP? The underlying statutes are similar in both cases.

PS Sorry for hijacking the thread with this discussion. Moderators please feel free to move it if necessary.

GUWonder

I am referring to many more examples than just that one. For that and many other such examples, withdrawing out of such obligations of the state -- as established by treaties, court rulings, constituions and other legal elements that are part of the relevant body law in such matters -- can't all lawfully occur on a dime. It involves time, although unlawful violations of rights (including those referred to in constitutions/charters ) do occur on a dime .... sometimes repeatedly and for sustained periods of time.

You're operating under a misunderstanding if you believe that my referred to rights to enter another country can all be lawfully denied at any time. A passport is not needed to enter and/or stay in all such foreign countries to exercise such rights even as it often (a) facilitates matters, (b) reduces the chances of the right being unlawfully denied, and/or (c) reduces the chances of the non-citizen being lawfully hit with a fine or other costs.

The US VWP does not grant non-citizens/non-nationals a right of entry to the US; nor does it grant such persons a right of residence in the US. Your claim about the underlying legal elements (between my referred examples and your framed question) being similar is far removed from reality.

This entire discussion is relevant to travel.

need2ski

While the scene at the gate was surely interesting, I think the car ride home for the couple was where the real entertainment took place. A great discussion on who should have gotten the passports!