Different issues
Reader comment on item: American Border Secrets

Submitted by IKram (Canada), Apr 29, 2005 at 16:39

Daniel Pipes wrote

"Were the plaintiffs to prevail in this case, attending religious conferences would instantly become the favored method for terrorists and other Islamists to cross the American border without hindrance. Such a malign implication means this lawsuit needs to be tossed out by the courts."

I think these are two separate issues. The plaintiffs are saying that US citizens should not be prevented from returning to the USA, and should not be detained by law enforcement at the border any more than the would be detained by law enforcement when inside the country (that is, only if they were under arrest).

I'm sure there is a body of jurisprudence as to whether American citizens have a right to enter the USA, and whether law enforcement at the border is under different obligations with respect to civil liberties than law enforcement inside the country.

But none of these issues relate to what you are bringing up. Non-citizens still would not be able to enter the country if the government chose not to let them in.

Could you clarify why you think this lawsuit could allow non-citizens to enter the USA?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.