Re: Profiling


Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
jrosenbluth@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Alan Lichtenstein wrote:

jrosenbluth@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:


Alan Lichtenstein wrote:


Josh Rosenbluth wrote:



Alan Lichtenstein wrote:



Josh Rosenbluth wrote:


Firstly, you don't have to be on US soil to have standing. A lawyer
in the USA can file on your behalf.


I believe you are wrong. Using that 'logic' anyone who is denied
entrance can have standing. It would appear that many so denied would
indeed attempt to sue. That has not occurred, likely because there is
no standing.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri

This guy is suing George Tenet because he was wrongly tortured. He
still can't get into the USA. The foreigners killed in Pan Am 103 sued
Pan Am. Foreign corporations sue the American government when they feel
American law does them wrong.

Standing has nothing to do with where you are.

If that is the case, then kindly explain why ANY individual who is a
foreigner NOT residing on U.S. Soil does NOT sue for discrimination
under the equal protection clause? None have. Why? Based on your
premise, it would be obvious that discrimination, even on the basis of
national origin violates the equal protection clause, and there ought to
be oddles and oddles of suits by foreigners.


As I explained previously, there is precedent that 1) the government
(particularly the federal government) can discriminate on the basis of
national origin in some cases and 2) the Equal Protection clause has
never been found to apply when an aline is denied a visa no matter what
reason the INS has given. The answer has nothing to do with standing -
but rather the scope of Equal Protection as determined by SCOTUS.

You've already explained that Government can legislate what it pleases.
But that wasn't the question. The question dealt with standing needed
to have access to the Court system. You seem to think that anyone can
have access to the Court system without having to be on U.S. Soil. I
asked you to explain why, if that was the case, the minions of the
underprivileged in foreign countries who are routinely denied entrance
do not sue under the equal protection clause. You have given your
opinion, and I would appreciate your citation of the pertinent court
cases that support same. I do not believe there are any, because in
order to enter the suit, one must be on U.S. soil, and if one is denied
entrance, one does not have access to the courts.


I linked to the El-Masri case. He sued even though he is not in the
USA. His case did not concern denial of a visa, thus you can be
correct only if there is a rule specific to visa denials that you have
to be in the USA to have standing. Please provide a citation for such
a rule.

I have already refuted your use of the El-Masari case, and see no need
to repeat myself.

I've re-read the thread. You did not address this case at all.

My claim was not that I had the citations, but merely
stating that standing in country is necessary to enter suit. If you
bothered to read the thread, I said I was unaware of any suit entered as
such, and believe none exist. hence, if none exist, there can be no
citation regarding nonexistent events.

El-Masri is an existing event.

My query regarding the ACLU and
their obvious silence in initiating a suit on behalf of the minions of
the downtrodden who are excluded entry by legislation appears to refute
your contention that the individual instigating such a suit need not be
present in the U.S. to do so. Your failed to respond to that dilemma.
and have yet to address it. Please do so. I would be most interested
in your explanation, as to what you conjecture as the ACLU's failure to
address this apparent inequity. The Equal Protection clause does appear
to be a sound basis for raising that issue. But, if the individual
needs to be on U.S. soil to have access to the courts, then it is
evident why the issue was not raised. However, if you are correct, then
my question as to WHY the ACLU has not raised it is most germane. Your
explanation would be appreciated.

The ACLU hasn't chosen to sue because they know that Equal Protection
does not generally apply to visa-denial cases. See for example,
http://hrw.org/reports/2006/us0506/3.htm

'Traditionally, the Supreme Court has accorded Congress wide scope to
regulate entry to the U.S., holding it is part of the "plenary
powers" given the legislature by the U.S. Constitution. This power
is not absolute, though, or completely immune from scrutiny for
discrimination and injustice. The Court has acknowledged cases "in
which the alleged basis of discrimination is so outrageous" that
denial of entry may be challenged-including denying people entry
solely because of their race or religion.'

Thus, denying entry based on country of origin or even membership of a
political organization that the government believes is a terrorist
organization has been found not to offend Equal Protection. This also
confirms my earlier claim that the law is not settled when it comes to
denying visas based solely on religion (we've never done it - so we
don't know how the Court would rule).

Josh Rosenbluth

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Profiling
    ... but rather the scope of Equal Protection as determined by SCOTUS. ... have access to the Court system without having to be on U.S. Soil. ... stating that standing in country is necessary to enter suit. ... discrimination and injustice. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Profiling
    ... entrance can have standing. ... national origin violates the equal protection clause, ... have access to the Court system without having to be on U.S. Soil. ... My claim was not that I had the citations, but merely stating that standing in country is necessary to enter suit. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: State high court clears way for Prop. 8 forces
    ... continue the suit in federal court. ... not whether they have standing to sue. ... but rather because your suit is frivolous. ... but that is a question for a judge to answer about the merits - not standing. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: State high court clears way for Prop. 8 forces
    ... continue the suit in federal court. ... not whether they have standing to sue. ... but rather because your suit is frivolous. ... Frivolity ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: State high court clears way for Prop. 8 forces
    ... continue the suit in federal court. ... not whether they have standing to sue. ... but rather because your suit is frivolous. ... merit to my case means that I have no standing to sue. ...
    (soc.retirement)