I read this this morning.
Should he be banned for life from entering the US for calling Obama a prick? Or is it an over reaction?
Orgasminator
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Teen banned from US over email
Orgasminator
It does that. But a life ban? Isnt that a bit harsh? And considering he's 17, in the US dont minor misdemeanors get wiped from your record at 18? If that is the case why wouldn't this?
I know of two people that have been banned from the USA, for what we would describe over here as light offences.
Both were denied entry to the USA and the reason given was Moral turpitude.
This is the definition of the word...
It means wickedness against fellow man.
They can use that for any reason they want to as any crime could be deemed to be Moral Turpitude.
One of the people I know applied for a visa to enter the USA at the same time Mike Tyson was being granted his visa to visit the UK.
Guess which one got their visa and the one that did not.
So they can ban him and have banned him, and can use that word to keep him out under the " permanent exclusion " policy that they adopt when using that as a reason to deny entry.
To ban him for life is harsh and yes the FBI have over reacted but they have given their reasons of which the young idiot will have to accept.
Both were denied entry to the USA and the reason given was Moral turpitude.
This is the definition of the word...
It means wickedness against fellow man.
They can use that for any reason they want to as any crime could be deemed to be Moral Turpitude.
One of the people I know applied for a visa to enter the USA at the same time Mike Tyson was being granted his visa to visit the UK.
Guess which one got their visa and the one that did not.
So they can ban him and have banned him, and can use that word to keep him out under the " permanent exclusion " policy that they adopt when using that as a reason to deny entry.
To ban him for life is harsh and yes the FBI have over reacted but they have given their reasons of which the young idiot will have to accept.
Quote by kentswingers777
I know of two people that have been banned from the USA, for what we would describe over here as light offences.
Both were denied entry to the USA and the reason given was Moral turpitude.
This is the definition of the word...
It means wickedness against fellow man.
They can use that for any reason they want to as any crime could be deemed to be Moral Turpitude.
One of the people I know applied for a visa to enter the USA at the same time Mike Tyson was being granted his visa to visit the UK.
Guess which one got their visa and the one that did not.
So they can ban him and have banned him, and can use that word to keep him out under the " permanent exclusion " policy that they adopt when using that as a reason to deny entry.
To ban him for life is harsh and yes the FBI have over reacted but they have given their reasons of which the young idiot will have to accept.
And let that be a warning to others!
There are similar provisions for those who have criminal convictions, as I understand.
Sex God
Quote by GnV
I know of two people that have been banned from the USA, for what we would describe over here as light offences.
Both were denied entry to the USA and the reason given was Moral turpitude.
This is the definition of the word...
It means wickedness against fellow man.
They can use that for any reason they want to as any crime could be deemed to be Moral Turpitude.
One of the people I know applied for a visa to enter the USA at the same time Mike Tyson was being granted his visa to visit the UK.
Guess which one got their visa and the one that did not.
So they can ban him and have banned him, and can use that word to keep him out under the " permanent exclusion " policy that they adopt when using that as a reason to deny entry.
To ban him for life is harsh and yes the FBI have over reacted but they have given their reasons of which the young idiot will have to accept.
And let that be a warning to others!
There are similar provisions for those who have criminal convictions, as I understand.
A friend of mine was refused for a drink drive conviction, if he wished to still go he had to travel to London for an interview where the result may or may not have aloud him to travel.
Orgasminator
So its not completely irriversable then. He could in theory in years to come go on his knees to the embassy and appologise.
Still ouch!
Still ouch!
well...shows why maybe America is slowly loseing freinds worldwide.
A young lad....has a few and sends an abusive !! Oh big deal...hope the FBI don't look at these forums else a few of us might be in trouble !! On the grand scale of naughtiness....and abusive hardly appears on the scale does it !!
Where is the country of tolerance ?
So simple to thank him for his , tell him his comments had been noted, and should he continue with abusive language then, they would ban him. If he then continued it would be totally his own fault.
At least on here we get three strikes before we out !!!
A young lad....has a few and sends an abusive !! Oh big deal...hope the FBI don't look at these forums else a few of us might be in trouble !! On the grand scale of naughtiness....and abusive hardly appears on the scale does it !!
Where is the country of tolerance ?
So simple to thank him for his , tell him his comments had been noted, and should he continue with abusive language then, they would ban him. If he then continued it would be totally his own fault.
At least on here we get three strikes before we out !!!
Master of Sex
The First Amendment of The US Constitution states:
"Congress may not establish a religion, restrict free speech or press freedom, or deprive citizens of rights to assemble peacefully or petition the government."
Maybe they should change it to include the caveat "unless we don't like what you say".
"Congress may not establish a religion, restrict free speech or press freedom, or deprive citizens of rights to assemble peacefully or petition the government."
Maybe they should change it to include the caveat "unless we don't like what you say".
Sex God
Quote by Dave_Desert229
The First Amendment of The US Constitution states:
"Congress may not establish a religion, restrict free speech or press freedom, or deprive citizens of rights to assemble peacefully or petition the government."
Maybe they should change it to include the caveat "unless we don't like what you say".
:laughabove::laughabove:
Not planning a trip to the US in the near future I hope :giggle:
Quote by Bluefish2009
The First Amendment of The US Constitution states:
"Congress may not establish a religion, restrict free speech or press freedom, or deprive citizens of rights to assemble peacefully or petition the government."
Maybe they should change it to include the caveat "unless we don't like what you say".
:laughabove::laughabove:
Not planning a trip to the US in the near future I hope :giggle:
Doesn't the constitution only cover US citizens
Dave_Notts
Master of Sex
Quote by Dave__Notts
The First Amendment of The US Constitution states:
"Congress may not establish a religion, restrict free speech or press freedom, or deprive citizens of rights to assemble peacefully or petition the government."
Maybe they should change it to include the caveat "unless we don't like what you say".
:laughabove::laughabove:
Not planning a trip to the US in the near future I hope :giggle:
Doesn't the constitution only cover US citizens
Dave_Notts
Possibly. That explains why it gives them free reign to bully everybody that they don't agree with. The last god knows how many years have shown this to be the case.
Quote by Dave_Desert229
The First Amendment of The US Constitution states:
"Congress may not establish a religion, restrict free speech or press freedom, or deprive citizens of rights to assemble peacefully or petition the government."
Maybe they should change it to include the caveat "unless we don't like what you say".
:laughabove::laughabove:
Not planning a trip to the US in the near future I hope :giggle:
Doesn't the constitution only cover US citizens
Dave_Notts
Possibly. That explains why it gives them free reign to bully everybody that they don't agree with. The last god knows how many years have shown this to be the case.
I agree with you, and before that it was the Brits, then the French, then the Romans, then the Greeks, then the Egyptians, etc (please note that this is not historically correct, just an example).
Dave_Notts
