Which is the thing that happens after they deny your passport, in the same way that it's the thing that happens after they arrest you for a crime. "Innocent until proven guilty" means you go free if they can't prove you're guilty, not that you don't have to go through the process.
You still have to have some type of evidence specifically linking you to a crime. The midwives never gave names of specific people.
What does that have to do with racism? Your argument can't be that no one has ever made a false claim against a white person.
We aren’t talking about any random White person. We are talking about a President of the United States who specifically helped “radical Muslims” and a President who was accused of being a “secret Muslim” before he was ever elected.
The people from Norway are going from a country with more government benefits to one with less. If they liked what they had then why did they leave?
> You still have to have some type of evidence specifically linking you to a crime. The midwives never gave names of specific people.
Which is why they ultimately get their passports after the government has conducted their investigation. For the people who weren't actually born here the government should be able to find evidence of that, e.g. the mother is not a US citizen and her passport wasn't stamped into the US before the child was born.
> We aren’t talking about any random White person. We are talking about a President of the United States who specifically helped “radical Muslims” and a President who was accused of being a “secret Muslim” before he was ever elected.
But what does that have to do with racism? People falsely accuse political candidates of things constantly.
> Actually most don’t.
Which is why there aren't enough socialist-leaning immigrants from Norway to affect election outcomes.
Which is why they ultimately get their passports after the government has conducted their investigation. For the people who weren't actually born here the government should be able to find evidence of that, e.g. the mother is not a US citizen and her passport wasn't stamped into the US before the child was born.
That’s not how the US constitution works. Whether or not the parents were here legally, if the child was born on US soil, they are still a citizen.
So it is still not on them to prove their innocence. It’s on the government to prove that they were not born in US soil.
Which is why there aren't enough socialist-leaning immigrants from Norway to affect election outcomes.
You claimed that it had to do with politics and not race. But Trump was more than willing to welcome people who would vote against his party’s interest. Why would that be?
> That’s not how the US constitution works. Whether or not the parents were here legally, if the child was born on US soil, they are still a citizen.
> So it is still not on them to prove their innocence. It’s on the government to prove that they were not born in US soil.
That's what the government is doing by providing strong evidence that the mother wasn't in the country at the time. If the person contends that she actually was, they have the opportunity to present their own evidence of that.
> You claimed that it had to do with politics and not race. But Trump was more than willing to welcome people who would vote against his party’s interest. Why would that be?
Because they are not those people. The people who (as most of that country does) prefer socialist policies are already living in a place that has them, so they do not come and do not change election outcomes. The few people who do come are the ones less likely to support socialist policies.
That's what the government is doing by providing strong evidence that the mother wasn't in the country at the time. If the person contends that she actually was, they have the opportunity to present their own evidence of that.
That’s not how criminal law works. The defendant is never under any obligation to prove innocence. The prosecution always has to prove guilt. Having suspicion is not having proof.
Because they are not those people. The people who (as most of that country does) prefer socialist policies are already living in a place that has them, so they do not come and do not change election outcomes. The few people who do come are the ones less likely to support socialist policies.
So you attribute that level of conciseness that Trump never stated. He never said that we want the good non socialist minority of Norwegians.
> That’s not how criminal law works. The defendant is never under any obligation to prove innocence. The prosecution always has to prove guilt. Having suspicion is not having proof.
Applying for a passport isn't a criminal proceeding, for one thing, but regardless of that, not having a passport stamp is strong evidence that you weren't here. It's like proof that your car was parked in your driveway all night when you claim you were at work -- when all other methods of travel are illegal. It's theoretically possible that you got there some other way, but now it's on you to show that. It's not about "proving your innocence" but rather rebutting the government's strong evidence that you're not.
> So you attribute that level of conciseness that Trump never stated. He never said that we want the good non socialist minority of Norwegians.
That's a fair point, only then it goes the other way. Trump doesn't want more people from Mexico because he actually knows they don't vote for him (it's a thing the media regularly talks about). Does he contemplate how immigrants from Norway would vote at all, or is he just arbitrarily choosing a country known to have a middle class?
Applying for a passport isn't a criminal proceeding, for one thing, but regardless of that, not having a passport stamp is strong evidence that you weren't here.
According to the article:
In some cases, passport applicants with official U.S. birth certificates are being jailed in immigration detention centers and entered into deportation proceedings. In others, they are stuck in Mexico, their passports suddenly revoked when they tried to reenter the United States.
Being “jailed in immigration detention centers and entered into deportation procedures” sure sounds criminal to me.
It's like proof that your car was parked in your driveway all night when you claim you were at work -- when all other methods of travel are illegal. It's theoretically possible that you got there some other way, but now it's on you to show that. It's not about "proving your innocence" but rather rebutting the government's strong evidence that you're not.
Do you know how many Black people alive right now in the South also have parents that were born as late as the early 1900s without any official documentation besides thier names written in a Bible? Should that also make it harder for my parents to get passports? (btw, it doesn’t.)
You still have to have some type of evidence specifically linking you to a crime. The midwives never gave names of specific people.
What does that have to do with racism? Your argument can't be that no one has ever made a false claim against a white person.
We aren’t talking about any random White person. We are talking about a President of the United States who specifically helped “radical Muslims” and a President who was accused of being a “secret Muslim” before he was ever elected.
The people from Norway are going from a country with more government benefits to one with less. If they liked what they had then why did they leave?
Actually most don’t.
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/01/13/norway-better-than-don...
So if Trump wants them here despite their viewpoint being more in line with Democrats, that kind of puts your whole argument to rest....