Three Yale Students Arrested For Burning U.S. Flag:
No, it's not a First Amendment test case; as I understand the facts, the three students went on to someone else's private property and lit their American flag on fire. One of the three students is Said Hyder Akbar, 23, the author of Come Back to Afghanistan.
Related Posts (on one page):
- ABC News Site on the Yale Flag-Burning:
- Three Yale Students Arrested For Burning U.S. Flag:
In fact, the problem is just what dumb thing to do first.
One must make a choice.
So, the question arises, of the million dumb things these morons had in front of them, why did they think of this one?
Or were they saying what they really mean?
Probability theory says the latter.
Amen to that.
No, there might be a violation of the Clean Air Act as well. Think of the CO2 that was emitted.
And isn't the Taliban a Sunni organization? Aren't most Afghans Sunni?
Learn your sects, so you can learn to properly insult them.
It's an Hamas flag that you need to burn.
--G
Why? I don't see how anyone else's opinion of me (or my country) should be my concern. It seems to me that the more the "larger world" community hates us, the more correct we are.
You have that exactly wrong. We need to be less worried about our image in the eyes of the larger world and more worried about prosecuting these students.
Andrew W, that naturalized citizen should be careful that DHS doesn't get it into its head to re-examine his application. It sounds a lot like this fellow probably illegally procured his citizenship, since he most likely lied to pass the Good Moral Character and Attachment to Constitutional Principles requirements of the INA.
Guys, I'm all for an isolationist policy...if this were 1917. At this point in history, though, it's extremely irresponsible of the U.S. to go that route. There are way too many people who hate us in the world who have access to nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons for us to bury our heads in the sand forever. It would be much more productive for us to attempt to reshape the world in our own image (nation-building, anyone?), rather than to focus inward and leave ourselves open to attack by any number of radical foreign elements. Globalization isn't going away, whether we like it or not.
I'm far from being some dewy-eyed idealist. I voted for W, and I only partially regret it.
You may have a verb confusion problem that made me misunderstand the facts. I think what you meant to say was lit "his" (or "her") American flag on fire. The flag, in any event, was not the property of the students as best I can tell from the article.
In any event, as EV indicates, they weren't arrested for buring the U.S. flag as such, they were arrested for burning someone else's (personal) property on someone else's (real) property. The "speech component" of burning a U.S. flag is simply incidental to the property damage and risk of further property and personal injury. Hopefully, this is kept in mind by the prosecutor in executing his duties. If Yale is to expel them (sommething I would not particularly mind), it would hopefully be only because of their criminal lack of respect for the property and the safety of others, and not for any symbolic speech.
This works both ways - assuming that the prosecutor and the University inflict their prosecution without regard to the "speech component," I would hope that any cries by the defendants that they are being prosecuted for those reasons fall on deaf ears.
I'm not saying we should be isolationists, I'm saying that if France or Belgium thinks we are being "belligerent" or "cowboy-ish" why should we care? The opinions of other non-free and non-capitalist countries is and should be totally irrelevant.
Our worth is not determined by others.
I think there's more to it than that, but if it is vandalism and arson, then it's illegal regardless of any first ammendment procections that may apply.
Suppose that instead of burning an American flag it had been a pair of boxer shorts. Would they be arrested for that? If so, then it's probably not a first ammendment issue. Seems to me that they set something on fire on somebody else's property and left it to burn unattended. Flag or no flag, that's probably not within the law.
I'm only going to get my first-ammendment hackles up if somebody is arrested for burning a US flag when burning any other symbol or non-symbol is treated differently.
<i>We need to be less worried about treating this in a reactionary manner and doing more to rehabilitate our image in the eyes of the larger world.</i>
and
<i>It would be much more productive for us to attempt to reshape the world in our own image (nation-building, anyone?)</i>
I thought the world hated us <i>because </i>we are (1) attempting to reshape the world in our image, and (2) nation building?!?
It is entirely possible for a naturalized citizen to lose their citizenship if a later judicial proceeding reveals it was illegally or fraudulently procured. Section 340 of the INA contains the current rules regarding denaturalization and loss of citizenship. Such proceedings are initiated by a US Attorney at the request of DHS.
There are two grounds for loss of citizenship: (1) where the applicant did not actually meet the statutory requirements when they were naturalized; or (2) where the applicant concealed or willfully misrepresented a material fact in their application.
Here, it apperas that the person may not have had Good Moral Character or Attachement to Constitutional Principles at the time of his naturalization. He may therefore face loss of citizenship under the first ground.
Cases in which denaturalization are discussed include Schneiderman v. United States, Chaunt v. United States, and Kungys v. United States. Also, two Nazi's, Karl Linnas and John Demjanjuk were deported in the 1980s following their denaturalization.
Justin, next time why don't you stick to your area of expertice (whatever that may be), rather than call me out?
The problem with your argument is that you're "inferring" past "character" basd on future conduct. There's no evidence that anyone had poor "moral character" at the time of the application. Such an inference is both a result of immoral xenophobia and clearly unconstitutional.
I'm still perplexed by your assertion that Virginia's rhetoric is why people hate America. In how many other countries in the world would her statement not be de facto government policy? Does the world hate those countries for their repressiveness, or does it pity them and try to help them? To the extent people hate America, the evidence suggests it's not because of sentiments like Virginia's.
As for your new contention that present acts cannot be used to infer prior character, you have failed to point to any constitutional provision that supports that idea. In fact, it is entirely permissible to show a subjective intent to deceive at the time of naturalization based on present acts. It is a high burden to meet, but there is nothing inherently unconstitutional in the attempt.
Have you anything else?
I'm kind of surprised no one else sees this as intentional intimidation.
It doesn't sound like they are crazy American haters, just stupid college kids.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume they didn't burn the flag to keep warm.
Virginia, interestingly enough one of the students was a naturalized American citizen.
I didn't notice that. I'll leave it to those more legally knowledgeable than I to debate whether naturalization can be revoked. Suffice it to say I think it's unfortunate that we admitted to the ranks of our fellow citizens someone who doesn't respect our country.
I guess that sort of gets at what bothers me about all this. I don't think anyone should burn the flag, but I'm willing to put up with fellow citizens doing it as an exercise of their free speech rights. For non-citizens, being allowed into this country is a privilege, not a right. The privilege should be limited to those who appreciate it and show some basic respect for the country that has extended its hospitality.
To put it a different way, if I invite my brother to Thanksgiving dinner, and he insults my mother, I'll rebuke him, but I'll still invite him back next year, because he's family. If I invite you to Thanksgiving dinner, and you insult my mother, I'll ask you to leave, and you won't get any more invitations.
"I would also caution you to be careful in the future when you try and apply strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal government."
Sorry, I mistakenly referred to the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that specificially incorporates into the law the rights of naturalized citizens, without referring to the Fifth Amendment, which the Fourteenth Amendment implicitly modified, but would technically provide the violation and the remedy to the Federal violation of the P&E clause.
I'd also like to point out that this sentence:
"In fact, it is entirely permissible to show a subjective intent to deceive at the time of naturalization based on present acts," which is completely unsupported, does not logically fit with the bolded part of this sentence:
"It is a high burden to meet, but there is nothing inherently unconstitutional in the attempt.
How can something that may be inferred carry with it a burden? Either the proof may be implied without any corresponding burden, or it may not. The example here is hardly a "necessary implication" case - a case in which the intent to commit the crime necessarily predates the date of the application.
What makes it unconstitutional is the fact that you are penalizing a naturalised citizen differently than a natural citizen for acts committed while the two are citizens, without the requisite justification.
I don't have the authority to use Westlaw for social purposes, but I invite you to provide one case in which citizenship is revoked based only on activity that occurred after the grant of citizenship. It's one thing to revoke citizenship for, say, a former Nazi concentration camp guard who lied about his position in the German army. It is quite another, to say that someone who subsequently committed a crime (and I assume you made no attempt to imply that your rule may work with constitutionally protected actions) must have, ipso facto, lacked the moral character to legally apply. The working result of your proposal is simply to make continued citizenship of naturalised (but not native born) citizens conditional on good behavior - an obligation that is plainly unconstitutional.
I would like to see these "students" attempt this trick on a military base like Ft. Benning, GA. I would at least be able to respect the effort.
This question reveals your utter misunderstanding of the law in question. Denaturalization under section 340 of the INA is only allowed under the grounds I listed. The first focuses on ineligibility at the time the applicant is naturalized. The second focuses on material misrepresentations made on the application (necessarily, before the applicant is naturalized).
However, nothing in the law prevents DHS or the courts from--after naturalization occurs--taking notice of the fact that the applicant was ineligble. Things that would lead to a conclusion of ineligibility include prior acts or later acts which tend to show that the applicant did not at the time he was naturalized meet the statutory requirements.
The burden on the government is to prove with clear and convincing evidence that the applicant was ineligble at the time he was naturalized. Post-naturalization acts of the applicant can lead to an inference that he was ineligble, but as I said, it is questionable whether such an inference would meet the government's burden. That doesn't make the attempt unconstitutional.
Learn your sects, so you can learn to properly insult them -- It's an Hamas flag that you need to burn.
Oh, a good insult is never wasted. Burn five of each, and an Episcopal Church flag to show willing. ;^)
Ron Mexico,
Laura and Condi wore scarves to mosques. Pelosi <i>also </i>wore her scarf out in the markets and around town. That's the difference between respect and submission. Also, even if Condi/Bush had been wrong, that would still not excuse Pelosi. "Hypocrisy" is an <i>ad hominem</i> attack, not a logically valid criticism.
Nah, burning a Presbyterian (USA) flag would make more sense, as it already has flames on it.
Wow. Me explaining why it cannot should give you a hint why such a rule of construction would be unconstitutional. But in your attempt to look superior, you went from arguing that this individual's citizenship was at the whim of DHS in your 5:11 pm post to admitting that it was "questionable" whether any inference as to post-citizenship activity could "meet the government's burden" in your 6:45 pm. All while sticking to aggressive and superior language.
Let me ask you this, even though you didn't answer any off my previous questions. How would your test work, when applied to a subjective state of mind (see your 5:40pm post, referencing "Good Moral Character or Attachement to Constitutional Principles")? Would "really big crimes" lead to such an inference, while "lesser" crimes would not? And how would that solve the constitutional problem that you've not even begun to address - the concern that the effect of the rule would be to make citizenship contingent on future good behavior of a requisite level (or am I wrong to assume that you agree such a rule, if explicit, would indeed be unconstitutional?)
I'm trying to make this as easy for you as possible, by just flat out ignoring the fact that the inference you want to ascribe is subjective and provable only in one of three ways - by assigning substantive, objective standards, by admission, or by inference. Let's ignore that aspect, and just focus on the more immediate problems that I actually address - and have yet to back down upon.
Oh yes, one other piece of news, the naturalized citizen had worked as a translator for US forces in Afghanistan.
Au contraire, as the French say. I would hope that would be precisely why Yale would expel them. Yale is a private university, not a state actor, and is not obligated to respect 1st amendment rights. While a university ought to give very wide latitude to a variety of opinions, IMO the expression of complete contempt by a foreigner guest student to the symbol of his host country is over the line. You have utter contempt for America? Don't come here as a guest student.
Contrast this to a prank where, for example, some college students burned the flag of a rival fraternity. That should be the basis for minor punishment (perhaps at the hands of a prosecutor rather than the school) and obligation to make restitution, no more.
Oh, the horror, the horror. she wore a head scarf in the markets and around town! A traitor among us! Those weak Democrats who want to give the country away. Why, the Syrians will now know that we are weak and submissive, in addition to having moronic leaders. We're doomed, we're doomed.
No flag-burning issue. No hate-crime issue. They're just idiots.
Here, it apperas that the person may not have had Good Moral Character or Attachement to Constitutional Principles at the time of his naturalization. He may therefore face loss of citizenship under the first ground.
Your strident rhetoric notwithstanding, and I AM familiar with the INA, I am not aware of any case retroactively applying the good moral character clause. If you are aware of such a case, please do cite to it. I'm also not sure that applying a "good moral character" standard differentially based on the flag burned would withstand first amendment scrutiny. In fact, I'm sure it would not. So the only thing you are left with is the notion that trespassing and vandalism retroactively triggers the non-attachment to constitutional principles clause. I don't see how that argument would work, so please explain.
If you are going to be as obnoxious to me as you were to Justin, please do not bother responding.
you obviously have not been to new haven.
isn't that what the Moslem rioters have been doing in France?
Hey, torch the car, kill the old lady? No problem!
others re Yale: didn't slime Yale admit a Taliban slime?
Any takers?
Also, in regard to the earlier post - if anyone came on to your property and set fire to your house (assuming the flag was connected to the house), would you be satisfied, regardless of religious affiliation or what they burned, that they be punished by a mere misdemeanor fine? I certaintly would not be satisfied.
KBM's analysis does not seem to track the Connecticut statute in any serious regards. Legislation is about tracking statutes, not re-writing statutes in their best light.
I don't agree with Public Defender's analysis. I don't think they were "attacking" the free speech rights of the flag owner, or at least intending to - they were not trying to suppress the owner's speech but make their own, and chose to do so in a dangerous and illegal fashion. And there's quite a large distinction between the two, ones many people in these comments are quite willing to blur.
None of your examples involve setting fire to something attached to a house. If that fact is correct, it takes the offense to a different level.
My goodness! Perhaps the Saudis would be kind enough to lend us a few officers from the Committee for Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, to help make sure our recent immigrants continue to demonstrate Good Moral Character and Attachment to Constitutional Principles.
[/sarcasm]
I was referring to a non-exhaustive general categories of "stupid/destructive/annoying/and/or potentially dangerous" student behavior I observed during my college years; I have no specific recollection as to which of the aforementioned instances of juvenile stupidity actually took place on, or attached to, a building, but some certainly could have...
As said, acknowledging that these guys also committed several gross violations of the "Being Bloody Stupid Act" (per my buddy the P.D., in California, the offense is referred to as "felony stupidity in the first degree", aka "violation of the Darwin Act": "Defendant is too dumb to live. . . "), I was curious as to the police/DA treatment of comparable acts, without any political over-tones, in the same circumstances.
So, Justin, if EV deletes all your comments, is he suppressing your speech, or making his own?