White House responds to Piers Morgan deportation petition

The White House has responded to the petition to deport Piers Morgan, which garnished 109,334 signatures before the valve was cut off. Here's the original text of the petition:

British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.

And here's the response:

When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep the First in Mind Too

By Jay Carney

Thank you for participating in We the People to speak out on an issue that matters to you.

Let’s not let arguments over the Constitution’s Second Amendment violate the spirit of its First. President Obama believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. However, the Constitution not only guarantees an individual right to bear arms, but also enshrines the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press -- fundamental principles that are essential to our democracy. Americans may disagree on matters of public policy and express those disagreements vigorously, but no one should be punished by the government simply because he or she expressed a view on the Second Amendment -- or any other matter of public concern.

We recognize that the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, sparked an intense, and at times emotional, national conversation about the steps we can take as a country to reduce gun violence. In fact, your petition is one of many on the issue, and President Obama personally responded by sharing his views on this important issue.

(video from President Obama)

In a recent press conference, President Obama also addressed the Second Amendment and the important perspective that law-abiding gun owners bring to the public conversation on this issue:

"Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. This country has a strong tradition of gun ownership that's been handed down from generation to generation. Obviously across the country there are regional differences. There are differences between how people feel in urban areas and rural areas. And the fact is the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible -- they buy their guns legally and they use them safely, whether for hunting or sport shooting, collection or protection.

But you know what, I am also betting that the majority -- the vast majority -- of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war. I'm willing to bet that they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas -- that an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to get his hands on a military-style assault rifle so easily; that in this age of technology, we should be able to check someone's criminal records before he or she can check out at a gun show; that if we work harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one in Newtown -- or any of the lesser-known tragedies that visit small towns and big cities all across America every day.

The video from President Obama doesn't even address the point of the petition.

So that is that. What is the point of these petitions again? To have your voice heard, right...

So how many signatures would it take for the White House to actually do something about a petition? And by the way, once the petition has been responded to, it doesn't look like you can sign it anymore so we'll never know how many people might have signed it.

So if a petition really mattered (more than this Piers Morgan deportation thing), the White House can respond to it after it reaches a certain point, do nothing, and stop tallying petitioners. What a democracy we live in!

We have these petitions in the uk. They are just something to make us feel we can have some input into the political area. Nothing ever comes from them apart from media stories or a politician may make a comment. But it's just window dressing to make you feel your part of the process.

Originally posted by InTheFlesh1980

So how many signatures would it take for the White House to actually do something about a petition? And by the way, once the petition has been responded to, it doesn't look like you can sign it anymore so we'll never know how many people might have signed it.

So if a petition really mattered (more than this Piers Morgan deportation thing), the White House can respond to it after it reaches a certain point, do nothing, and stop tallying petitioners. What a democracy we live in!

So you're saying after a certain number of signatures, the White House should just have to do something, right? So what if 10 million people "sign" a petition to legalize marriage to animals? Wouldn't you prefer the White House just say "Ok guys, very funny, but no...we will not legally recognize your turtle marriage."


Just because a few hundred thousand or a few million people agree on something, does not make it warrant more than a simple response. They actually addressed a lot more than they needed to in that reply.


The Honey Boo Boo Halloween special had 3.1 million viewers...that's all I'm sayin

I concur honestly. It would be the same as if I went to the US and said ANYTHING.
The first guarantees Piers the same right to speak about guns as Alex and whether or not they are for or against doesn't matter as much beyond that.

The best part is they can agree to disagree in peace.

They have an equal opportunity to point out their side of the story, the people reacting to their message is what really matters.

But it brings up an interesting question, can foreigners legally dictate policy?
If the answer is yes then it would seem America is essentially already lost to the world?
Piers Morgan, a British National has a TV program that can influence real Americans to make real choices, at what point is it wrong?
Would you want some Sharia Law Cleric on TV everyday promoting that stuff, because he can?

so many different angles it's ridiculous..

reply to post by yourmaker


Surely you have the choice to watch all the other channels on your tv, so you will not be subverted by piers Morgan and his evil messages.

Originally posted by Hawking
So you're saying after a certain number of signatures, the White House should just have to do something, right? So what if 10 million people "sign" a petition to legalize marriage to animals? Wouldn't you prefer the White House just say "Ok guys, very funny, but no...we will not legally recognize your turtle marriage."


Just because a few hundred thousand or a few million people agree on something, does not make it warrant more than a simple response. They actually addressed a lot more than they needed to in that reply.


The Honey Boo Boo Halloween special had 3.1 million viewers...that's all I'm sayin

I don't think the White House should have to do anything. My point is that the petitions are a meaningless waste of time for all involved.

But obviously, the people that sign the petitions do not feel that way, so I wonder what they feel they are accomplishing?

Originally posted by InTheFlesh1980
So that is that. What is the point of these petitions again? To have your voice heard, right...

to enable people to have a rant about anything they like. Exactly what law did Pier's break to get him deported?

So how many signatures would it take for the White House to actually do something about a petition?

say 25% of the population of the USA, instead of less than .03%

What a democracy we live in!

Why should a very small number of people % wise be able to go against the other 99 2/3% that did not bother to sign a silly petition?

Originally posted by hellobruce
...
to enable people to have a rant about anything they like. Exactly what law did Pier's break to get him deported?
...
Why should a very small number of people % wise be able to go against the other 99 2/3% that did not bother to sign a silly petition?

That's my point. The petitions are a meaningless venting outlet, and I agree that they are silly.

Originally posted by InTheFlesh1980

I don't think the White House should have to do anything. My point is that the petitions are a meaningless waste of time for all involved.

But obviously, the people that sign the petitions do not feel that way, so I wonder what they feel they are accomplishing?

Supporting a "cause," media attention, showing Obama they don't like him by signing secession petitions, getting Alex Jones to yell at Piers Morgan on TV, etc. etc.


Everything except any real legislative action

I'm not the US citizen, but would like to throw my opinion on the issue.
You Americans have your 1st Amandement of the Constitution which says that Congress shall not pass any bills that will undermine people's right to free speech.
But, in this example, we have that guy Morgan who exercise his right to free speech publicly calling on gun restrictions, which is directly related in undermining of the 2nd Amandement where it is clearly said that people have the right to bear guns.
IMO everyone who uses their free speech, in this case calling on gun ban, obviously violate Constitution.
Not to mention, you have to alter Constitution if you want guns restrictions, which never gonna happen. .02$

reply to post by InTheFlesh1980


I don't think the petitions are meaningless.

If they were binding on DC to act then it would subverting the democratic system, even if it required 150 Million signatures or 50% of voters, you wouldn't want to have someone's liberties denied over something like this ( deporting Morgan would be violating his rights).

However, what the petition does do is help to draw attention to certain issues. I'd have to say, its worked well for Jones:

The out outrageous nature of the petition gave Jones media exposure, so much so Morgan interviewed him, then he went skit. is going skit I think was a good call as well: guess what? Its on the front page of the biggest Australian news site: we're not even involved in the gun debate and its front page news here and it is generating debate. I assume it will have the same effect in the US.
Sure Jones looked like a clown, but in the comments section of news papers people saying 'yeah he's nuts, but he right'. If Jones was civil and just copped Morgan's usual style, it would probably have gone unnoticed by the MSM. More debate is good, as the truth is contagious.

Originally posted by zilebeliveunknown
I'm not the US citizen, but would like to throw my opinion on the issue.
You Americans have your 1st Amandement of the Constitution which says that Congress shall not pass any bills that will undermine people's right to free speech.
But, in this example, we have that guy Morgan who exercise his right to free speech publicly calling on gun restrictions, which is directly related in undermining of the 2nd Amendement where it is clearly said that people have the right to bear guns.
IMO everyone who uses their free speech, in this case calling on gun ban, obviously violate Constitution.
Not to mention, you have to alter Constitution if you want guns restrictions, which never gonna happen. .02$

"Your view" is wrong. You are suggesting that any criticism of the Constitution or suggestion that it be amended or changed is illegal.

If this was the case then any time one suggested amending the constitution via referendum this would be illegal: the constitution could never change.
I'm not saying it should change in this particular regard, however there are many aspects that have been changed and perhaps should be changed via referendum (or what ever prescribed method of constitutional amendment the US Constitution uses (I'm Australian, I don't know US Law)). If what you say is correct then any discussion of change would be illegal, that would be absurd. From my knowledge the framers of the US constitution envisaged refinement over the years.

reply to post by InTheFlesh1980


I would think that the petition should at least have any grounds to it other than bunch of people not agreeing with or disliking some English man. The constitution is not like the bible where you can pick out whatever you feel like ad make that apply. You have to take the whole document into consideration and the first amendment is way more important than owning a gun!

I see nothing wrong with the reply from the White House. We've been so focused on our 2nd Amendment right that we forgot the 1st. As the saying goes, "I may not agree with what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I have not seen a petition concerning the violation of our 4th Amendment right by the TSA. I'd very much like to hear a response on that.

Originally posted by Waldy
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980

 

I would think that the petition should at least have any grounds to it other than bunch of people not agreeing with or disliking some English man. The constitution is not like the bible where you can pick out whatever you feel like ad make that apply. You have to take the whole document into consideration and the first amendment is way more important than owning a gun!

Owning a gun makes the entire bill of rights enforceable by the people themselves should the courts fail or become corrupted as well.

I wouldn't say the right to own guns is more important than free speech, they are on an equal footing. Without the 2nd, the 1st is impotent. without the 1st, there's nothing worth protecting with the 2nd.

If only people would read...

A petition is a manor of taking an issue to an official, it is a great tool but people need to understand that it is only meant to garner attention by an official... it is basically saying "Hey, this many people feel this way about this issue and you as our representative are required to address it and inform us of your intention to act or not act".

What if I were to petition the government to deport you because I don't like what you say... and what if I got a million signatures, should you be deported for having done nothing but speak? Should a strong dislike of a person nullify the Constitution?

Originally posted by zilebeliveunknown
I'm not the US citizen, but would like to throw my opinion on the issue.
You Americans have your 1st Amandement of the Constitution which says that Congress shall not pass any bills that will undermine people's right to free speech.
But, in this example, we have that guy Morgan who exercise his right to free speech publicly calling on gun restrictions, which is directly related in undermining of the 2nd Amandement where it is clearly said that people have the right to bear guns.
IMO everyone who uses their free speech, in this case calling on gun ban, obviously violate Constitution.
Not to mention, you have to alter Constitution if you want guns restrictions, which never gonna happen. .02$

our first amendment rights do not include statements which could incite violence and rile people up to use violence in any way. peirs or whatever his name is, is they guy on the street with a bull horn chanting for people to fight, fight, fight and i think he should be reprimanded for it, perhaps he would enjoy the Congo, since the US nor the UK want him in their country.

As much as I despise our government's underhanded hidden motives, you cannot condemn a man to be deported because he voices an opinion that is contrary to your own. I personally don't agree with him and absolutely loathe the fact that news programs such as CNN put more attention to opinionated discussion forums rather than reporting cold hard facts.

Perhaps if people are really disgusted with Piers, they should be signing a petition to his employers, not the government. One hundred thousand signatures is an admirable number in internet support terms, but to display the outrage of a country it is laughable.

I have hardly kept up with news programs in a long time, and didn't know who the hell Piers Morgan was until he decided to speak his opinion and sparked the outrage and interest of millions. He is first and foremost a Television personality and his paycheck depends on ratings. I would say he has accomplished the goal he has set out to do.

He poses no threat whatsoever, and does not hold ANY power to influence the fate of gun control. End of story.

reply to post by hellobruce


MOrgan does not have to break the law to be deported. The UK banned commentator Michael Savage from entering the UK because they did not like what he said on his talk show, so the same principle should apply to Mr Morgan.

Originally posted by ProphetABK
As much as I despise our government's underhanded hidden motives, you cannot condemn a man to be deported because he voices an opinion that is contrary to your own. I personally don't agree with him and absolutely loathe the fact that news programs such as CNN put more attention to opinionated discussion forums rather than reporting cold hard facts.



Perhaps if people are really disgusted with Piers, they should be signing a petition to his employers, not the government. One hundred thousand signatures is an admirable number in internet support terms, but to display the outrage of a country it is laughable.

don't worry cnn has been going down hill fast and are loosing a huge amount of viewers and i don't think this will bring them any long term ratings. their days are numbered as well as many news agency's on tv.

I have hardly kept up with news programs in a long time, and didn't know who the hell Piers Morgan was until he decided to speak his opinion and sparked the outrage and interest of millions. He is first and foremost a Television personality and his paycheck depends on ratings. I would say he has accomplished the goal he has set out to do.

He poses no threat whatsoever, and does not hold ANY power to influence the fate of gun control. End of story.

which is the only reason he is saying what he is saying, for ratings. he obviously cares nothing of the real problem, or he would look at facts and not fiction, when he opens his pie hole. i just hope more people realize what a shallow paid for twit this imbecile is.