4 ms·

"you can't ban people entry for that." Who said so? Border controls have right to turn non-citizens away on border if they suspect you are lying or not disclos

by kbart 9y ago

"you can't ban people entry for that." Who said so? Border controls have right to turn non-citizens away on border if they suspect you are lying or not disclosing all information to them.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
It'll happen on a small scale while this is working itself out, certainly, but it is hard to imagine a true defacto or dejure uniform ban on people without social media accounts. The right gets upset over insurance requirements, hard to imagine a real requirement to have a Twitter account.
- vidarh 9y ago
  > The right gets upset over insurance requirements, hard to imagine a real requirement to have a Twitter account. The people who are affected are not voting. EDIT: missed that it affects naturalized citizens too, but see below.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    Naturalized citizens vote.
    - vidarh 9y ago
      I'd missed that it still affect naturalized citizens too. But by the time they've gained citizenship most of these immigrants will already have given up their information and had a long time to get accustomed to accepting this. They also not make up nearly a large enough group for it to be likely to have much effect.
      - aaron-lebo 9y ago
        You're right. Guess I'm trying to rationalize that something so ridiculous could never happen, but it already is... Crazy world.
- tajen 9y ago
  Actually the right gets upset rather about censorship and death threats currently, but you might not have seen it in the newspapers (that's what censorship means). I discovered it when James Damore was accused of hate speech and explicitly menaced, and the same happened last week when UC Berkeley launched police investigations for "hate speech" into every student who helped the Free Speech Week on the campus. So, no, people who are supposed to defend your freedom aren't even in a position of weighing for basic rights currently, especially if it's related to Twitter.

by kbart 9y ago

"you can't ban people entry for that." Who said so? Border controls have right to turn non-citizens away on border if they suspect you are lying or not disclosing all information to them.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

It'll happen on a small scale while this is working itself out, certainly, but it is hard to imagine a true defacto or dejure uniform ban on people without social media accounts. The right gets upset over insurance requirements, hard to imagine a real requirement to have a Twitter account.

vidarh 9y ago
> The right gets upset over insurance requirements, hard to imagine a real requirement to have a Twitter account. The people who are affected are not voting. EDIT: missed that it affects naturalized citizens too, but see below.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Naturalized citizens vote.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    I'd missed that it still affect naturalized citizens too. But by the time they've gained citizenship most of these immigrants will already have given up their information and had a long time to get accustomed to accepting this. They also not make up nearly a large enough group for it to be likely to have much effect.
    - aaron-lebo 9y ago
      You're right. Guess I'm trying to rationalize that something so ridiculous could never happen, but it already is... Crazy world.
tajen 9y ago
Actually the right gets upset rather about censorship and death threats currently, but you might not have seen it in the newspapers (that's what censorship means). I discovered it when James Damore was accused of hate speech and explicitly menaced, and the same happened last week when UC Berkeley launched police investigations for "hate speech" into every student who helped the Free Speech Week on the campus. So, no, people who are supposed to defend your freedom aren't even in a position of weighing for basic rights currently, especially if it's related to Twitter.