4 ms·

It is an historical fact that the United States has profoundly and repeatedly screwed over nearly every single nation south of it on the two American continents

by pryce 7y ago

It is an historical fact that the United States has profoundly and repeatedly screwed over nearly every single nation south of it on the two American continents, starting coups to topple democratically elected governments, invading, supporting dictators, and destroying economies over the last century. I think claims about economic migrants and/or refugees that don't acknowledge this background are absurd. But now I'm physically reluctant to type out this fact, because it could conceivably jeopardize my next visa application. The values and freedoms that people picture America stands for, and that it bases its claims to legitimacy on -freedom of thought and speech, democracy, for example- aren't values that America has any interest in upholding for people outside its own borders, instead it repeatedly shows contempt for them; and in the case of dozens of minorities (ethnic, religious, gender and sexual) it shows little interest in upholding these values and freedoms for its own citizens. It's mind-numbing to me that Americans speaking to non-Americans who might begin to encounter reasons why American foreign policy in particular is littered with atrocities will now be even less exposed to that information of that because of the chilling effect of social media screening.

microcolonel 7y ago
> It is an historical fact that the United States has profoundly and repeatedly screwed over nearly every single nation south of it on the two American continents, starting coups to topple democratically elected governments, invading, supporting dictators, and destroying economies over the last century. I think claims about economic migrants and/or refugees that don't acknowledge this background are absurd. Dude, I just said that people want to be in the U.S. I didn't write an essay on the ultimate moral high ground of America, nor claim that they've done no wrong. I just said many people attempt to illegally enter the country because they want to be there. >But now I'm physically reluctant to type out this fact, because it could conceivably jeopardize my next visa application. The values and freedoms that people picture America stands for, and that it bases its claims to legitimacy on -freedom of thought and speech, democracy, for example- aren't values that America has any interest in upholding for people outside its own borders, instead it repeatedly shows contempt for them; and in the case of dozens of minorities (ethnic, religious, gender and sexual) it shows little interest in upholding these values and freedoms for its own citizens. Well, if you hate the place so much, then why apply for a visa? As for the U.S. "upholding" "freedom of thought and speech" "outside its own borders", that is entirely outside its remit, and it seems that countries outside the U.S' borders have no interest in upholding freedom of speech anywhere (including at home), how exactly is the U.S. supposed to ensure the civil rights of people it does not govern, in countries where those civil rights are not protected?
- pryce 7y ago
  > Well, if you hate the place so much, then why apply for a visa? If you see me feeling an ethical duty to scrutinise the widespread and damaging effects of US foreign policy and immediately decide that must mean I "hate the place" (or the people), it doesn't leave much cognitive room for any genuine engagement with the idea that American foreign policy could be harmful. Secondly, one of my claims was that US foreign policy actively harms values and freedoms when it "topples democratically elected governments, starts coups and supports dictators". I've nowhere argued that the US has a duty to "ensure" the civil rights of people it does not govern (a gargantuan undertaking), but that is actually quite a seperate question than whether the US has an ethical duty to avoid actively harming them (eg with behaviour such as toppling democratically elected govts, staging coups, supporting dictators et cetera).
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > I've nowhere argued that the US has a duty to "ensure" the civil rights of people it does not govern Well, you said "uphold", now we're splitting hairs. My point is that surely there are countries in lower demand that you're ignorant enough about that you surely would rather visit them than the wild, irredeemable worldwide oppressor you make the U.S. out to be. Sure, American foreign policy has been bad for some people, but what does that have to do with the visa process? What does scrutinizing visa applicants' public communications for statements of ill intent have to do with American foreign policy? Would you judge Canadian visa policy based on... the residential schools system? The refusal of Jewish refugee ships on the eve of WWII? Because you seem to be judging U.S. visa policy based on the banana republics. Or is your point that they will be suspicious of people who criticize the U.S. fairly? Because honestly at this point I can't tell.

by pryce 7y ago

microcolonel 7y ago

> It is an historical fact that the United States has profoundly and repeatedly screwed over nearly every single nation south of it on the two American continents, starting coups to topple democratically elected governments, invading, supporting dictators, and destroying economies over the last century. I think claims about economic migrants and/or refugees that don't acknowledge this background are absurd. Dude, I just said that people want to be in the U.S. I didn't write an essay on the ultimate moral high ground of America, nor claim that they've done no wrong. I just said many people attempt to illegally enter the country because they want to be there. >But now I'm physically reluctant to type out this fact, because it could conceivably jeopardize my next visa application. The values and freedoms that people picture America stands for, and that it bases its claims to legitimacy on -freedom of thought and speech, democracy, for example- aren't values that America has any interest in upholding for people outside its own borders, instead it repeatedly shows contempt for them; and in the case of dozens of minorities (ethnic, religious, gender and sexual) it shows little interest in upholding these values and freedoms for its own citizens. Well, if you hate the place so much, then why apply for a visa? As for the U.S. "upholding" "freedom of thought and speech" "outside its own borders", that is entirely outside its remit, and it seems that countries outside the U.S' borders have no interest in upholding freedom of speech anywhere (including at home), how exactly is the U.S. supposed to ensure the civil rights of people it does not govern, in countries where those civil rights are not protected?

pryce 7y ago
> Well, if you hate the place so much, then why apply for a visa? If you see me feeling an ethical duty to scrutinise the widespread and damaging effects of US foreign policy and immediately decide that must mean I "hate the place" (or the people), it doesn't leave much cognitive room for any genuine engagement with the idea that American foreign policy could be harmful. Secondly, one of my claims was that US foreign policy actively harms values and freedoms when it "topples democratically elected governments, starts coups and supports dictators". I've nowhere argued that the US has a duty to "ensure" the civil rights of people it does not govern (a gargantuan undertaking), but that is actually quite a seperate question than whether the US has an ethical duty to avoid actively harming them (eg with behaviour such as toppling democratically elected govts, staging coups, supporting dictators et cetera).
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > I've nowhere argued that the US has a duty to "ensure" the civil rights of people it does not govern Well, you said "uphold", now we're splitting hairs. My point is that surely there are countries in lower demand that you're ignorant enough about that you surely would rather visit them than the wild, irredeemable worldwide oppressor you make the U.S. out to be. Sure, American foreign policy has been bad for some people, but what does that have to do with the visa process? What does scrutinizing visa applicants' public communications for statements of ill intent have to do with American foreign policy? Would you judge Canadian visa policy based on... the residential schools system? The refusal of Jewish refugee ships on the eve of WWII? Because you seem to be judging U.S. visa policy based on the banana republics. Or is your point that they will be suspicious of people who criticize the U.S. fairly? Because honestly at this point I can't tell.