2 ms·
No, that nebulous territory is exactly the issue, let's not duck it: should the U.S. impose its view on people who aren't citizens or not? Lately we've been edg
by karaterobot 3y ago
No, that nebulous territory is exactly the issue, let's not duck it: should the U.S. impose its view on people who aren't citizens or not? Lately we've been edging toward the side of "no, that's bad to do," but if the answer is yes, maybe we should be reaching out to other countries and telling them what rights they have.
- kykeonaut 3y ago> should the U.S. impose it's view on people who aren't citizens? > maybe we should be reaching out to other countries and telling them what rights they have. I don't think it is a matter of telling "other countries" what rights they have or impose the U.S.'s view on people who aren't citizens but of consistently exercising human rights within U.S. jurisdiction (which includes visa applications).
- kmeisthax 3y agoYou don't have to go as far as to bring up moral relativism. As it currently stands, the US Constitution is interpreted as a series of bounds placed upon the US government when it interacts with citizens. We don't have to demand that every country respect exactly those sets of bounds, we just have to restrain immigration enforcement from engaging in what would otherwise be a fairly open-and-shut case of retribution for constitutionally protected speech.