4 ms·

He is disturbing normal order.

by kreetx 1y ago

thrance 1y ago
How horrible, how unacceptable. He probably even advocates for ending the genocide in Gaza. Good thing we have freedom in this country, to send the boots after those pesky peaceful protesters.
- kreetx 1y ago
  Yes, but you are currently arguing because the person on your side of the argument. For me, the question is more of whether you should allow people enter the country who cause civil unrest. It doesn't sound reasonable to allow a free-for-all entry to anyone, both to me subjectively, but I would also assume to all people for whom the US is their home country.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    > It doesn't sound reasonable to allow a free-for-all entry to anyone You're being willfully obtuse if you think people are arguing for "a free-for-all entry to anyone."
    - kreetx 1y ago
      If you can't deny entry, isn't it a free-for-all?
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        Nobody said you can't deny entry. There is an infinitely long list of reasons they can deny entry including "because we said so." However, they cannot deny entry on the basis of protected speech. You're the only one struggling with this.
        kreetx 1y ago
        Well, we don't know the legal reason he was denied entry. Given that this is a foreign student and a protester, it could be that his permission to enter the country was revoked due to exceeding his purpose to be in the US. I'm not debating what the legal formulation was, I just don't get the people who think he should have been let in. Since as in computer programming and in law, you can't nail down any circumstance in existence - you sometimes need apply the "do what I mean" rather than "do what said". In this case it does seem that the government did what the population would have liked it to have done. Though, I guess if he would sue, then you would do well in being his lawyers.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        Good fucking lord dude. FTA > “We both know why you’ve been detained…it’s because of what you wrote about the protests at Columbia” I have no clue if this is actually true, but operating from the same set of facts that you have: we know exactly why he was detained, and assuming the facts we've been provided, we know for sure that it is unconstitutional > it does seem that the government did what the population would have liked it to have done You have no clue what "the population would have liked," and neither do I, and neither does the state. That's why we have the First Amendment, to preclude them from attempting such ridiculous assertions of omniscience.
        kreetx 1y ago
        But he was denied entry at the border. I guess it would have been better, if the person could have been not let on the plane in the first place - then it he would have not been needed to be "detained".
WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
> He is disturbing normal order. Okay. The disturbances you mentioned are protected by the Constitution. Delivering retribution for constitutionally protected actions is unacceptable. You called US Gov's unacceptable actions - unsurprising. This seems to imply you don't think they are unacceptable. Is that correct? If so, why do you think that?
- msgodel 1y ago
  Not for foreigners. Allowing foreigners to join political protests in your country is a trivially and obviously insane thing to advocate for.
  - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
    > ... Allowing foreigners to join political protests in your country... Protests are protected by the 1st Amendment. The constitution applies to everyone in US jurisdiction. Gov actions here are not appropriate or accepatble. > ...obviously insane thing to advocate for. Advocating for this individual's right to join a protest is not insane. Safeguarding constitutional rights is wise by default.
    - msgodel 1y ago
      Does it make sense for me and a bunch of friends to go to Thailand and protest the way they run their country? No! We'd be (appropriately) deported for that. Anyone would say that's insane. The same is true here. That obviously makes no sense.
      - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
        > Does it make sense for me and a bunch of friends to go to Thailand and protest the way they run their country? This topic concerns the actions of US Gov; it's about which actions are specifically limited by the Constitution. Enforcing those limits is how we protect our rights. It makes sense to advocate for the constitutional rights of individuals. Further, not advocating for others' constitutional rights - this is a factor in erosion of rights overall. I offer that the 100mi constitution-free zone adjacent to US borders is an example of that¹. If Thailand's government is similarly bound by it's constitution, it is probably wise for Thai people to advocate for individual rights. ¹ ref:https://kagi.com/search?q=what+constitutional+rights+are+impacted+by+the+100+mi+US+border+zone%3F&r=us&sh=xOtz5pOreaCNRyiUqjwzAw https://kagi.com/search?q=what+constitutional+rights+are+imp...

He is disturbing normal order.

by kreetx 1y ago

He is disturbing normal order.

How horrible, how unacceptable. He probably even advocates for ending the genocide in Gaza. Good thing we have freedom in this country, to send the boots after those pesky peaceful protesters.

kreetx 1y ago
Yes, but you are currently arguing because the person on your side of the argument. For me, the question is more of whether you should allow people enter the country who cause civil unrest. It doesn't sound reasonable to allow a free-for-all entry to anyone, both to me subjectively, but I would also assume to all people for whom the US is their home country.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  > It doesn't sound reasonable to allow a free-for-all entry to anyone You're being willfully obtuse if you think people are arguing for "a free-for-all entry to anyone."
  - kreetx 1y ago
    If you can't deny entry, isn't it a free-for-all?
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      Nobody said you can't deny entry. There is an infinitely long list of reasons they can deny entry including "because we said so." However, they cannot deny entry on the basis of protected speech. You're the only one struggling with this.
      - kreetx 1y ago
        Well, we don't know the legal reason he was denied entry. Given that this is a foreign student and a protester, it could be that his permission to enter the country was revoked due to exceeding his purpose to be in the US. I'm not debating what the legal formulation was, I just don't get the people who think he should have been let in. Since as in computer programming and in law, you can't nail down any circumstance in existence - you sometimes need apply the "do what I mean" rather than "do what said". In this case it does seem that the government did what the population would have liked it to have done. Though, I guess if he would sue, then you would do well in being his lawyers.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        Good fucking lord dude. FTA > “We both know why you’ve been detained…it’s because of what you wrote about the protests at Columbia” I have no clue if this is actually true, but operating from the same set of facts that you have: we know exactly why he was detained, and assuming the facts we've been provided, we know for sure that it is unconstitutional > it does seem that the government did what the population would have liked it to have done You have no clue what "the population would have liked," and neither do I, and neither does the state. That's why we have the First Amendment, to preclude them from attempting such ridiculous assertions of omniscience.
        kreetx 1y ago
        But he was denied entry at the border. I guess it would have been better, if the person could have been not let on the plane in the first place - then it he would have not been needed to be "detained".

WarOnPrivacy 1y ago

> He is disturbing normal order. Okay. The disturbances you mentioned are protected by the Constitution. Delivering retribution for constitutionally protected actions is unacceptable. You called US Gov's unacceptable actions - unsurprising. This seems to imply you don't think they are unacceptable. Is that correct? If so, why do you think that?

msgodel 1y ago
Not for foreigners. Allowing foreigners to join political protests in your country is a trivially and obviously insane thing to advocate for.
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
  > ... Allowing foreigners to join political protests in your country... Protests are protected by the 1st Amendment. The constitution applies to everyone in US jurisdiction. Gov actions here are not appropriate or accepatble. > ...obviously insane thing to advocate for. Advocating for this individual's right to join a protest is not insane. Safeguarding constitutional rights is wise by default.
  - msgodel 1y ago
    Does it make sense for me and a bunch of friends to go to Thailand and protest the way they run their country? No! We'd be (appropriately) deported for that. Anyone would say that's insane. The same is true here. That obviously makes no sense.
    - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
      > Does it make sense for me and a bunch of friends to go to Thailand and protest the way they run their country? This topic concerns the actions of US Gov; it's about which actions are specifically limited by the Constitution. Enforcing those limits is how we protect our rights. It makes sense to advocate for the constitutional rights of individuals. Further, not advocating for others' constitutional rights - this is a factor in erosion of rights overall. I offer that the 100mi constitution-free zone adjacent to US borders is an example of that¹. If Thailand's government is similarly bound by it's constitution, it is probably wise for Thai people to advocate for individual rights. ¹ ref:https://kagi.com/search?q=what+constitutional+rights+are+impacted+by+the+100+mi+US+border+zone%3F&r=us&sh=xOtz5pOreaCNRyiUqjwzAw https://kagi.com/search?q=what+constitutional+rights+are+imp...