3 ms·

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. A

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...
sorcerer-mar 1y ago
This cannot be a serious comment, can it? "Does it make sense for a place with a completely different governance structure, completely different laws, and completely different norms (notably lacking the US Constitution and its unique 1st Amendment protections) to behave differently?" Uhhh yes. You would expect a different result in a different place. Here in America we have the laws that exist in America. In Thailand they have the laws that exist in Thailand.
- kreetx 1y ago
  He was denied entry at the border, so it sounds like he should be let in on a technicality.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    The technicality being "to avoid violating the foundational laws of our country?" Yeah, in the world of law you have to do stuff correctly and technically correctly. What country do you live in where this isn't the case, so I know never to go there?
    - kreetx 1y ago
      He was trying to enter the country and was denied at the border (for a reason we don't know). The technicality being that he was on US soil. Had he been denied entry to the plane at point of departure, would that have been ok?
      - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
        > The technicality being that he was on US soil. This is not a technicality but an actuality. It is not minutiae; it is key. As near as I can tell you have a strong feeling about this and are trying to find some sort of authority to justify it. The challenge with that: The US Constitution is the law in play; nothing supersedes it. The only possible discussion seems to be You say [thing]. A chorus says "Constitution" because that's it.
        kreetx 1y ago
        If you don't have a visa, are you still allowed to enter the country if you want to assemble?
kreetx 1y ago
The people who we are debating with seem to have the opinion that people from around the world have the right to assemble in the United States. That indeed is an interesting take.
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
  > The people who we are debating with seem to have the opinion that people from around the world have the right to assemble in the United States. That indeed is an interesting take. Our opinion is that the US Constitution applies to the people within a US jurisdiction. In this, our opinion is correct. As far as you disagree with that, your disagreement will be with the Constitution - which is your inalienable right.
  - kreetx 1y ago
    Had he been denied entry at point of departure, would that have been ok?
    - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
      > Had he been denied entry at point of departure, would that have been ok? You are asking how I'd feel if a foreign government took some action against him at their border? This question is fairly far afield; it would be a wholly different discussion.
      - kreetx 1y ago
        So it does seem to me that this this person should be in the US due to a technicality?
        WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
        It it an actuality and not a not a technicality. The reasons remain the same as the last time you made the assertion. Also for the next time. You've been heading toward the farthest boundary of good faith discussion for some time now. At this point, I think you are signaling that you have crossed it.

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...

sorcerer-mar 1y ago

This cannot be a serious comment, can it? "Does it make sense for a place with a completely different governance structure, completely different laws, and completely different norms (notably lacking the US Constitution and its unique 1st Amendment protections) to behave differently?" Uhhh yes. You would expect a different result in a different place. Here in America we have the laws that exist in America. In Thailand they have the laws that exist in Thailand.

kreetx 1y ago
He was denied entry at the border, so it sounds like he should be let in on a technicality.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  The technicality being "to avoid violating the foundational laws of our country?" Yeah, in the world of law you have to do stuff correctly and technically correctly. What country do you live in where this isn't the case, so I know never to go there?
  - kreetx 1y ago
    He was trying to enter the country and was denied at the border (for a reason we don't know). The technicality being that he was on US soil. Had he been denied entry to the plane at point of departure, would that have been ok?
    - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
      > The technicality being that he was on US soil. This is not a technicality but an actuality. It is not minutiae; it is key. As near as I can tell you have a strong feeling about this and are trying to find some sort of authority to justify it. The challenge with that: The US Constitution is the law in play; nothing supersedes it. The only possible discussion seems to be You say [thing]. A chorus says "Constitution" because that's it.
      - kreetx 1y ago
        If you don't have a visa, are you still allowed to enter the country if you want to assemble?

kreetx 1y ago

The people who we are debating with seem to have the opinion that people from around the world have the right to assemble in the United States. That indeed is an interesting take.

WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
> The people who we are debating with seem to have the opinion that people from around the world have the right to assemble in the United States. That indeed is an interesting take. Our opinion is that the US Constitution applies to the people within a US jurisdiction. In this, our opinion is correct. As far as you disagree with that, your disagreement will be with the Constitution - which is your inalienable right.
- kreetx 1y ago
  Had he been denied entry at point of departure, would that have been ok?
  - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
    > Had he been denied entry at point of departure, would that have been ok? You are asking how I'd feel if a foreign government took some action against him at their border? This question is fairly far afield; it would be a wholly different discussion.
    - kreetx 1y ago
      So it does seem to me that this this person should be in the US due to a technicality?
      - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
        It it an actuality and not a not a technicality. The reasons remain the same as the last time you made the assertion. Also for the next time. You've been heading toward the farthest boundary of good faith discussion for some time now. At this point, I think you are signaling that you have crossed it.