3 ms·

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 a

by 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.
        kreetx 1y ago
        If the person had his visa cancelled, then the ideal way would have been to not let him on the plane at point of departure. As this didn't happen then the next location entry can be denied is at the border within the destination airport, and he was denied entry there. If you argue that he has landed, is on US soil, is handled by US law enforcement, then are you also saying that regardless of whether this person has a visa or not, he should be let assembled in the United States regardless of the visa status?
msgodel 1y ago
It's ideological libertarinism taken to the absurd point of essentially anarchy.
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
  > It's ideological libertarinism taken to the absurd point of essentially anarchy. Constitutionalism is about the core restraints placed on Gov. Not violating the constitution is it's own thing. Because it defines order, it is the opposite of anarchy. Does some ideology or some facet of libertarian overlap here? I have no idea. It isn't relevant tho.
  - kreetx 1y ago
    No visa is required when you want to assemble in the United States?

by 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.
      - kreetx 1y ago
        If the person had his visa cancelled, then the ideal way would have been to not let him on the plane at point of departure. As this didn't happen then the next location entry can be denied is at the border within the destination airport, and he was denied entry there. If you argue that he has landed, is on US soil, is handled by US law enforcement, then are you also saying that regardless of whether this person has a visa or not, he should be let assembled in the United States regardless of the visa status?

msgodel 1y ago

It's ideological libertarinism taken to the absurd point of essentially anarchy.

WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
> It's ideological libertarinism taken to the absurd point of essentially anarchy. Constitutionalism is about the core restraints placed on Gov. Not violating the constitution is it's own thing. Because it defines order, it is the opposite of anarchy. Does some ideology or some facet of libertarian overlap here? I have no idea. It isn't relevant tho.
- kreetx 1y ago
  No visa is required when you want to assemble in the United States?