3 ms·

This is a gross violation of some of our most sacred principles.

by __loam 1y ago

decremental 1y ago
[dead]
throwawayq3423 1y ago
Yep, and all by the "free speech" crowd.
- belorn 1y ago
  The only crowd that is consistently in favor of free speech and privacy is the opposition. As soon there is a new crowd in power people change tune and then it is about freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences of speech. Over time people in power may use different criteria when speech should be punished, and by whom, but the differences are only in the fine details. No one in power has ever supported free speech (in modern time) if that free speech may harm their position of power or their voters interests.
buckle8017 1y ago
Can you be specific which principles this violates? Historically visas could and were denied for completely arbitrary reasons.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Can you be specific which principles this violates? The right to free speech. Even in its restrictive First Amendment form.
  - lesuorac 1y ago
    I'm not sure 1FA applies to non-US individuals on non-US soil. Once they're in the country, sure. ---- Not that I think it's been demonstrated that this policy will improve US security or etc. Wonder if the APA applies here.
    - lucyjojo 1y ago
      there is a giant split between people. some people only consider their in-groups as worthy of having rights. others consider all human beings as worthy of having rights. you see that schism in play everyday almost everywhere. i fear it is not a resolvable tension (without some kind of mass severe brainwashing). it is a core beliefs kind of thing.
      - energywut 1y ago
        I'd go further. Discrimination against some people is axiomatically part of having a nation and a border. There are no nations, to my knowledge, that permit every person residing within their borders to vote and permit any person who wishes to reside in their borders entry. The assumption of discrimination is therefore baked in to every national project -- there are people who wish to participate in the nation but are barred from doing so. It's uncomfortable for many people to consider this, because it runs counter to the idea that their nations are welcoming places, but it's important to remember this discrimination occurs (even if you think it's a good idea.)
      - FireBeyond 1y ago
        Yeah, it's becoming more and more pervasive that you have to have "earned" those "inalienable" rights, by virtue of being a citizen. If those rights are great, what's one reason why they shouldn't be extended to all.
    - jkaplowitz 1y ago
      The First Amendment indeed doesn’t apply to non-US individuals abroad, as much as I wish it were otherwise (and many other countries do take a more inclusive approach on such matters). But the First Amendment does apply to the many US citizens and permanent residents who are being indirectly surveilled, profiled, and chilled in their speech as a result of the extra scrutiny of the foreign visa applicants with whom they interact and connect on social media.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > not sure 1FA applies to non-US individuals on non-US soil Textually, it does. (The President acts without force of law when he restricts “freedom of expression.”) Intent-wise, for those seeking entry to America, it does—our republic was formed, in part, to restrict the executive from excluding religious minorities he doesn’t liked Legally, however, you are right.

This is a gross violation of some of our most sacred principles.

by __loam 1y ago

This is a gross violation of some of our most sacred principles.

decremental 1y ago

[dead]

throwawayq3423 1y ago

Yep, and all by the "free speech" crowd.

belorn 1y ago
The only crowd that is consistently in favor of free speech and privacy is the opposition. As soon there is a new crowd in power people change tune and then it is about freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences of speech. Over time people in power may use different criteria when speech should be punished, and by whom, but the differences are only in the fine details. No one in power has ever supported free speech (in modern time) if that free speech may harm their position of power or their voters interests.

buckle8017 1y ago

Can you be specific which principles this violates? Historically visas could and were denied for completely arbitrary reasons.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Can you be specific which principles this violates? The right to free speech. Even in its restrictive First Amendment form.
- lesuorac 1y ago
  I'm not sure 1FA applies to non-US individuals on non-US soil. Once they're in the country, sure. ---- Not that I think it's been demonstrated that this policy will improve US security or etc. Wonder if the APA applies here.
  - lucyjojo 1y ago
    there is a giant split between people. some people only consider their in-groups as worthy of having rights. others consider all human beings as worthy of having rights. you see that schism in play everyday almost everywhere. i fear it is not a resolvable tension (without some kind of mass severe brainwashing). it is a core beliefs kind of thing.
    - energywut 1y ago
      I'd go further. Discrimination against some people is axiomatically part of having a nation and a border. There are no nations, to my knowledge, that permit every person residing within their borders to vote and permit any person who wishes to reside in their borders entry. The assumption of discrimination is therefore baked in to every national project -- there are people who wish to participate in the nation but are barred from doing so. It's uncomfortable for many people to consider this, because it runs counter to the idea that their nations are welcoming places, but it's important to remember this discrimination occurs (even if you think it's a good idea.)
    - FireBeyond 1y ago
      Yeah, it's becoming more and more pervasive that you have to have "earned" those "inalienable" rights, by virtue of being a citizen. If those rights are great, what's one reason why they shouldn't be extended to all.
  - jkaplowitz 1y ago
    The First Amendment indeed doesn’t apply to non-US individuals abroad, as much as I wish it were otherwise (and many other countries do take a more inclusive approach on such matters). But the First Amendment does apply to the many US citizens and permanent residents who are being indirectly surveilled, profiled, and chilled in their speech as a result of the extra scrutiny of the foreign visa applicants with whom they interact and connect on social media.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > not sure 1FA applies to non-US individuals on non-US soil Textually, it does. (The President acts without force of law when he restricts “freedom of expression.”) Intent-wise, for those seeking entry to America, it does—our republic was formed, in part, to restrict the executive from excluding religious minorities he doesn’t liked Legally, however, you are right.