15 ms·

the problem is, technically yes, they have a right, but their visa can be arbitrarily cancelled for very unspecified reasons, like the government not liking wha

by keithnz 6mo ago

the problem is, technically yes, they have a right, but their visa can be arbitrarily cancelled for very unspecified reasons, like the government not liking what you are doing and calling a potential security risk. This targeting of people, because they can, amazes me that Americans are so accepting of it. To me this says they'd do this to their citizens if they could. You already have the attack on birth right citizenship to try and take away protections so they can target more people. This targeting on political grounds is nuts. It's so anti American but somehow so many are convinced that it's not a bad thing.

lmm 6mo ago
IDK, I think "foreigners shouldn't be coming over here as guests and then trying to influence our politics" is a reasonable stance, and doesn't say anything about targeting citizens.
- lukeschlather 6mo ago
  If that were a uniform stance, maybe, but when it's used for partisan reasons by the party in power it's a different story. That's also not the law, the law is that anyone in the country has the right to free speech. If rights only apply to citizens it is a mockery of the freedoms this country is built on.
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - comelycomb 6mo ago
      When did Obama create a masked gestapo that kills innocent civilians? Oh right. Never. Both siding with trump makes you look like a bot troll or worse.
      - SV_BubbleTime 6mo ago
        As per the numbers, Obama is listed as deporting 5 million, and even gave Tom Homan a medal for his work.
        xethos 6mo ago
        I'd say the difference with the deportations under Obama (aside from deporting more people while spending less money doing it) is that he followed the law when doing so
        scarecrowbob 6mo ago
        As a person who spent a couple of hours watching our local ICE facility today, I'd say the differences are purely aesthetic. I've gotten to where I don't really care -what- the law is and believe that from an ethical standpoint if a person can have a house and a job and not cause trouble I don't care if they are from Honduras or Houston- any position other than that is just racism with extra steps. And I am aware that probably sounds crazy to most folks here but at this point I don't care. The folks I organize with have been working since before Trump and will likely be working still when the Democrats put whatever stuff suit their leadership selects.
        xethos 6mo ago
        > I'd say the differences are purely aesthetic I would have a hard time arguing that after seeing Alex Pretti's public execution. I also think we can at least partially agree on who should be targeted (emphasis my own): > Carefully calibrated revisions to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immigration enforcement priorities and practices [...] *[made] noncitizens with criminal records the top enforcement target* [0] I consider there to be a gulf of difference between the murder of American citizens in-between detaining anyone caught speaking the wrong language, and Obama's DHS and immigration policy. > any position other than that is just racism with extra steps Here I'll politely disagree to agree; in the same way Uber and Lyft flooded the driver market and collapsed the price of a medallion, so to does open borders flood the market with workers, collapsing the worth of my labour. [0] https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deporta...
    - ajkjk 6mo ago
      you expect them to recall some analogous example of politic deportations years ago? and anyway, almost certainly the answer is yes; it is not hard to believe that a person's stance is that systematically deporting people for disagreeing with the government is wrong. "Trump bad" is very often on the basis of principles which trump is violating, not just because it's Trump. Surely you realize that people are mad at him a lot because of the thing he does?
    - scarecrowbob 6mo ago
      I was. We were doing things, yall just didn't pay attention/
    - lukeschlather 6mo ago
      Do you recall an instance where Obama attempted to revoke someone's visa for protesting? I don't believe that happened a single time. I am generally against deportations for people who haven't committed any violent crime. I don't usually waste my time talking about it when law enforcement is enforcing the laws as written though. From what I saw, Obama was enforcing the law as written. I was often opposed to what he was doing, but I don't find much point in trying to get the president to do illegal things, even if I would prefer the law be different. In fact, if you look at Obama's actions there were quite a few times Obama chose not to deport people for reasons I generally supported, but the courts said it was illegal. So again, even as I might've disagreed, focusing on Obama would be missing the point that the law needs to change, which is something that needs to happen in Congress. I find the current situation particularly egregious because immigration agents have not only deported legal residents who have committed no crimes nor have they violated any terms of their visas, but also executed American citizens who have committed no crime.
- keithnz 6mo ago
  weird, don't you think that stance is just fear of free speech? I see it as completely unreasonable. America (of the past now?) has a history of inviting all kinds of people to discuss politics, philosophy, religion from all over the world.... but now you are scared of what people have to say? Also if you don't recognize that it is political targeting (not of citizens, but anyone by any means the government has its disposal), then that's a real problem. We can see the targeting of legitimate visitors, attacks on birth right citizenship, attempts to reconstruct electoral borders. Mass firing from the government institutions of people with differing opinions. Like I said, it's weird americans are so accepting.... "seems reasonable".
  - lmm 6mo ago
    > weird, don't you think that stance is just fear of free speech? I see it as completely unreasonable. America (of the past now?) has a history of inviting all kinds of people to discuss politics, philosophy, religion from all over the world.... but now you are scared of what people have to say? I think active political campaigning is a bit different from discussing political philosophy, and it's a major mistake to treat the former as "just free speech". (I think Citizens United was a massive misjudgement that has lead directly to many of our present-day problems). I think we're all agreed that foreigners should not be standing for office or voting in elections, and foreigners other than permanent residents are already barred from making campaign contributions; to my mind this kind of protest aimed at changing government policy falls into the same category. A protest like that isn't an effort to convey some insight or argument; it's an effort to demonstrate viscerally that the citizenry have a strong view on an issue. I don't think allowing foreign participation helps with that; quite the opposite. There have been a lot of claims in recent years - from both sides of the aisle - that enemy countries have been deliberately disrupting US politics in order to harm the country. I think it's vital that our political process not only has integrity but is seen to have integrity, and part of that is ensuring that adversaries cannot unduly influence it.
    - ahhhhnoooo 6mo ago
      > I think we're all agreed that foreigners should not be standing for office or voting in elections I don't think we're all in agreement. Do they live here? Work here? They should have a say in Joe here is governed while they do.
- myaccountonhn 6mo ago
  "Influencing our politics" is broad, but I do think foreigners should be allowed to organize strikes, or go to political rallies without risk of being deported.
IG_Semmelweiss 6mo ago
The Swiss have birthright citizenship. What's so odd about it ?
ap99 6mo ago
I'm amazed that people see America as different from any other country in terms of who should be allowed in and what constitutes bad behavior. Being in America is a privilege that can easily be taken away. Guests of America should walk a narrow path. Same as being in any other country.
- Ray20 6mo ago
  [flagged]

by keithnz 6mo ago

lmm 6mo ago

IDK, I think "foreigners shouldn't be coming over here as guests and then trying to influence our politics" is a reasonable stance, and doesn't say anything about targeting citizens.

lukeschlather 6mo ago
If that were a uniform stance, maybe, but when it's used for partisan reasons by the party in power it's a different story. That's also not the law, the law is that anyone in the country has the right to free speech. If rights only apply to citizens it is a mockery of the freedoms this country is built on.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - comelycomb 6mo ago
    When did Obama create a masked gestapo that kills innocent civilians? Oh right. Never. Both siding with trump makes you look like a bot troll or worse.
    - SV_BubbleTime 6mo ago
      As per the numbers, Obama is listed as deporting 5 million, and even gave Tom Homan a medal for his work.
      - xethos 6mo ago
        I'd say the difference with the deportations under Obama (aside from deporting more people while spending less money doing it) is that he followed the law when doing so
        scarecrowbob 6mo ago
        As a person who spent a couple of hours watching our local ICE facility today, I'd say the differences are purely aesthetic. I've gotten to where I don't really care -what- the law is and believe that from an ethical standpoint if a person can have a house and a job and not cause trouble I don't care if they are from Honduras or Houston- any position other than that is just racism with extra steps. And I am aware that probably sounds crazy to most folks here but at this point I don't care. The folks I organize with have been working since before Trump and will likely be working still when the Democrats put whatever stuff suit their leadership selects.
        xethos 6mo ago
        > I'd say the differences are purely aesthetic I would have a hard time arguing that after seeing Alex Pretti's public execution. I also think we can at least partially agree on who should be targeted (emphasis my own): > Carefully calibrated revisions to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immigration enforcement priorities and practices [...] *[made] noncitizens with criminal records the top enforcement target* [0] I consider there to be a gulf of difference between the murder of American citizens in-between detaining anyone caught speaking the wrong language, and Obama's DHS and immigration policy. > any position other than that is just racism with extra steps Here I'll politely disagree to agree; in the same way Uber and Lyft flooded the driver market and collapsed the price of a medallion, so to does open borders flood the market with workers, collapsing the worth of my labour. [0] https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deporta...
  - ajkjk 6mo ago
    you expect them to recall some analogous example of politic deportations years ago? and anyway, almost certainly the answer is yes; it is not hard to believe that a person's stance is that systematically deporting people for disagreeing with the government is wrong. "Trump bad" is very often on the basis of principles which trump is violating, not just because it's Trump. Surely you realize that people are mad at him a lot because of the thing he does?
  - scarecrowbob 6mo ago
    I was. We were doing things, yall just didn't pay attention/
  - lukeschlather 6mo ago
    Do you recall an instance where Obama attempted to revoke someone's visa for protesting? I don't believe that happened a single time. I am generally against deportations for people who haven't committed any violent crime. I don't usually waste my time talking about it when law enforcement is enforcing the laws as written though. From what I saw, Obama was enforcing the law as written. I was often opposed to what he was doing, but I don't find much point in trying to get the president to do illegal things, even if I would prefer the law be different. In fact, if you look at Obama's actions there were quite a few times Obama chose not to deport people for reasons I generally supported, but the courts said it was illegal. So again, even as I might've disagreed, focusing on Obama would be missing the point that the law needs to change, which is something that needs to happen in Congress. I find the current situation particularly egregious because immigration agents have not only deported legal residents who have committed no crimes nor have they violated any terms of their visas, but also executed American citizens who have committed no crime.
keithnz 6mo ago
weird, don't you think that stance is just fear of free speech? I see it as completely unreasonable. America (of the past now?) has a history of inviting all kinds of people to discuss politics, philosophy, religion from all over the world.... but now you are scared of what people have to say? Also if you don't recognize that it is political targeting (not of citizens, but anyone by any means the government has its disposal), then that's a real problem. We can see the targeting of legitimate visitors, attacks on birth right citizenship, attempts to reconstruct electoral borders. Mass firing from the government institutions of people with differing opinions. Like I said, it's weird americans are so accepting.... "seems reasonable".
- lmm 6mo ago
  > weird, don't you think that stance is just fear of free speech? I see it as completely unreasonable. America (of the past now?) has a history of inviting all kinds of people to discuss politics, philosophy, religion from all over the world.... but now you are scared of what people have to say? I think active political campaigning is a bit different from discussing political philosophy, and it's a major mistake to treat the former as "just free speech". (I think Citizens United was a massive misjudgement that has lead directly to many of our present-day problems). I think we're all agreed that foreigners should not be standing for office or voting in elections, and foreigners other than permanent residents are already barred from making campaign contributions; to my mind this kind of protest aimed at changing government policy falls into the same category. A protest like that isn't an effort to convey some insight or argument; it's an effort to demonstrate viscerally that the citizenry have a strong view on an issue. I don't think allowing foreign participation helps with that; quite the opposite. There have been a lot of claims in recent years - from both sides of the aisle - that enemy countries have been deliberately disrupting US politics in order to harm the country. I think it's vital that our political process not only has integrity but is seen to have integrity, and part of that is ensuring that adversaries cannot unduly influence it.
  - ahhhhnoooo 6mo ago
    > I think we're all agreed that foreigners should not be standing for office or voting in elections I don't think we're all in agreement. Do they live here? Work here? They should have a say in Joe here is governed while they do.
myaccountonhn 6mo ago
"Influencing our politics" is broad, but I do think foreigners should be allowed to organize strikes, or go to political rallies without risk of being deported.

IG_Semmelweiss 6mo ago

The Swiss have birthright citizenship. What's so odd about it ?

ap99 6mo ago

I'm amazed that people see America as different from any other country in terms of who should be allowed in and what constitutes bad behavior. Being in America is a privilege that can easily be taken away. Guests of America should walk a narrow path. Same as being in any other country.

Ray20 6mo ago
[flagged]