Israel vs Palestinians

[NashVol11]

Easy to get away with it if no one is looking. Expect the new DOJ to not turn the same blind eye as they did under Biden minion Garland

So no, you couldn't find 100 but believed the conspiracy theory anyway. The new DOJ won't find millions of illegals voting either because it's made up

 

[Orange_Crush]

I view things like freedom of speech/association/assembly/protest to be basic human rights that exist outside the bor. I believe the ff chose to explicitly list them in the constitution as they understood tyrannical govt better than we do.

One of those founders wrote the Enemy Aliens Act that further bypasses due process for non-citizens and expels based on associations and suspicions. He/They seemed to try to be walking the line between rights and assimilations that would preserve this "...more perfect union".

If an immigrant asked for residency and, when asked what they would do when they got here, their answer is: "Destroy democracy and Western Culture, overthrow the government, and work ceaselessly against the United States' foreign policy until that was accomplished."

Should the US let them in?

 

[Orange_Crush]

No I'm saying that the current admin is prosecuting based on laws that are anti-free speech. Wouldn't our spreading democracy goals include the basic human right of free speech? If so, why shut it down in our own country?

Are there limits to protected speech? Should there be?

Are you selective as to who you will allow to come and live in your home? Can you honestly say that you can't name group associations that would prevent you from opening your home to someone? If you'd allowed someone to stay in your home, and after the fact, found out that they associate with a group whose potential activity in your home would be destructive and/or dangerous to your home and family, would you ask them to leave?

 

[Orangeslice13]

I view things like freedom of speech/association/assembly/protest to be basic human rights that exist outside the bor. I believe the ff chose to explicitly list them in the constitution as they understood tyrannical govt better than we do.

Is that how it should be or how they are?
Because right now anyone on a temporary status can be removed for any reason and they know that when they get their paperwork.

How it should be is a completely different conversation.
I’m all for throwing out our current immigration system and starting over.

 

[utvolpj]

One of those founders wrote the Enemy Aliens Act that further bypasses due process for non-citizens and expels based on associations and suspicions. He/They seemed to try to be walking the line between rights and assimilations that would preserve this "...more perfect union".

Wartime act. I doubt many in this admin understand how it would need to be applied

If an immigrant asked for residency and, when asked what they would do when they got here, their answer is: "Destroy democracy and Western Culture, overthrow the government, and work ceaselessly against the United States' foreign policy until that was accomplished."

Should the US let them in?

Not sure I've ever claimed we need to let in anyone. In fact I questioned the visa vetting process earlier. Shouldn't someone deemed worthy of entry also be worthy of equal human rights?

 

[utvolpj]

Is that how it should be or how they are?
Because right now anyone on a temporary status can be removed for any reason and they know that when they get their paperwork.

How it should be is a completely different conversation.
I’m all for throwing out our current immigration system and starting over.

It's how the us claims it is in our land and how it should be. The application leaves much to be desired which is the overall point.

Either way, it's what we should strive towards. We are regressing at a dangerous rate

 

[Orange_Crush]

...

How it should be is a completely different conversation.
I’m all for throwing out our current immigration system and starting over.

Me too. I think some discussion may reveal that the black/white, cut/dry discussion gets a little more nuanced if we are considering the complexities of immigration. If we were to start over with a new immigration system, one would hope that a defining principle would be alignment and assimilation to what it means to be an American, and more specifically to "be America". One would hope there would be interview questions with honest answers from the potential immigrant.

Just as soon as they said something that revealed an indication that they are not aligned and will not assimilate, one would assume they would be rejected, and the same accusation that their free speech was impeded would arise.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Not sure I've ever claimed we need to let in anyone. In fact I questioned the visa vetting process earlier. Shouldn't someone deemed worthy of entry also be worthy of equal human rights?

But wouldn't rejecting them based on answers to questions, in a world where they have freedom of speech without repercussions (because that's really what you're talking about) as a global guarantee, be infringing those rights?

Further, if we found out something after they were here that would have gotten them rejected, we can't then ask them to leave?

You seemed to be arguing that the right in question is a Natural Law, independent of the government giving it, and guaranteeing no repercussions. Thus, if you're being consistent, they should not have been denied entry based on anything they say, or anyone they associate with.

And as such, it shouldn't have a dependency on if they are already "in" or not.

But if you're claiming that we should have the right to reject immigration based on things they say, or who they associate with, then you believe it's not an unmitigated right, and the government should have the right to limit immigration based on things they say, or who they associate with. And since it's not universal based on location, then the government should have the same right to deport someone if they find out something after the fact that would have gotten them rejected. And that's exactly how immigration law is written.

 

[utvolpj]

You seemed to be arguing that the right in question is a Natural Law, independent of the government giving it, and guaranteeing no repercussions. Thus, if you're being consistent, they should not have been denied entry based on anything they say, or anyone they associate with.

You're starting from the point that everyone entering starts and ends at the same perspective during their stay. That's simply not logical

I've not said everyone should be admitted and you keep trying to make that argument. I've said once they were deemed qualified to enter that we eject them based on rights we claim to value. That is absurd

 

[Orange_Crush]

You're starting from the point that everyone entering starts and ends at the same perspective during their stay. That's simply not logical

I've not said everyone should be admitted and you keep trying to make that argument. I've said once they were deemed qualified to enter that we eject them based on rights we claim to value. That is absurd

I'm not trying to make that argument at all. I'm trying to find the boundaries of your free speech ideals.

The way I see it, either we can't interview people because denying them based on their answers is infringing their free speech, or you will allow interviews and denials based on what they say or with whom they associate.

If you agree with the underlined, then we have to then ask why you would be against removing them for the same reasons.

At the very least, I think we can start to see that your criticisms are of something far more nuanced than, "Free speech with repercussions is no free speech at all".

 

[utvolpj]

The way I see it, either we can't interview people because denying them based on their answers is infringing their free speech, or you will allow interviews and denials based on what they say or with whom they associate.

You mean when they aren't in the usa? Yeah denial exists and again I've never said everyone needs to be admitted. Feel like I've repeated that enough for it to sink in

The usa gladly welcomes plenty who absolutely fight against our best interests (like foreign leaders). Let's not pretend this is evenly applied

 

[Orange_Crush]

Wartime act. I doubt many in this admin understand how it would need to be applied

Can you explain? I'm not sure I am interpreting correctly. Are you saying that you support the Alien Enemies Act when implemented in a way you agree with?

If so, that seem to do damage to your argument that these rights are natural rights, and not given by the government, if you then claim that the government can remove them when the government feels that it needs to for the Union's safety and benefit?

Anything after "shall not be infringed" is an artificial limit placed by govt. Limiting a citizen or a visitor seems to be the same

I view things like freedom of speech/association/assembly/protest to be basic human rights that exist outside the bor...

 

[Orange_Crush]

You mean when they aren't in the usa? Yeah denial exists and again I've never said everyone needs to be admitted. Feel like I've repeated that enough for it to sink in

The usa gladly welcomes plenty who absolutely fight against our best interests (like foreign leaders). Let's not pretend this is evenly applied

But you don't view those denials as free speech issues? I know that you've never claimed that everyone should get in. I'm trying to find a consistency in your thought that it's OK for us NOT to let everyone in.

These freedoms are matters of nature, not dependent on citizenship, location, etc...?

Yet they don't have to be afforded to potential immigrants if they are not in the US yet?

But the same things would be considered free speech issues if they are already in the US, and we tried to use these as qualifications to STAY in the US vs COME to the US?


It's probably just the fact that I'm too easily confused, but I can't seem to align those things. Either they are matters of nature, independent of gov't, citizenship, location, etc and are deserved no matter where one is merely as a citizen of the world. Or they are things that the gov't should consider for its own safety, and thus the gov't is allowed to give repercussions for speech/association/etc on matters of immigration.

 

[utvolpj]

Can you explain? I'm not sure I am interpreting correctly. Are you saying that you support the Alien Enemies Act when implemented in a way you agree with?

If so, that seem to do damage to your argument that these rights are natural rights, and not given by the government, if you then claim that the government can remove them when the government feels that it needs to for the Union's safety and benefit?

Possibly, but narrowly, when at War but not like FDR. That in no way invalidates my current position.

Let me know the next time war is properly declared and we can revisit

 

[utvolpj]

But you don't view those denials as free speech issues? I know that you've never claimed that everyone should get in. I'm trying to find a consistency in your thought.

These freedoms are matters of nature, not dependent on citizenship, location, etc...?

Yet they don't have to be afforded to potential immigrants if they are not in the US yet?

But the same things would be considered free speech issues if they are already in the US, and we tried to use these as qualifications to STAY in the US vs COME to the US?


It's probably just the fact that I'm too easily confused, but I can't seem to align those things. Either they are matters of nature, independent of gov't, citizenship, location, etc and are deserved no matter where one is merely as a citizen of the world. Or they are things that the gov't should consider for its own safety, and thus the gov't is allowed to give repercussions for speech/association/etc on matters of immigration.

Again we don't have to let them in which is reasonable for security. Should I set this up to copy/paste in every response? Not sure how this is so confusing. No, free speech doesn't include the dissolution of all nation states. Once in this country they should be protected by the same rights we claim to believe in.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Possibly, but narrowly, when at War but not like FDR. That in no way invalidates my current position.

Let me know the next time war is properly declared and we can revisit

It absolutely invalidates it. You're saying that the gov't can't and shouldn't try to put an (your words) "artificial limit" on these rights, while also arguing that there are times when the gov't can (should?) put artificial limits on them.

If we have worked the conversation to the point that you agree that there are times when the govt can and should put "artificial limits" on these rights (and it sounds as though we have), then the progression of the conversation, having established that, would naturally move to why you believe the government should only place those limits to protect the nation in times of war, as opposed to working to protect the country all the time.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Again we don't have to let them in which is reasonable for security. Should I set this up to copy/paste in every response? Not sure how this is so confusing. No, free speech doesn't include the dissolution of all nation states. Once in this country they should be protected by the same rights we claim to believe in.

But they don't deserve these natural rights, independent of govt or location before they get in? Where is the consistency of thought and application?

They deserve them all the time, not based on citizenship, card status, location, or government statement. But they also don't deserve them before they get residency?

You claim they are God/Nature-given and universal, while also claiming that they are not universal and are dependent on the status the government gave them?

 

[utvolpj]

It absolutely invalidates it. You're saying that the gov't can't and shouldn't try to put an (your words) "artificial limit" on these rights, while also arguing that there are times when the gov't can (should?) put artificial limits on them.

If we have worked the conversation to the point that you agree that there are times when the govt can and should put "artificial limits" on these rights (and it sounds as though we have), then the progression of the conversation, having established that, would naturally move to why you believe the government should only place those limits to protect the nation in times of war, as opposed to working to protect the country all the time.

No if you're actively working against the country during a declared war. Even then it would be very narrow in scope. I see no right to sedition during wartime so now you can claim your elusuve gotcha . If you think that is in any way comparable to a student handing out flyers or writing an op-ed then have fun.

 

[utvolpj]

But they don't deserve these natural rights, independent of govt or location before they get in? Where is the consistency of thought and application?

They deserve them all the time, not based on citizenship, card status, location, or government statement. But they also don't deserve them before they get residency?

You claim they are God/Nature-given and universal, while also claiming that they are not universal and are dependent on the status the government gave them?

Sure, in their own country. If they don't have that then try and get somewhere you can. But no everyone can't gain entry into the us. I see no natural right to a certain piece of land. You're in a real pretzel trying to ignore my words and prove I'm not consistent.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No if you're actively working against the country during a declared war. Even then it would be very narrow in scope. I see no right to sedition during wartime so now you can claim your elusuve gotcha . If you think that is in any way comparable to a student handing out flyers or writing an op-ed then have fun.

But you said the gov't doesn't give them. They are universal.

I'm testing the boundaries of your stated ideals and criticism.

It sounds like you believe these rights are dependent on the gov't. You just want to be the one that draws the line where and when they are granted.

 

[utvolpj]

But you said the gov't doesn't give them. They are universal.

I'm testing the boundaries of your stated ideals and criticism.

It sounds like you believe these rights are dependent on the gov't. You just want to be the one that draws the line where and when they are granted.

No I think the application in the us is based on whether you're here or not. I've never claimed that someone in Zimbabwe should be brought to the usa to exercise their rights and I don't control what happens in Zimbabwe. I'm saying people deemed worthy of entry skills have free speech in a country that lives to flaunt their freedoms.

I'm jumping off this circle since you seem to ignore what I've posted a half dozen times

 

[Orangeslice13]

It's how the us claims it is in our land and how it should be. The application leaves much to be desired which is the overall point.

Either way, it's what we should strive towards. We are regressing at a dangerous rate

I see no such claims in writing.
I see some general statements in the founding documents but when we read the laws written beyond that and the rules for immigration then you’re clearly advocating for how it should be. I don’t disagree but arguing how it should be without addressing the errors that are “how it is” ….is simply pissing into the wind.
And we are not regressing at all. It’s simply escalating your awareness. I’ve been dealing with the “how it is” in the labor department since the 90s

 

[Orange_Crush]

Sure, in their own country. If they don't have that then try and get somewhere you can. But no everyone can't gain entry into the us. I see no natural right to a certain piece of land. You're in a real pretzel trying to ignore my words and prove I'm not consistent.

I'm not ignoring. I'm pointing out the evolution of your argument and the inconsistencies. It sounds like you believe that the gov't doesn't give rights to free speech and association, that it's a natural law whether the gov't affirms it or not.

But you also believe that immigrants don't have the protection of those before they get residency.

But once they get residency, they get them, and are protected from the standards that the gov't would have held them to, to get residency in the first place.

It just seems inconsistent, but that's OK. I can walk away believing that you're being internally inconsistent, while knowing that you don't believe that. I hope you have a good weekend.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Idk what a furiner is.

A guy that shoes horses. Or it could be a guy that makes pizza ovens. That's my guess.

 

[KB5252]

There is nothing wrong or illegal with organizing group protests.

If the protest one leads gets violent or property is destroyed or vandalized do you think they are in any way responsible.