Merged Due process in the US

[bruto]

So you think it's okay for a tourist to come here and hold an anti-america protest March where they provide moral support to Al Qaeda? I'm not sure if we want tourists doing such a thing.

I believe that the first amendment and freedom of speech is very important, but it is also
not a suicide pact.
I don't think we should allow people to come here and visit our country and ◊◊◊◊ on us.

Sure, it shouldn't be a suicide pact, nothing should. But is it? Really? Do you actually believe that if we don't pre-emptively throw out all foreign students who express beliefs inimical to those of our fearless leader (which is what is actually at issue right here right now), we run the risk of our democracy falling instead to the mere possibility that Al Quaeda supporters might assemble a protest march?

I generally recoil at slippery slope, thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments, but the same fear is already motivating some in the administration to go beyond this, and extend the deportation threat to legal resident aliens, and even to naturalized citizens (and of course, though one probably shouldn't take it seriously, to native born citizens who are added to the "deportation list" by some ). What price are we willing to pay for the privilege of not having to use our own judgment when we see things we don't like?

 

[johnny karate]

So you think it's okay for a tourist to come here and hold an anti-america protest March where they provide moral support to Al Qaeda? I'm not sure if we want tourists doing such a thing.

I believe that the first amendment and freedom of speech is very important, but it is also not a suicide pact.

I don't think we should allow people to come here and visit our country and ◊◊◊◊ on us.

Your framing is weird and disingenuous. I mean, a “suicide pact”? What the ◊◊◊◊ are you even talking about? Allowing free speech in support of Al-Qaeda isn’t any more of a “suicide pact” than allowing free speech in support of Nazism, and the latter has become an American tradition.

We’re talking about a founding principle of this country enshrined in Constitutional law. The only “suicide pact” here is turning a blind eye to the blatant fascism of the people undermining it.

 

[Hercules56]

Your framing is weird and disingenuous. I mean, a “suicide pact”? What the ◊◊◊◊ are you even talking about? Allowing free speech in support of Al-Qaeda isn’t any more of a “suicide pact” than allowing free speech in support of Nazism, and the latter has become an American tradition.

We’re talking about a founding principle of this country enshrined in Constitutional law. The only “suicide pact” here is turning a blind eye to the blatant fascism of the people undermining it.

Im not sure that tourists should have the same Free Speech protections as citizens and Permanent Residents. But they should always have Due Process to defend themselves against all charges.

 

[bruto]

Im not sure that tourists should have the same Free Speech protections as citizens and Permanent Residents. But
they should always have Due Process to defend themselves against all charges

Right now that's not the case, and explicitly so. Earlier you said they (a rather indefinite "they") should not be allowed to come here, which kind of short circuits the due process idea anyway. Which is it then?

While we're at it, how much time, energy, money and administrative input would you be willing to do to define just what the difference in free speech should be between tourists and others? It's generally considered poor form, and an invitation to arbitrary abuse to have non-specific laws. Should tourists be enjoined from political opinions of all sorts? Just some? How about fashion, custom, culture? Your prescription is pretty vague and after the fact. Hope you don't say the wrong thing, and if someone decides you did, you can maybe prove after your arrest and detention that you didn't?

 

[Hercules56]

Right now that's not the case, and explicitly so. Earlier you said they (a rather indefinite "they") should not be allowed to come here, which kind of short circuits the due process idea anyway. Which is it then?...

Yes, if there agenda is to rally in support of our enemies, their Visa should be denied. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[bruto]

Yes, if there agenda is to rally in support of our enemies, their Visa should be denied. Nothing wrong with that.

And of course the dangerous people will always pre-announce their agenda. It's like loyalty oaths, foolproof. And why try to parse the line between opinions about the enemies of our friends, and support of our own enemies? No, better just ban visits from certain countries, as our dear fearless leader wants. They're ◊◊◊◊ holes anyway. And just let the ones who do come in guess what they may or may not say. Keep them on their toes. Fear is our friend. Black is black and white is white. Greatness awaits.

 

[Hercules56]

My question is: who is checking the X feed and Facebook feed and Instagram feed of the 1.1 million foreign students in the USA to find a post that may be pro-Hamas or Hezbollah or ISIS?

 

[Hercules56]

My question is: who is checking the X feed and Facebook feed and Instagram feed of the 1.1 million foreign students in the USA to find a post that may be pro-Hamas or Hezbollah or ISIS?

Sigh, looks like I answered my own question.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/groups-using-facial-recognition-to-unmask-anti-israel-campus-protesters-for-deportation/?utm_campaign=most_popular&utm_source=website&utm_medium=article_end&utm_content=2

 

[bruto]

My question is: who is checking the X feed and Facebook feed and Instagram feed of the 1.1 million foreign students in the USA to find a post that
may be pro-Hamas or Hezbollah or ISIS?

My question might be "who do you think should be doing this? And who decides that 'may' part?"

 

[johnny karate]

Im not sure that tourists should have the same Free Speech protections as citizens and Permanent Residents. But they should always have Due Process to defend themselves against all charges.

You’ve made your opposition to the First Amendment perfectly clear, but thanks for reiterating it. And the lip service you pay to supporting other rights is laughable. Anyone who advocates for the degradation of any right is advocating for the degradation of all of them.

 

[Hercules56]

You’ve made your opposition to the First Amendment perfectly clear, but thanks for reiterating it. And the lip service you pay to supporting other rights is laughable. Anyone who advocates for the degradation of any right is advocating for the degradation of all of them.

Cute.

Of course you are completely aware that the first amendment is not absolute.

There are lots of things we cannot say or publish, without legal consequences.

 

[Aridas]

You’ve made your opposition to the First Amendment perfectly clear, but thanks for reiterating it. And the lip service you pay to supporting other rights is laughable. Anyone who advocates for the degradation of any right is advocating for the degradation of all of them.

It's perhaps worth noting that the US has long had rather strict immigration policy that prevents many from being allowed to come in the first place. What Hercules56 said isn't actually out of line from what already existed beforehand, at last check. Whether that's right or wrong is another matter, sure, but the ongoing state of affairs is worthy of consideration in the conversation.

Well, previous state of affairs, at least. The Trump Administration is additionally making numerous horrible things happen to the completely innocent, much less everyone else, and massively wasting taxpayer dollars overall (amounts that dwarf any potential "savings" from cutting DEI positions, on a quick check). For example -

I’m the Canadian who was detained by Ice for two weeks. It felt like I had been kidnapped
I was stuck in a freezing cell without explanation despite eventually having lawyers and media attention. Yet, compared with others, I was lucky

 

[bruto]

Cute.

Of course you are completely aware that the first amendment is not absolute.

There are lots of things
we cannot say or publish, without legal consequences.

Yes, there are, but you are not talking about us, are you?* Your whole premise is that for foreigners those legal consequences are not enough to ward off some undefined danger to the common weal, and so far at least, they will not know what speech is impermissible until they are arrested and detained and face deportation at their own expense. It's good that you consider due process to be appropriate here, but I do wonder what that would consist of if the criteria for expulsion are undefined.

*I'm generously assuming that you do not share our current administration's position that American citizens should be punished or deported for politically incorrect speech.

 

[Hercules56]

....*I'm generously assuming that you do not share our current administration's position that American citizens should be punished or deported for politically incorrect speech.

Citizens? Or course not. Where would they be deported to?

And just out of curiosity, when has the current administration made such a statement?

 

[Hercules56]

There appears to be no clear rules regarding what kind of speech can cause a Visa holder or green card holder to be deported. I don't think it's fair to retroactively enforce new rules or understandings of rules upon people who are already here. I agree that certain behavior should disqualify people, but that behavior needs to be clearly spelled out. I also think permanent residents should probably have the same rights as citizens. People here on a tourist or a student or work visa probably should have fewer rights and more regulations. But again those regulations should be spelled out before someone comes here so they can be fully aware and agree to them before they decide to come to the USA and possibly break the rules. And if the rules are changed all Visa holders need to be made aware of these new rules so they can act accordingly.

So yes basically if a new administration takes over and they decide they are going to deport Visa holders if they show support for any registered terrorist organizations they need to make that crystal clear and there should be no retroactive enforcement of new understanding and new interpretation of existing rules.

 

[bruto]

Trump revives push to denaturalize US citizens

Trump ordered his administration to devote resources to investigating naturalized US citizens

www.usatoday.com

Trump immigration raids snag U.S. citizens, including Native Americans, raising racial profiling fears

A U.S. veteran and Navajo residents have been asked for identification. Critics are complaining of racial profiling as raids and deportations increase.

www.nbcnews.com

One Of Trump’s Most Provocative Talking Points Isn’t Even Legal To Do

There’s no legal way to expel Americans from their home country. Trump wants the public to think otherwise.

www.huffpost.com

Not directly in the administration, but I see no correcting comment therefrom:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5098959-gop-member-wants-bishop-added-to-deportation-list-after-trump-prayer-service/

That's about five minutes' worth of searching. I don't like the way things are developing. Maybe you do. I don't.

 

[Hercules56]

Trump revives push to denaturalize US citizens

Trump ordered his administration to devote resources to investigating naturalized US citizens

www.usatoday.com

Trump immigration raids snag U.S. citizens, including Native Americans, raising racial profiling fears

A U.S. veteran and Navajo residents have been asked for identification. Critics are complaining of racial profiling as raids and deportations increase.

www.nbcnews.com

One Of Trump’s Most Provocative Talking Points Isn’t Even Legal To Do

There’s no legal way to expel Americans from their home country. Trump wants the public to think otherwise.

www.huffpost.com

Not directly in the administration, but I see no correcting comment therefrom:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5098959-gop-member-wants-bishop-added-to-deportation-list-after-trump-prayer-service/

That's about five minutes' worth of searching. I don't like the way things are developing. Maybe you do. I don't.

You're kinda moving the goalposts.

"American citizens should be punished or deported for politically incorrect speech."

Thats quite different from the articles you just posted.

 

[bruto]

There appears to be
no clear rules regarding what kind of speech can cause a Visa holder or green card holder to be deported. I don't think it's fair to retroactively enforce new rules or understandings of rules upon people who are already here. I agree that certain behavior should disqualify people, but that behavior needs to be clearly spelled out. I also think permanent residents should
probably have the same rights as citizens. People here on a tourist or a student or work visa probably should have fewer rights and more regulations. But again those regulations should be spelled out before someone comes here so they can be fully aware and agree to them before they decide to come to the USA and possibly break the rules. And if the rules are changed all Visa holders need to be made aware of these new rules so they can act accordingly.

So yes basically if a new administration takes over and they decide they are going to deport Visa holders if they show support for any registered terrorist organizations they need to make that crystal clear and there should be no retroactive enforcement of new understanding and new interpretation of existing rules.

Appears to be? Look under the couch, maybe it's there.

Permanent residents should "probably" have full rights? Are you sure they shouldn't just shut up and do as they're told?

But I do agree that if there are new rules for non-resident visitors they should be spelled out. As it is now, though, not only are they not spelled out, but as far as I'm aware your suggestion of "support for any registered terrorist organizations" is far narrower than the criteria being so arbitrarily applied.

I will note that perhaps I have a different take on this than some. My wife (and as it happens my ex wife too) is a naturalized citizen. She has been a citizen for longer than most of the people on this forum have been alive, but our current administration has made it rather clear that, even though it is not very likely, they believe it in their power to threaten denaturalization and deportation for purely political reasons. Of course, that's far fetched. But we have been living now for some time in an avalanche of unlikelihood.

 

[Hercules56]

Appears to be? Look under the couch, maybe it's there.

Permanent residents should "probably" have full rights? Are you sure they shouldn't just shut up and do as they're told?....

Oh, there you go again.

 

[bruto]

You're kinda moving the goalposts.

"American citizens should be punished or deported for politically incorrect speech."

Thats quite different from the articles you just posted.

There are plenty of people who believe they should at least be punished. As for deported, that depends on who you ask, of course. As mentioned, there are people in the Republican party right now who advocate the deportation of native born American citizens for their political opinions, and the current ICE is using racial profiling that results in the harassment of native Americans. Not all of these things have been initiated by the president himself, but he has been quite silent when it comes to disavowing them.

Obviously we differ on how we regard our current administration. I believe Trump and his minions are not just wrong, stupid and incompetent, but intentionally cruel. You may well disagree, but I think he is not only a criminal but a bully who takes visible pleasure in the suffering of those he considers his enemies, that we have yet to see the full impact of his delusions, and that every time we think it can't get any worse it does.