There are good things about the US and bad things about the US.
Are foreigners not allowed to criticize anything?
Are foreigners not allowed to criticize anything?
On one hand, techno-surveillance is scary and it rarely marches backward, so letting this happen for citizenship applications will have a chilling effect on foreign intellectuals, and train people who may consider entering this country some day not to speak their mind.
I understand the theory that we don't want people coming here who rant all day saying "US is a terrorist state and something should be done about it" on social media. But I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze.
This seems fairly disingenuous. Nobody said foreigners shouldn't be allowed to criticize anything. Rather, the "for" argument is that their criticism should be analyzed to see if it would be detrimental to let them into the country.
"My house" isn't exactly a good analogy for "the country", but to be overly simplistic
1. Your house is an ugly color
2. Your house is a blight on the land; you should be tossed to the street and it burned to the ground
Those are both criticisms of the the house. They are entirely different things to consider when deciding whether that person should be allowed in the house.
Maybe closer to the intended end goal here – is a country allowed to deny a visa to a person entering that country, if the level of criticism is on the extreme end?
A country is allowed to deny a visa for any reason.
To put another way, there is no fundamental human right for a non-American to enter the United States.
It's a wonder why people put themselves through the hassle of legal immigration where they have basically no rights, when they could just sneak in and be covered by most civil rights and entitled due process in the unlikely event they do something dumb or unlucky enough to get caught.
I think this is where we get into the nuance of standards. Calling us out on our foreign policy? Fair game. Calling us fundamentally immoral or heretical? No thanks.