Your proposed response to civil liberties violations by the US is for EU countries to do the same? What's next, arbitrarily arresting Salvadoran travelers to protest their government's arbitrary arrest of gang members?
That comparison doesn't really make sense.
What mschuster91 proposed is that in response to the US mistreating EU visitors the EU should mistreat US visitors. It's a straightforward symmetrical tit for tat. One party starts harming another, that other reciprocates with a similar harm directed to the first party.
In your comparison it would be others responding to El Salvador mistreating its own citizens by also mistreating El Salvador's citizens. It is missing the crucial symmetry of a tit for tat.
And then the cycle of hate and harm becomes infinite. Or, in other words:
> An eye for an eye will leave everyone blind.¹
Random US citizens are not at fault for random US border agents harming random EU citizens. By all means, have the EU refuse entry to US citizens, but treating them like the US does—imprisoning them for weeks—is unacceptable even in retaliation.
¹ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/12/27/eye-for-eye-blind/
For that case, try international sanctions - of which, yes, increasing visa requirements or banning entry bar special cases (say a Salvadorian having family in the EU) certainly is an option that should be discussed.
The EU has strength through the size of its population and economy, and it's time we finally start playing our cards instead of just bending over.
Yes, the UK put ETA in place but that's trivial and mostly symbolic. Took me about 2 minutes to complete which was mostly about grabbing my passport to get the number.
You can tell because now Newsom is singing a different tune. He even denies ever using the word “latinx” and Bernie now claims secure borders are a must…
Don’t put people is a position where they will make a choice you (the other guys and gals) will regret. Don’t “dare” them.
He's just big on being a decent person. So don't do things like store people on concrete floors under 24h lights. It doesn't mean that he wants unfettered immigration.
> (2015) [2] So I was disappointed, if not surprised, at the visceral horror with which Bernie Sanders reacted to the idea when interviewed by my colleague Ezra Klein. “Open borders?” he interjected. “No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal.” The idea, he argued, is a right-wing scheme meant to flood the US with cheap labor and depress wages for native-born workers. “I think from a moral responsibility, we’ve got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty,” he conceded, “but you don’t do that by making people in this country even poorer.”
[1]: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/25/21143931/b...
[2]:
People who are hurt by the policies of this administration aren't going to say "gee, one third of the United States really sucks." Nor should they. Right now, the United States sucks. The onus is on us, all of us, to fix it.
Non voters implicitly endorse the status quo, even if they don’t understand the consequences of their choices.
To the point here, Americans who didn’t vote bear responsibility for our current political situation.
Sounds like they were happy to roll the dice. Play stupid games.
You deal with the government as-in.
It's not like we say "Oh, Nalvany was a great guy so we shouldn't sanction Russia".
That’s 165 million people—about 60%—of Americans who didn’t vote for the current president.
That’s definitely not how it works.
I didn’t vote in 2016 but was definitely NOT okay with Trump winning.
I also live in a state where Hillary Clinton won every county that year, so my non-vote made no difference in the outcome.
On the other hand, if I lived in a swing state or if we elected the president by popular vote, I would have voted for Clinton regardless of my personal feelings.
Also many people choose not to vote to express their dislike for both candidates.
Genuine curiosity, are you a Trump fan?