[flagged]
I welcome any and all persons from anywhere in the world if they want to come and protest the American war machine
Our forefathers would be absolutely ashamed at what you just said. Protesting a totalitarian government that lacks proper representation is the most American thing you can possibly do, and that makes these immigrants more American than you will ever be, as long as you hold such views.
Edit: It seems you have edited your post in order to remove the extremely distasteful language you originally expressed. I assume you still hold such views or you'd not have expressed them to begin with, and as such my comment still stands.
Well, like half of our forefathers. Maybe 30%.
America has always been this weird combined project of Hopeless Idealists and The Worst People In The World. Our forefathers sought independence for freedom and self-determination and all sorts of other noble things, but also because many of them owned a bunch of slaves and were worried that was going to be outlawed in the near future. And then sought independence again a century later out of the same fear.
For one, whether or not they supported abolition.
I also will not engage in a debate with a poisoned premise: To be clear, supporting Israel today means supporting genocide. That is the beginning and end of it. You can denounce Israel and still denounce Hamas. You can support an individual Jewish person's right to life and liberty without making the mistake of supporting their genocidal government.
Given that my own government, the United States, is also genocidal and has a history of bloody colonialism, I appreciate when people can make this distinction. I condemn my own government and still support my fellow countrymen.
None of this needs pointing out. Any attempt to paint an anti-Israel stance as an antisemitic stance is deliberately deceitful and wholly reprehensible. Israel the government is illegitimate and Netanyahu is wanted in the International Criminal Court for genocidal crimes.
I am more interested in knowing how someone decides what is moral and immoral, i.e. which causes they choose to support. I have my theories. I have very mixed feelings towards the pro-Palestine protestors on campuses stemming from the tactics used, how they directed protests at universities themselves and not Israel, and the subtle implications that universities were "Zionist" for vague reasons. I guess that by extension most Americans are Zionist also?? I am not sure if that's fair and then obviously there's an element of conspiracy theory that is also kind of nasty.
I note you mentioned abolition, colonialism, and genocide so I think it's not a stretch to say you decide based on anti-Fascism which I'll leave open to definition.
I do believe it's clear that if you support the American-Israeli war machine, you support colonialism and Zionism intrinsically. So I don't know if most Americans are Zionist or not, but I do personally know a frightening amount of Zionists.
A confused bunch, as I am originally from the Deep South and most of these Zionists I speak of were shitting on Jews and making light of the Holocaust just a few years ago. It seems paradoxical until you realize the common thread is the support of fascism.
> I note you mentioned abolition, colonialism, and genocide so I think it's not a stretch to say you decide based on anti-Fascism which I'll leave open to definition.
Absolutely. Specifically, I start from the Golden Rule, or a modified version of it, I also back the spirit of the Constitution, which in my mind should have always extended to protect not just white, land-owning Americans, but the entire world, rich and poor, given that the rights it recognizes are considered inalienable for all humans.
I also find solidarity within some of the views of most of our founding fathers, especially regarding basic things such as taxation without representation, even if I don't agree with their views on slavery or certain economic positions.
We have this thing called the First Amendment. It applies to all people under the jurisdiction of the United States. There’s no exception for “guests.” Criticizing the government is a time-honored American tradition. Throwing people out for it is absolutely vile.
Not according to the Supreme Court it doesn't.
Sadly, his comment has been flagged.
But in general I think the case made by the pro-Palestinian side was that somehow universities bore responsibility for what Israel did because of vague investments in their endowments. I didn't think owning an ETF that held a weapons manufacturer or some Israeli company on the stock market was explicitly Zionist but this was the premise for protests. Why not protest the US or Israel directly? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
It felt like they were asking universities to explicitly be pro-Palestine which is a strange thing to ask for in America.
Do you think the first amendment means the government has to allow in immigrants that are Nazi sympathizers? What about Communists?
Americans have free speech. But Americans can also decide which foreigners are allowed the privilege of being on American soil. In fact, I would say that it’s precisely because we have free speech that we must carefully guard who is allowed into the tent.
What comes before “filter[ing] immigrants” is due process. Resident aliens have the right to due process which the current US administration is not providing.
Alien residents with every right to be here are being removed from the US illegally and mistakenly.
The best argument I have heard is that visa revocation may be like firing: the US can do it for almost any reason and you can fire someone for no reason, but can't do it for specific prohibited reasons. Speech would probably be one of those bad reasons under the US's civil rights framework.
No, the U.S. has the prerogative to pick and choose foreigners who are allowed to immigrate based on categories that would be impermissible for employers. That includes nationality, e.g. our green card quota system, as well as speech and affiliation. The Supreme Court has upheld deporting communists who are foreign nationals: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/580/.
This is reflected in the statute. Aliens can specifically be excluded for political beliefs and views if the Secretary of State determines that is necessary: "An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien's past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien's admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest." 8 USC 1182(a)(4)(C)(iii).
What, exactly, about Rumeysa Ozturk's student newspaper contributions[1] could possibly justify the notion that her _residence in America_ is compromising a compelling US foreign policy interest?
The clear purpose of that statute including a long list of properties which would not normally be grounds for exclusion is to set a reasonably high bar for the Secretary of State's 'personal opinion' about a compromising admission. If the intent were to grant a broad, beyond question license to deport Fulbright scholars for _engagement in society_, it would just say they can do whatever the fuck they want and skip the salad.
Dozens of citizens could have been sent into slave labor for all we know, and no judge has been able to provide the constitutionally mandated oversight. It has been upheld many times and for hundreds of years that the Due Process clause applies to non-citizens for this reason.
In some cases, “due process” is “Your name made it into a spreadsheet, the President can drone strike you”
Just to point, the prerogative to "filter" immigrants does not allow the US to keep them in jail, torture, or send them to foreign countries non-supervised labor camps.