[flagged]
Have we really become as thin-skinned as North Korea?
You're free to have an opinion and be free from state-sanctioned consequences.
You are not guaranteed to be free from private parties choosing not to affiliate with you, calling you mean names, or banning you from their platforms... for the obvious reason that protecting that right would require that the state compel specific speech from private parties, which... See Step 1!
All of this should have been covered by about 8th grade. Were you paying attention?
And you really don’t see how complaining about lack is unity and blaming those people for it is completely risible?
Nor is there any definition of journalist that precludes having a point of view.
He also took part in the protests of Columbia University and by the looks of it wants to continue his political agenda in a foreign country. If this happened at scale then then foreigners could come (perhaps even be imported to the US, if this were a known-to-be-usable loophole) and steer the politics of a country in some other direction. It looks like the government is trying to avoid that and, if I were a citizen, it's what I would expect it to do.
You don't need to understand. Your understanding is irrelevant. That's why we put it in the Constitution!
You seem to argue that regardless of what the US as a country wanted (to not let him in) should be ignored, because he made it onto US soil. Sounds like a technicality.
> You seem to argue that regardless of what the US as a country wanted (to not let him in) should be ignored, because he made it onto US soil. Sounds like a technicality.
This should read:
> You seem to argue that regardless of what the US federal government wanted (to not let him in) should be ignored, because their provided justification for achieving what they want would violate the Constitution. Sounds like how Constitutions work.
If government is permitted to set any policy of any kind specifically to police the speech of any person of any status, then they can do it to everyone for everything. And it's the same for their denial of due process to other people they have deported.
And furthermore, Khalil had a green card and is married to a US citizen. Not a student visa.
You keep restating this like it means something important. What is the important thing it indicates?
Okay. The disturbances you mentioned are protected by the Constitution. Delivering retribution for constitutionally protected actions is unacceptable.
You called US Gov's unacceptable actions - unsurprising. This seems to imply you don't think they are unacceptable.
Is that correct? If so, why do you think that?
Protests are protected by the 1st Amendment. The constitution applies to everyone in US jurisdiction. Gov actions here are not appropriate or accepatble.
> ...obviously insane thing to advocate for.
Advocating for this individual's right to join a protest is not insane. Safeguarding constitutional rights is wise by default.
No! We'd be (appropriately) deported for that. Anyone would say that's insane. The same is true here. That obviously makes no sense.
This topic concerns the actions of US Gov; it's about which actions are specifically limited by the Constitution. Enforcing those limits is how we protect our rights.
It makes sense to advocate for the constitutional rights of individuals.
Further, not advocating for others' constitutional rights - this is a factor in erosion of rights overall. I offer that the 100mi constitution-free zone adjacent to US borders is an example of that¹.
If Thailand's government is similarly bound by it's constitution, it is probably wise for Thai people to advocate for individual rights.
¹ ref:https://kagi.com/search?q=what+constitutional+rights+are+imp...
Our opinion is that the US Constitution applies to the people within a US jurisdiction. In this, our opinion is correct.
As far as you disagree with that, your disagreement will be with the Constitution - which is your inalienable right.
You are asking how I'd feel if a foreign government took some action against him at their border?
This question is fairly far afield; it would be a wholly different discussion.
You've been heading toward the farthest boundary of good faith discussion for some time now. At this point, I think you are signaling that you have crossed it.
Constitutionalism is about the core restraints placed on Gov. Not violating the constitution is it's own thing. Because it defines order, it is the opposite of anarchy.
Does some ideology or some facet of libertarian overlap here? I have no idea. It isn't relevant tho.
"Does it make sense for a place with a completely different governance structure, completely different laws, and completely different norms (notably lacking the US Constitution and its unique 1st Amendment protections) to behave differently?"
Uhhh yes. You would expect a different result in a different place. Here in America we have the laws that exist in America. In Thailand they have the laws that exist in Thailand.
Yeah, in the world of law you have to do stuff correctly and technically correctly. What country do you live in where this isn't the case, so I know never to go there?
This is not a technicality but an actuality. It is not minutiae; it is key.
As near as I can tell you have a strong feeling about this and are trying to find some sort of authority to justify it.
The challenge with that: The US Constitution is the law in play; nothing supersedes it.
The only possible discussion seems to be
You say [thing].
A chorus says "Constitution" because that's it.You're being willfully obtuse if you think people are arguing for "a free-for-all entry to anyone."
However, they cannot deny entry on the basis of protected speech.
You're the only one struggling with this.
I'm not debating what the legal formulation was, I just don't get the people who think he should have been let in. Since as in computer programming and in law, you can't nail down any circumstance in existence - you sometimes need apply the "do what I mean" rather than "do what said". In this case it does seem that the government did what the population would have liked it to have done. Though, I guess if he would sue, then you would do well in being his lawyers.
FTA
> “We both know why you’ve been detained…it’s because of what you wrote about the protests at Columbia”
I have no clue if this is actually true, but operating from the same set of facts that you have: we know exactly why he was detained, and assuming the facts we've been provided, we know for sure that it is unconstitutional
> it does seem that the government did what the population would have liked it to have done
You have no clue what "the population would have liked," and neither do I, and neither does the state. That's why we have the First Amendment, to preclude them from attempting such ridiculous assertions of omniscience.
I mean, you could put someone in solitary confinement and he'd be "able to express himself."
It's almost as if your heuristic is a bad one, which is why it is not the one established in the US Constitution or 250 years of case law.
Riddle me this: why do you think journalism is protected in this country if it is definitionally politically inert?
I agree with you, by the way. To a certain reading, this guy is creating a valuable resource in the attention economy: controversy. Give them a medal and a journalism grant.
Does it not make sense to you that a country (i.e, its citizens) don't actually want foreign activists to come and steer its politics? Sounds like a recipe for country take-over if done at scale.