Cracking down on legal immigrants, skilled immigrants makes no sense. That’s what built America. Cracking down on illegal immigration makes plenty of sense. I hope the administration can see the difference.
replies(3):
It makes sense when thy engage in political activism or become dissidents. Just because they're skilled doesn't mean they can't be legally causing troubles at the same time.
No country tolerates foreigners moving in and acting against the country that took them in. Well, maybe Germany does.
When you emigrate somewhere on a visa, you're a guest in the country who's tolerated as long as you follow the rules and contribute to society, the moment you start causing trouble with protests or become a nuisance, you're out. Simple.
The moment you try to swing a punch against the government that gave you that visa, then that contract is void, and you're out.
I don't see how this is an issue. Are you OK with foreigners coming into your country and starting to go against your democratically elected government(in principle, not just the orange man specifically)? I don't know anyone who wants that. Let citizens deal with their elected government, you can too once you become a citizen, if you want.
And I'll let you in a secret: the legal definition of what is terrorism and what is not, is the one the government and courts decide, not you as a non-citizen. To me what Busch did equates to terrorism, but that's not what the courts decided, so there we are.
That's not your government to protest against because you can't vote as your not a citizen of that country, so that country's leadership is not accountable to you, it's accountable only to its citizens.
Leave that protesting to the citizens, or move to your country and protest in front of the US/Israel embassy from your own country's soil, that's the legal way to do it.
One reason is that it is a check on power.
The protestors and editorial writers were typically not arrested for breaking laws. Typically there are some rules on protests, and when they are not followed then police are free to arrest people.
These people are part of the fabric of free speech that adds value to America. It's messier to live in a country like that, but it stops crazy authoritarian bubbles. I think it's slower at times, but leads to a better outcome.
Many American friends I know don't have the same family history surrounding governments like the Nazis, ussr and CCP. These things are worth protecting, and by the time you realize it -- you're too late.
This is my response you asked for. Does it help ?
Secondly, there's big difference between free speech (as in saying what you want openly), and congregating to occupying public or private spaces to generate protests, be loud, obnoxious, block foot traffic, cause litter, incite to violence etc.
Your speech is free as long as it doesn't inconvenience others. Can I come outside your house, occupy the sidewalk and shout in a bullhorn my political opinions at your window 24/7? No? Why is that? It's just my free speech bro. You see how free speech works?
Whether visa holders have such right depends on the countries however; I don't believe France has such restrictions (https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F2190 does not mention "political activities" as a valid motive for refusing entry). I think some other countries do restrict political activities for non-citizens.
It can well be the case that the visa has provisions that allow rescinding it for the things that you are talking about, but I'm pretty sure that they are discretionary, not mandatory, so no need to cower at the words of these students.
I doubt you would be ok with hardworking moral cowards becoming the teachers, CEOs and experts for america.
It’s a bit sad, because some of the strongest moral leaders in america, have also been the ones who stood up for rights and freedoms. It’s… I mean what would be more American?
Capitulation? Would you respect that?
Most people today are driven by self interest and self preservation, not morality. Anything you see publicly resembling morality is virtue signaling for the sake of optics. Everyone quickly stops wanting to be a martyr when their livelihood is on the line. It's easy to be generous with other people's lives/money.
>Capitulation? Would you respect that?
Capitulation against who? What results did their so called fight give? Other than causing public nuisance. Why don't they go to Gaza and pick up arms if they want to fight? Putting tents in university campuses and shouting from the safety of US public spaces is not fighting, it's virtue signaling.
Do you respect foreigners to treat your country as a battle ground for their ideologies? I assume yes only when their ideologies match yours, but what about when they don't?
> Do you respect foreigners to treat your country as a battle ground for their ideologies? I assume yes only when their ideologies match yours, but what about when they don't?
I respect a good, fair match. I suspect you do too. A good opponent, who puts their money where their mouth is, is someone who pushes you to do the same.
This is also why I framed my question the way I did. I didn’t say which country was a terrorist, I gave it the option of being someone who argued for a position you agreed with. (For example, they could well be protesting in front of the Chinese embassy, being Uighur, or Tibetan.) Should this option only be open to American citizens?
> Capitulation against who? What results did their so called fight give?
Capitulating to whomever is in power.
Contrast the ease of saying stuff online, vs people who physically show up to protests, or say things that are risky and have consequences.
I respect people who actually put themselves at risk. They can be entirely wrong, their cause riddled with flaws. But then I didn’t find it in me to show up and engage in debate.
I guess, to each their due.
Do you mean am I OK with legal residents of the US publicly expressing their political opinions?
Yes. Yes, I am. I think it's a good thing, whether or not I agree with those opinions.