Posted by throwaway81523 2 days ago
I would have strongly argued in the past that the big advantage of US constitution is that nobody would need to be cautious about what political speech they post on social media and online.
As for non-citizens lawfully present in the U.S., they have more First Amendment protections than those seeking entry, but still less than citizens.
All this can get visa holders deported:
1. Material support for terrorist organizations (even verbal/written advocacy.
2. Speech deemed to violate the terms of their specific visa category.
3. False statements to immigration officials.
4. (Most obviously) Criminal convictions stemming from speech acts (fraud, threats, etc.)
You're just describing crimes and specific consequences of those crimes that would apply to people in certain circumstances (being a visa holder means you can be deported). Criticizing, for example, the President of United States or holding a particular political viewpoint is (currently) not a crime regardless of your citizenship, residency, or visa status.
As for the border, you can be denied entry for any reason at the whim of the border agent so none of this applies to that at all.
Not all rights are natural rights (or human rights).
Citizens have a right to vote. Guests typically do not.
Citizens in some countries have an exclusive right to own land in those countries.
Should a visitor to a country enjoy the right to explicitly espouse opposition to that country without any negative consequence?
I would say no, and I would say the constitutional court of the US will have no problem agreeing with me. Affiliation with a communist or totalitarian party has been legally held up as a disqualification from becoming a US citizen; this is despite US citizens having the right to associate with such parties.
Ergo, citizens and guests do not hold the same rights.
What I imagine is the biggest, most obvious crack in this argument, is that "the country" includes people who support every side of most issues, especially the question of how many Palestinians Israel will be allowed to kill before they're made to stop it. Arresting tourists that espouse a particular view represents once force within the US dominating another within the US.
It’s evidence that yes, indeed, citizens and non-citizens do not share the same rights. There is a long history to back this up.
Which I hope to see prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in coming years. MAGA need to be purged like the communists.
It is disgusting what has been allowed to fester on hackernews
And even if it wasn't terrorists its perfectly legal free speech to say "All muslims should be killed", "all maga to be killed". How on earth does it violate anyone's free speech? I can't even begin to understand how someone can be this stupid, this is actual mental illness level of stupidity.
I mentioned both terrorist and communist for evidence-based reasons. I am literally a naturalized citizen who had to affirm he was not affiliated with communist parties when applying for citizenship in this country. The rules were literally different for me then, than they are for me now as a citizen.
Other people “pointing out” other arguments is fine - we can disagree, one or both of us can be wrong, etc. Liberalism is built on individual rights.
But you want to label people as extreme in order to kill them. I don’t know what made your heart so corrupted by hate but I hope you find your way out
"This case -- perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court -- squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally ‘yes, they do.’ ‘No law’ means ‘no law.’ The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence. … No one’s freedom of speech is unlimited, of course, but these limits are the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike.”
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282...
And a district court judge’s rather inappropriate screed sets no legal precedent. It’s old man yells at clouds. It would be relevant to discuss founding documents or Supreme Court opinions.
In our history OR jurisprudence! You seem to claim otherwise, if I am not mistaken. So, it behooves you to provide evidence to the contrary. Specifically, what precedent-setting Supreme Court decision claims that the First Amendment does not apply to non-US citizens?
Barack Obama was called out by the ACLU for his use of ICE. He was called a monster.
If people condemn Trump and Obama both, then I respect their thinking. But if they applaud Obama and condemn Trump, I don’t believe they are showing integrity.
Bonus: You can also use these accounts to undermine the Online Safety Act at the same time!
Yeah, that would just about cover the cost of a pizza party in the AI world. You also can look at "Zignal Labs". The website looks like 100% snakeoil.
I have no doubt that ICE would love to have some AI-based software to detect illegal immigrants, but I doubt it's more effective than just regular datamining.
Take that, apply it to here, and it's clear that effectiveness would actually be counterproductive.
Here's reality: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-...
1. Conditions in the UK might not be good enough, so we should prevent people from immigrating, for their own good, and 2. Fixing problems that create refugees is more important and therefore another reason we should prevent people from immigrating.
To which I say
1. That's a reason we should clean our own house, so we create a safe environment for people looking to come to the UK, and 2. That's a non sequitur at best, and honestly callous; you should try fleeing from war and persecution, and then see how you would feel about returning home to wait for a few more years while 'things get sorted out back home'.
Again, correct me if I have misrepresented your implied argument.
I reject that. There is a steadily worsening crisis, even the current labour government have acknowledged that pledging to take lots of action against it, both now and during the election campaign. Specifically small boat crossings, of which more then 43,000 have already arrived this year. There is not a single politician in this country who doesn't admit that there is a serious problem.
This is a skill issue.
Anyone concerned about that outcome probably shouldn't have allowed their ruler to declare herself Empress of India, creating a nation with a 10-to-1 ratio of "people living on a subcontinent" vs. "people living on an island." Along with many, many other decisions made by the UK in the past 400-odd-years.
Point is, it's a bit late to complain about the "average Brit" not looking like a Viking took a Celtic bride anymore, yeah? Not after putting so much effort into being an empire that spot-welded as many different people under its flag as it possibly could for awhile?
I am, however, in the business of calling out hypocrisy when a new age of isolationists ignore their own history, because that historically ends poorly.
That is false.
That'll likely ice the ambitions of the ultra-nationalists in other countries historically close to America for a generation, much like Germany trying its eugenics experiment iced the previously-quite-vocal eugenicists in the US for about a generation.
Today the blue states are the economic powerhouse, and the red states are relatively poor. Should it come to it, I would expect the wealthy states to win.
We hopefully will never find out, though.
Certain rural areas like northern Idaho may be dominated by people moving there for ideological reasons, but this is not the norm.
[1] https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/closer-look-president-trumps-app...
Look at the 2026 Senate polls in places like Iowa. Given Trump’s margin of victory in 2024 the Republicans should be crushing it, but they are struggling.
A term limited president can care less about approval ratings. This does not mean their approval ratings cannot be compared to their approval ratings.
> Look at the 2026 Senate polls in places like Iowa. Given Trump’s margin of victory in 2024 the Republicans should be crushing it, but they are struggling.
I do not accept Senate polls measure Trump support better than Trump approval polls. And 2026 Senate projections show Republicans losing 1 or 2 seats. Iowa is not 1 of them. Iowa polls did show the unpopular incumbent senator and a hypothetical Democratic opponent had similar support. But the unpopular incumbent senator announced she would retire. And hypothetical opponents poll better than real opponents many times.
He's making real noise about seeking a third term, regardless of the legality of it.
Practically, I strongly suspect a US that fell to civil war in this current climate would result in the country fragmenting, not entirely unlike the premise of the old "Cyberpunk 2020" fictional setting. DC would, for example, find it remarkably challenging to hold a California that blatantly broke off from it, especially if the federal military resources of that California defected. Especially if it caught allies in neighboring states upon that occurrence.
The end result would be no real "winners;" it'd be the implosion of the United States of America as a national unit into something more approximating some agglomeration of the pieces outlined in https://www.twincities.com/2013/11/16/which-of-this-writers-....
But even if the end result were (not unlike the last American civil war) a reunification with new laws... The US lost about 2 solid years of its GDP to war. That's not good for business and would encourage those with resources to lose to expend them stifling their own domestic "purity" nationalists.
I think more governments around the world are catching on to the idea that your majority population can excuse a large amount of economic mismanagement and bad geopolitical strategy if you blame foreigners who arrived after your decline started.
If a satisfactory amount of foreigners are removed, the technology will still be there and the defense contractors will still need contracts. If there are no viable foreign adversaries at that point, then another domestic target will be needed.
Not even a little bit. No one is taking jobs away from citizens or legal immigrants (locals don't want those jobs, either at all, or at the wages offered), rampant "migrant crime" is a myth created and perpetuated by the right (immigrants commit crime at lower rates than citizens), and to top it off, the American economy depends on many of these migrant workers in order to function (often in exploitative ways; explicitly allowing and supporting this type of migration would make things safer for everyone).
It's othering and racism, plain and simple.
I'm not saying we should just open the floodgates and let anyone and everyone in, and I'm not saying we shouldn't deport non-citizens who commit violent crime, but the "crisis" is entirely manufactured.
It sure is, the US government has been underfunding the judicial body responsible for adjudicating asylum claims for years and years. As a result there are indeed people here in status limbo.
Wether or not they should be granted some kind of residency is kind of irrelevant, politicians are happy for this to be a problem they can use.
Even now, they aren’t increasing the rate of process, they’re just blowing the cash on mass surveillance.
Of course, this doesn't mean that allowing 0 immigration in is the right solution, or preventing immigrants from working. And I should also point out that, generally, US leaders have the least amount of problem with this aspect of immigration - even now, Trump has instructed ICE not to go for deporting agricultural and tourism workers in any mass numbers.
I would appreciate a job in construction or at a restaurant for example. Teenagers would benefit from such jobs as well. Not available.
Your absolute assertions are myopic at best.
Doesn't seem to be a problem with any motivated person I know.
There are other reasonings (prevailing wage, location, etc.), but likewise, your "absolute assertion" that undocumented workers have been taking job opportunities from you is also not entirely ... absolute.
Sorry but i absolutely despise this argument as someone who did the job that "locals don't want" and knew others that did. It's cheap and very right wing classism by the privileged. Essentially only the last bit is true and the last bit is true because there is a cheap alternative that doesn't involve much unionization either.
Mind you I'm in western europe and the other arguments don't hold up either here but that first one is universally shit.
That’s really what happened. The population doubled in 15 years and people moved (people always move). It’s just more people now. So naturally you’ll see more immigrants.
What has changed is the “messaging” around the topic. This is very common with the Trump administration. When all is said and done, when exceptions are made/bought, and the courts and others get involved, it ends up not being much of a needle move. BUT, what is different every time is the messaging. And I have come to believe, that is what the actual goal is to some degree. The real goal is to send a message to people who are immigrants OR (and this is important) look like immigrants. It’s a message of “remember your place” and “be grateful you get to be here”. It’s the same type of tactics that gets sent to Asian communities, black communities, women, etc.
I am white. I am a male. I am 55. I oscillate between despondently sad and disgusted.
Every argument that starts like this ends up defending a pyramid scheme.
So either you increase the retirement age significantly or you have to expand the base.
And all of this to serve dying generations when those younger than me starting out get ever increasingly shafted.
Here in Belgium pension plans existed that did not work like that. Then the socialist raided these funds and the future generations were going to pay for those pensions. My family's criticism was that they could only do that once and they were right.
I don't tie this issue to socialists tho. 2 decades ago the liberals(european, right wing) did the same to the railways who had a separate pension fund and more recently yet another party suggested doing the same for a 3rd pillar of selfemployed people.
I like my cultured friends. USA is a melting pot, not a white-man-country. This is all xenophobia.
> poor finances
sounds right for asylum seekers
> nation's resources, infrastructure, housing shortages, burdens public services like healthcare, and contributes to economic friction[??] amid existing downturns,
sounds like policy problems; and these are the priorities of the people i vote for too, none of this has to do with immigrants.
> Countries are not homeless shelters or free handouts
no, this is exactly what i expect my country (government) to handle
> Uncontrolled influx of millions
this is pretty tightly controlled, you can find the data from the census and see that the population is not at all fluctuating and very linear. Should be trivial to plan ahead about how many people are in the country. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni...
> This is why sovereign states implement rigorous and dynamic immigration controls and capacity limits based on the nation's ability at the time. There has to be sustainable absorption. vet whoever comes into your house
this is true, and I dont believe its not happening. i was asking what is happening that's a crisis. Trump's policies are _mass deportation_. They are extreme. Legal immigrants, are having visas revoked without reason, and even green card holders are being arrested without cause. Violations of the 4th amendment. Immigrants are arrested at court houses, where the vetting takes place, you know, by _judges_.
> they are the result of blood and tears of the patriots who fought and died to create, defend, and build that nation.
like my immigrant grandpop, achieved the american dream
No, I'm a legal, darker-skinned immigrant with lots of culture. Btw, I respect and admire the white race more than any other, even my own.
> mass migration is tightly controlled
Because of Trump. I remember months when Biden wouldn't bat an eye at 7-8 million who entered illegally in a single month.
> poor asylum seekers...
I'm an actual asylum seeker because the Venezuelan government contracted kidnappers to try to take out my family (I'm not getting into details). My family has integrity, works hard, was a good match for the country, and we were accepted. The US was NOT responsible for taking us in. I am thankful, not entitled.
> immigrant grandpa.
Good, and I'm sure he wouldn't have agreed to let strangers into the country without vetting.
oh thanks for clarifying which type of scum you are
The type that is cultured, educated, honors parents, and builds a traditional family unit, rooted in truth, logic, nature, God, and common sense. The type that admires the renaissance and western civilization. The type that has no problems being thankful for great civilizations, like Israel, Rome, Greece, and the amazing USA.
In other words, everything you hate.
You might not think that, but have you ever complained about housing prices? That food at the grocery store costs more than it did a few years ago? The price of consumer goods in general?
Well, you're not buying those things. You're bidding on them. And the more people there are, here, the higher those prices will be bid upwards.
High housing prices is a complex mix of underbuilding due to zoning laws, companies buying up housing stock to rent, and (a few years ago) very low interest rates. One thing that is _not_ a factor is immigrants, because they are at the bottom of the social pile and usually can't get mortgages to buy houses.
It very much is how all goods work, unfortunately. Food (except grain) doesn't travel or store well. If 100 million people left North America tomorrow, North America wouldn't start shipping the food for 100 million people to them whereever they went. Pretending otherwise might help you maintain faith in whatever religion you have that demands it be true, I suppose, but it's economically illiterate to claim otherwise.
>High housing prices is a complex mix of underbuilding
Or it's a simple answer of over-immigrating.
>because they are at the bottom of the social pile and usually can't get mortgages to buy houses.
Are they sleeping in ditches? No. They live somewhere. Because they live in those places, those places aren't available for non-immigrants to live in. It's really simple. They rent apartments, do they not? When demand outstrips supply, prices rise. When demand for apartments rise, even the price of houses goes up, because these things can substitute for one another to some degree.
> the more people there are, here, the higher those prices will be bid upwards
Who do you think is picking most of that food? And if the wages for those jobs went up to an American living wage, what do you think would happen to the price of food even with a bit lower demand?
I know it's all too easy and comforting to throw out knee-jerk comments cheerleading for government power, but at least try applying some basic analysis to what you write.
Your mistake is in believing that even if I answered this question with the answer you consider correct, that this would change my position.
>And if the wages for those jobs went up to an American living wage, what do you think would happen to the price of food even with a bit lower demand?
"I like to exploit immigrants and underpay them, because my out-of-season fruit will be too high for my smoothy frappucinos!" Silly things leftists say, haha.
>I know it's all too easy and comforting to throw out knee-jerk comments cheerleading for government power,
I'm not especially a big fan of government power. But I live in a country being held hostage by lunatic ideologues who think non-citizens should have the absolute right to live here, but only because they hope to stack the vote against their political opponents. So there's not really that many options left. Things will have to get far worse before they can get any better.
I'm not asking you to change your position, but rather to be honest about the effects of it.
> "I like to exploit immigrants and underpay them, because my out-of-season fruit will be too high for my smoothy frappucinos!"
I did not say anything of the sort, rather I acknowledged the current reality. One can also say "I want farm workers to be system legible, primarily Americans, and paid a living wage, even though it will make grocery prices go up". That's a consistent position. We can have honest discussions about those things. I don't think anybody actually likes the status quo.
> Silly things leftists say, haha
I know fascists have defined everything short of gushing praise for Dear Leader as the rAdIcAl lEfT, but I'm actually a libertarian.
> I live in a country being held hostage by lunatic ideologues who think non-citizens should have the absolute right to live here
Please explain how it's being "held hostage" when the party in power is enacting the exact opposite.
> So there's not really that many options left. Things will have to get far worse before they can get any better.
Sorry no, there are plenty of other options to institute the immigration policy you want here - which wouldn't require adding to the surveillance pantopticon, further empowering a domestic military, or trampling the Constitution and our natural rights.
So what we've actually got is a second issue of how those things are being carried out, supposedly in the name of doing something about immigration. But given how wholly anti-liberty and anti-American those actions are, and how there are already policy floaters on relaxing the hardline stance for "critical" industries reliant on cheap illegal labor, it begs the question of whether the immigration topic is even the main thrust here - or whether it's simply a pretext for autocratic authoritarian power for power's sake.
> I'm not especially a big fan of government power
Sorry, but yes you are. You're shunning the entire idea of limited constitutional government and inalienable constitutional/natural rights, seemingly because you like these particular results of crass authoritarianism. That's statism 101.
They did not "leave" the US, they were deported without due process.
> though NSA and google have been doing it for years
That does not make it less dismal
> less scope for this to be abused against american citizens unlike in the UK
There are agencies in the US that do as they please without needing to cooperate with anyone. Not sure how you arrived in that conclusion.
Why would anyone believe this? It's such a strange thing to say, and one would have to be an absolute fool to believe it.
Multiple of them believe this. One mentioned it, after she left I turned to my other coworker to say "that was some crazy stuff she was saying" only to be met with, "Hey, it's happening. A lot of federal money goes missing and this is exactly where it's going."
It's a complete disconnect from reality that's malleable to any form desired.
According to the current administration, who have a ... not exactly sterling ... reputation for accuracy and honesty in reporting.
The Trump administration loves gaudy numbers like this. Common sense tells you that's a lot of movement in too short of time. Until they release evidence of these numbers, please do not spread this misinformation.
> A recent study from the United Nations reported that President Trump’s immigration policies led to a 97% reduction in illegal aliens heading northbound to the U.S. from Central America.
And you find that the document they link does not support their assertion, and in face the "97%" refers to:
> The migrants who returned during the period were primarily Venezuelan nationals, accounting for 97% of the documented southward flow, with most heading to neighboring Colombia.
It's comically bad deception, only people who continuously traffic in lies all day long would even publish something like this.
Like, say we assume it's true: There are 340 million people in the US. That's less than 1% of the current population leaving. I really doubt anybody would notice much of a difference.
Is there something wrong with them?
It's more affluent than most other states. Most red states take more federal money than they give back. Maybe you should actually look at numbers rather than relying on memes and narratives.