Really? Or do you just dislike the guy and think his status makes him a soft target?
I am trying to imagine what Green Card holders are actually allowed to do in this evolution of the first amendment. Can they have political opinions at all, or should they just stick to praising whoever’s in power? Where’s the cut off - if they disagreed …
Really? Or do you just dislike the guy and think his status makes him a soft target?
I am trying to imagine what Green Card holders are actually allowed to do in this evolution of the first amendment. Can they have political opinions at all, or should they just stick to praising whoever’s in power? Where’s the cut off - if they disagreed with trans rights under Biden, should they have been deported? Can you apply this retroactively, so when the regime changes you can go back and deport people for things they said under the last administration? And how about residents of American territories - do they get free speech?
All countries who sign up to free speech as a political tool usually turn out to limit it in some way, and that way is usually controversial when it’s applied. In the U.K. it’s about whether the speaker is trying to inspire material harm to someone else/a group, and right now we have too broad a definition of what “harm” means. We are challenging that in our courts and doing pretty well on course correcting. If this is actually an example of the American first amendment being interpreted around where reasonable limits to free speech are in a democratic society, fine. But if that’s the case, let’s cut the free speech absolutism posturing, and especially Vance’s use of it to hector perfectly functional democracies.
“I am trying to imagine what Green Card holders are actually allowed to do in this evolution of the first amendment.”
How about “nothing the native populace finds objectionable”, which is the same unambiguous standard applied around the world to all guests of their host nations?
What’s not reasonable is the idea that national guests have a claim to the same rights and privileges of citizens. If they do why would anyone naturalize?
Any of ‘em. Who cares? If you believe that puts a non-citizen visitor of the United States in the precarious position of avoiding controversial political speech in an effort to “keep their head down” and avoid deportation - good! That’s literally exactly what we all should want! Foreigners should not come to the United States and engage in advocacy, in protest, in agitation, or in any attempt to influence the society of America whatsoever. It’s not their country!
Which members of the native populace? The whole point is that Americans are deeply divided on what they find objectionable.
Of course national guests can be deported if they actually break the law, in a way that citizens cannot. That’s the biggest citizen entitlement. But if they haven’t broken the law and have just pissed off someone currently in power with their opinions, that’s quite a different bar. I am surprised you don’t recognise that.
I don’t see how it’s different at all - lots of conduct is impermissible and undesirable without rising to the level of illegality. That certainly includes advocating for the murder of Jews in the US and Israel.
So for you this is a single issue application about what is permissible to say, not an actual policy position on immigrants and permanent residents. I thought that would turn out to be the case, but it’s useful to see it set out clearly as “You can’t say that in our free speech absolutist paradise”.
So let’s look at another way. Why is it okay for you for Americans to say they advocate for the murder of Jews in the US and Isreal? Or would you kind of like that to be restricted too?
My actual policy position on immigrants and permanent residents is that “don’t attract negative attention” is not a difficult standard to reach - this is based on several years of my experience of literally myself being a guest in a country and not being a nuisance there - and our policy should be to deport anyone who can’t get over that bar.
The United States is already more open to guests than most countries because we don’t bar them from owning things. We don’t need to be so open that we admit people who notoriously plot the downfall of our society.
Yes, your position is that non-Americans may not have political views or civil liberties to express them because they never know which way the wind will blow in your culture war. And I can see you’re making very excuse in the book to defend that.
Yes, that’s correct - what could be my possible interest, as an American citizen, in permitting political expression in America by people who aren’t American?
Oh I see - you’re living in a comfortable delusion that Americans all have shared values and shared ideas, so by shutting up permanent residents you can shut down most dissent. That’s more than a little silly, and it’s incorrect. The real function will be to shut down freedom on speech in all sorts of industries that depend on highly skilled migrants (hello, tech industry, universities, healthcare) right when you desperately need to rebalance them.
You need to start thinking of the unforeseen consequences of your myopia.
That non-citizens have the same Constitutional protections while in the U.S. isn't just reasonable, it's enshrined in the 14th Amendment and the courts have upheld it for over a century.
I agree! It does, however extend an entitlement to due process and the 1st Amendment, which means non-citizens are as free to criticize the U.S. (or anything else) as much as citizens are, without fear of reprisal from the government.
Really? Or do you just dislike the guy and think his status makes him a soft target?
I am trying to imagine what Green Card holders are actually allowed to do in this evolution of the first amendment. Can they have political opinions at all, or should they just stick to praising whoever’s in power? Where’s the cut off - if they disagreed with trans rights under Biden, should they have been deported? Can you apply this retroactively, so when the regime changes you can go back and deport people for things they said under the last administration? And how about residents of American territories - do they get free speech?
All countries who sign up to free speech as a political tool usually turn out to limit it in some way, and that way is usually controversial when it’s applied. In the U.K. it’s about whether the speaker is trying to inspire material harm to someone else/a group, and right now we have too broad a definition of what “harm” means. We are challenging that in our courts and doing pretty well on course correcting. If this is actually an example of the American first amendment being interpreted around where reasonable limits to free speech are in a democratic society, fine. But if that’s the case, let’s cut the free speech absolutism posturing, and especially Vance’s use of it to hector perfectly functional democracies.
“I am trying to imagine what Green Card holders are actually allowed to do in this evolution of the first amendment.”
How about “nothing the native populace finds objectionable”, which is the same unambiguous standard applied around the world to all guests of their host nations?
What’s not reasonable is the idea that national guests have a claim to the same rights and privileges of citizens. If they do why would anyone naturalize?
There is not a single thing that anyone can do that wouldn’t offend some American. This is *literally* an impossible standard.
Any of ‘em. Who cares? If you believe that puts a non-citizen visitor of the United States in the precarious position of avoiding controversial political speech in an effort to “keep their head down” and avoid deportation - good! That’s literally exactly what we all should want! Foreigners should not come to the United States and engage in advocacy, in protest, in agitation, or in any attempt to influence the society of America whatsoever. It’s not their country!
I genuinely think you’re a really bad person for this view. I think you should re-evaluate a lot of things.
I think this is a terrible way of communicating in a political sphere. People do not become bad people for their views.
I think you’re a stupid and antisocial person for the position you hold and I know you won’t rethink it.
Then let’s just close up the whole country since someone hurt your feelings. God. What a bunch of fucking snow flakes.
Which members of the native populace? The whole point is that Americans are deeply divided on what they find objectionable.
Of course national guests can be deported if they actually break the law, in a way that citizens cannot. That’s the biggest citizen entitlement. But if they haven’t broken the law and have just pissed off someone currently in power with their opinions, that’s quite a different bar. I am surprised you don’t recognise that.
I don’t see how it’s different at all - lots of conduct is impermissible and undesirable without rising to the level of illegality. That certainly includes advocating for the murder of Jews in the US and Israel.
So for you this is a single issue application about what is permissible to say, not an actual policy position on immigrants and permanent residents. I thought that would turn out to be the case, but it’s useful to see it set out clearly as “You can’t say that in our free speech absolutist paradise”.
So let’s look at another way. Why is it okay for you for Americans to say they advocate for the murder of Jews in the US and Isreal? Or would you kind of like that to be restricted too?
My actual policy position on immigrants and permanent residents is that “don’t attract negative attention” is not a difficult standard to reach - this is based on several years of my experience of literally myself being a guest in a country and not being a nuisance there - and our policy should be to deport anyone who can’t get over that bar.
The United States is already more open to guests than most countries because we don’t bar them from owning things. We don’t need to be so open that we admit people who notoriously plot the downfall of our society.
Yes, your position is that non-Americans may not have political views or civil liberties to express them because they never know which way the wind will blow in your culture war. And I can see you’re making very excuse in the book to defend that.
Yes, that’s correct - what could be my possible interest, as an American citizen, in permitting political expression in America by people who aren’t American?
Oh I see - you’re living in a comfortable delusion that Americans all have shared values and shared ideas, so by shutting up permanent residents you can shut down most dissent. That’s more than a little silly, and it’s incorrect. The real function will be to shut down freedom on speech in all sorts of industries that depend on highly skilled migrants (hello, tech industry, universities, healthcare) right when you desperately need to rebalance them.
You need to start thinking of the unforeseen consequences of your myopia.
I have no particular desire to shut down dissent; it’s just that the only people who are entitled to dissent in America are Americans.
That doesn't sound unambiguous at all.
That non-citizens have the same Constitutional protections while in the U.S. isn't just reasonable, it's enshrined in the 14th Amendment and the courts have upheld it for over a century.
The Constitution does not extend an entitlement to reside in the country to people who are not citizens of it.
I agree! It does, however extend an entitlement to due process and the 1st Amendment, which means non-citizens are as free to criticize the U.S. (or anything else) as much as citizens are, without fear of reprisal from the government.
No, I disagree that it does.