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.
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 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.