91–100 of 155 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the US views it as its right to assemble who it wants to allow in. Same right, different perspective.
How so? It doesnt even seem remotely the same. That would be the right to prevent assembly.
Assembly amongst all groups simultaneously isn’t possible with humans who are not bifurcating bosons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who gets to define what is anti-American? Perhaps you think it's anti-American to believe that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza. Perhaps I think it's anti-American to believe that the Jan 6 rioters should have been pardoned. Whose purity test should we apply?
When it comes to allowing foreighn students to come to US, which from my understanding is a likely path to citizenship, the executive branch gets to decide, which is basically elected by 51% of population every 4 years. I prefer the exec branch over no purity test, or delegating to some other "expert" institution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They're explicit this is about curbing political activism by foreign students. Freedom of assembly is a universal human right; not that anyone seriously expects respect for those from the US any more.
Except the US views it as its right to assemble who it wants to allow in. Same right, different perspective.
And if they do, will that be available to the boarder agents?
Image being denied entry, because you were 16 and made some edgy posts / memes about Trump 10 years ago. Long deleted, to the point you can't even remember them - but now unearthed by CBP agents, and that's that.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of the people's opinion. Which elected a democratically-elected representative. That is how democracies work. If there's anything the executive has power over besides commander in chief, it would be leader in chief of defining what is actually, American. The fact that prior presidents have actually abdicated this important role, doesn't mean it didn't exist. This is why traditions of the State of the Uni…
And next time the Democrats get elected they will filter out all the right wing professors/students, and this will make you happy?
It is also illegal to do the same for students. [2]
Faculty is already protected under tenure rules. And even for the nontenured, who really needs protecting ? Only 5.7% of all faculty are registered as conservative as of 2020 [3]
My point remains. "Filtering out" is illegal. Setting the stage on what is american, is not.
[1] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-aff...
[2] https://www.nysasa.org/index.php/news/6558-schools-cannot-en...
[3] https://www.thecollegefix.com/democratic-professors-outnumbe...
I don't get why the US thought that it'd be a good idea to vet social media accounts for visa applications. If someone's having ill intent, one could easily create a burner account and fill in some random content for the sake of getting thru the visa application. Or they could even just purchase an account somewhere on the internet. Sad to see what US has become.
The timestamps will immediately give it away if you try to pull that though. Not to mention that they could also (if they want) just harvest data on what accounts already exist at what point in time, to detect actions like this. Lots of data brokers have such data already. And they could just do some cursory searches for other accounts you might have too, if you don't deactivate them...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think US embassy will reject political activism if it was against China?
Do you think you would be granted a visa by China if your social media was full of anti-China rhetoric?
I bet you'd be granted a visa by china if your social media was full of anti-israel rhetoric though...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think US embassy will reject political activism if it was against China?
Do you think you would be granted a visa by China if your social media was full of anti-China rhetoric?
Wasn't the whole premise of democracy to express yourself freely and the core idea was "rule by the people"?
If country claims that they are democracy, then they should give people to add their opinion to rule the country, China is following its own core idea, ruled by a single party.
So many things are being done to protect a single country outside of the USA, even on a different continent, including losing its credibility about free speech and human rights.
This has little to do with a single country and more with the fact that if someone is willing to fight for anything other than the current administration then one day they might fight against the current administration directly. Same reason Stalin sent those who fought in the Warsaw Uprising against the Germans to Siberia. Today it's the Germans, tomorrow it may be the Soviets.
So what? isn't the core idea in democracy "ruled by the people", Why can't you fight against the current administration with your opinion and opposition to their ideas?