IDK, I think "foreigners shouldn't be coming over here as guests and then trying to influence our politics" is a reasonable stance, and doesn't say anything about targeting citizens.
If that were a uniform stance, maybe, but when it's used for partisan reasons by the party in power it's a different story. That's also not the law, the law is that anyone in the country has the right to free speech. If rights only apply to citizens it is a mockery of the freedoms this country is built on.
you expect them to recall some analogous example of politic deportations years ago?
and anyway, almost certainly the answer is yes; it is not hard to believe that a person's stance is that systematically deporting people for disagreeing with the government is wrong. "Trump bad" is very often on the basis of principles which trump is violating, not just because it's Trump. Surely you realize that people are mad at him a lot because of the thing he does?
Do you recall an instance where Obama attempted to revoke someone's visa for protesting? I don't believe that happened a single time.
I am generally against deportations for people who haven't committed any violent crime. I don't usually waste my time talking about it when law enforcement is enforcing the laws as written though. From what I saw, Obama was enforcing the law as written. I was often opposed to what he was doing, but I don't find much point in trying to get the president to do illegal things, even if I would prefer the law be different. In fact, if you look at Obama's actions there were quite a few times Obama chose not to deport people for reasons I generally supported, but the courts said it was illegal. So again, even as I might've disagreed, focusing on Obama would be missing the point that the law needs to change, which is something that needs to happen in Congress.
I find the current situation particularly egregious because immigration agents have not only deported legal residents who have committed no crimes nor have they violated any terms of their visas, but also executed American citizens who have committed no crime.
When did Obama create a masked gestapo that kills innocent civilians? Oh right. Never. Both siding with trump makes you look like a bot troll or worse.
I'd say the difference with the deportations under Obama (aside from deporting more people while spending less money doing it) is that he followed the law when doing so
As a person who spent a couple of hours watching our local ICE facility today, I'd say the differences are purely aesthetic.
I've gotten to where I don't really care -what- the law is and believe that from an ethical standpoint if a person can have a house and a job and not cause trouble I don't care if they are from Honduras or Houston- any position other than that is just racism with extra steps.
And I am aware that probably sounds crazy to most folks here but at this point I don't care. The folks I organize with have been working since before Trump and will likely be working still when the Democrats put whatever stuff suit their leadership selects.
I would have a hard time arguing that after seeing Alex Pretti's public execution. I also think we can at least partially agree on who should be targeted (emphasis my own):
> Carefully calibrated revisions to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immigration enforcement priorities and practices [...] *[made] noncitizens with criminal records the top enforcement target* [0]
I consider there to be a gulf of difference between the murder of American citizens in-between detaining anyone caught speaking the wrong language, and Obama's DHS and immigration policy.
> any position other than that is just racism with extra steps
Here I'll politely disagree to agree; in the same way Uber and Lyft flooded the driver market and collapsed the price of a medallion, so to does open borders flood the market with workers, collapsing the worth of my labour.
You haven't been paying attention. And that's ok. Obama was destroying families, and killing peoples, he just did it out of sight with a charming smile.
You think people deported by him didn't die as a result? You think his massive expansion of drone violence didn't kill people living lives as rich and complex as Pretti's? You don't remember Obama deciding not to prosecute people for Abu Ghraib?
weird, don't you think that stance is just fear of free speech? I see it as completely unreasonable. America (of the past now?) has a history of inviting all kinds of people to discuss politics, philosophy, religion from all over the world.... but now you are scared of what people have to say? Also if you don't recognize that it is political targeting (not of citizens, but anyone by any means the government has its disposal), then that's a real problem. We can see the targeting of legitimate visitors, attacks on birth right citizenship, attempts to reconstruct electoral borders. Mass firing from the government institutions of people with differing opinions. Like I said, it's weird americans are so accepting.... "seems reasonable".
> weird, don't you think that stance is just fear of free speech? I see it as completely unreasonable. America (of the past now?) has a history of inviting all kinds of people to discuss politics, philosophy, religion from all over the world.... but now you are scared of what people have to say?
I think active political campaigning is a bit different from discussing political philosophy, and it's a major mistake to treat the former as "just free speech". (I think Citizens United was a massive misjudgement that has lead directly to many of our present-day problems). I think we're all agreed that foreigners should not be standing for office or voting in elections, and foreigners other than permanent residents are already barred from making campaign contributions; to my mind this kind of protest aimed at changing government policy falls into the same category. A protest like that isn't an effort to convey some insight or argument; it's an effort to demonstrate viscerally that the citizenry have a strong view on an issue. I don't think allowing foreign participation helps with that; quite the opposite.
There have been a lot of claims in recent years - from both sides of the aisle - that enemy countries have been deliberately disrupting US politics in order to harm the country. I think it's vital that our political process not only has integrity but is seen to have integrity, and part of that is ensuring that adversaries cannot unduly influence it.
Well, fair enough, but you must acknowledge that that's the democratic consensus and the law as it stands.
> Do they live here? Work here?
The person in question is on a student visa, so (assuming they're not abusing the system) sort of but not really; they're here for a few years, and they might be doing a little part-time work to support themselves but they're meant to be here to study for a limited period rather than have already moved their life here permanently, they're supposed to intend or at least be open to the possibility of going back when their course finishes.
Do you think that having a say in the way the place you live for 5% of your life might increase the odds you want to settle down there and contribute to making it a good place?
Someone is working on completing their higher education here, seems like that would select for folks who had an interest in education, the resilience to complete a degree, the means to do so, etc. If I didn't believe that borders were generally bad, and instead believed that immigration was good if controlled, it would seem that students are people we'd want to immigrate.
> Do you think that having a say in the way the place you live for 5% of your life might increase the odds you want to settle down there and contribute to making it a good place?
I think giving foreign students the vote would make some of them (the most politically opinionated ones) more likely to want to immigrate permanently, yes. Whether that would be a good thing is very much in dispute.
> Someone is working on completing their higher education here, seems like that would select for folks who had an interest in education, the resilience to complete a degree, the means to do so, etc.
But by the same logic, the worse the conditions attached to doing so, the stronger the selection effect will be.
> If I didn't believe that borders were generally bad
Then you might be in a more reasonable position to understand the general citizenry, rather than sitting in a glass house calling others "weird".
> it would seem that students are people we'd want to immigrate
I used to think that before I talked to more wannabe-immigrants. Goodhart's Law is turbocharged when it comes to routes to immigrate; if being a "student" is the easiest way to get a foot in the door then people will eagerly pay thousands for a "degree" they don't care about, and there are plenty of places happy to take their money. See the whole "day 1 CPT" industry for the apotheosis of that. Even if there was an enforcement crackdown on the worst abuses, it would be virtually impossible to eliminate the cases further along the spectrum, because it's a mutually beneficial arrangement for everyone involved except the rest of us.
> Then you might be in a more reasonable position to understand the general citizenry, rather than sitting in a glass house calling others "weird".
Did I call anyone weird? Did I insinuate my opinion was somehow objectively better? I just have a different opinion than you on borders and immigration, and we're allowed to differ on opinions.
"Influencing our politics" is broad, but I do think foreigners should be allowed to organize strikes, or go to political rallies without risk of being deported.
