Hacker News Reader

Comment by MPSFounder | Hacker News Reader

Except the people I cited were legal permanent residents and not "visitors" or "solely here as students". A legal permanent resident is by definition a national. In most forms, you will see US citizens/nationals refer to born or naturalized citizens AND legal residents. So your point is fabricated.

View on HN

> A legal permanent resident is by definition a national

You just pulled this from your ass. Absolutely not true.

I stand corrected. US nationals refers to something else, but is sometimes used to include permanent residents alongside citizens. I am not familiar with the terminology, but my point stands. A legal permanent resident is very different from the situation you are citing, and I think if you believe they are not entitled to free speech (in particular, for offending a foreign country), we have a much bigger problem here.

Given now that EU and Australia have decided that free speech is incompatible with public order (hecklers veto), what are these fabled other places left that do have free speech? While I’m sure they’d be free to criticize Israel in their home countries I’m also sure there are others they are not free to criticize.

I’m an old school free speech absolutist and would prefer unfettered free speech but when neither side of politics supports it I have to be realistic as that battle has been already lost.

The terminology makes all the difference, though. You cannot just handwave it away. A US National is not removable by the discretion of U.S. Secretary of State, but a LPR can be found deportable based on that. The law could not be more clear. This is not a First Amendment concern. You don't have to commit a crime or to be charged with one. Even your mere presence is enough to trigger the statute. You can debate if Rubio should exercise that right and vote for a different President to elect a different cabinet to execute the law differently, or to elect a different Congress to change the law, but to say he does not have the right or that it is vague is preposterous. It is just that some people are not aware of the details and may have a different expectation compared to the status quo.

If you don't like that status quo, that's fair enough, but that's not a proof of non-resilience. The system is supposed to operate based on some approximation of will of the people and it has been quite resilient in approximating it.

As for me, allow me to be skeptical of you having a coherent, well-thought-out alternative of an immigration system with all the consequences and corner cases covered, especially if you are not familiar with the basic terminology of the current one.

In general the people making appeals to freedom of speech as a traditionally held cultural value are the same ones who not long ago espoused that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

It was a bad idea then, it’s a bad idea now, but I would have much more sympathy for the left had they maintained a tradition of freedom of speech as a cultural value throughout and not only when its convenient for them.

Your point in hypocrisy of appeal to Freedom of Speech (cultural, not constitutional) is well-taken, but I would argue it is a red-herring: unless you have studied their intelligence files, it is not at all clear to the general public whether the deportees are merely selected because of a speech concern or some more nefarious intent or association.

Keeping secrets from the public is a good way to lose the public trust which they’ll need to stay in power. Otherwise their replacements will have their own secret reasons to be deporting people.

I’ve already resigned myself to the reality that freedom of speech no longer exists and hasn’t existed for some time. I think only the times when we thought we had freedom of speech was when information was very tightly controlled and the few cranks in the periphery were not a threat to government legitimacy. An increasingly weak and illegitimate government cannot afford to allow free speech.

I believe they stated that for at least a few of the cases: dude came to the US to dismantle western civilization and acted upon it.

Good riddance. They are free to exercise their Freedom of Speech and Due Process under Sharia Law in their home country (or the UK).

If the right loses the culture war then those deported will just be invited back to finish the job.

Either do a ‘dewokification’ on the scale of Germanys ‘denazification’ or do not. This half measure is sure to fail, exercising power may be cathartic but it comes at the cost of legitimacy which in the long run will come at the cost of power. The Trump administration should focus on governing well not on capriciously punishing weak individuals in raids. The right wing is split on the issue of Israel and the pending war with Iran is already unpopular and it hasn’t even started yet.

Sometimes I wonder if the only thing that could save the right would be if AOC gets the democratic nomination - I wouldn’t put it past them.

I would also disagree very much with your point including for visitors. Individuals visiting America value our free speech. Renouncing it in favor of a foreign country (most of those arrested were deported for anti-Israel sentiment), is not something we should be proud of. It makes me sad that fellow Americans turn down those who wanted to be here, in favor of a hostile nation that couldn't care less about any American and that has gained immensely from grift on our taxes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com