Matt, “yes” to your question. We are in a world of asymmetrical conflict, and you are dusting off your Marquis de Queensbury rules for civilized engagement against people who want to destroy everything you hold dear. Our citizens can make the case for different points of view. We don’t need radical immigrants from failed states to come h…
Matt, “yes” to your question. We are in a world of asymmetrical conflict, and you are dusting off your Marquis de Queensbury rules for civilized engagement against people who want to destroy everything you hold dear. Our citizens can make the case for different points of view. We don’t need radical immigrants from failed states to come here and lecture us about apartheid, genocide and other concerns of theirs. They can return to their countries and lead by example.
"We don’t need radical immigrants from failed states to come here and lecture us about apartheid ..."
Then don't admit them. Once they're here, they have many of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution. Those rights can't be wished away by the executive, or they're not really rights at all.
Greg - "Then don't admit them" you say. Immigration officials aren't mind readers. Foreigners with ill intentions would naturally conceal such intentions in order to gain legal status into the US. If they are successful in doing so, then it shouldn't be that they are home free forever regardless of subsequent behavior.
Their intentions are still the same as before and when they turn those intentions into actions which would have barred them entry in the first place, it follows that they can legitimately be deported. Essentially, isn't a legal immigrant's status probationary until he acquires full citizenship?
Matt, “yes” to your question. We are in a world of asymmetrical conflict, and you are dusting off your Marquis de Queensbury rules for civilized engagement against people who want to destroy everything you hold dear. Our citizens can make the case for different points of view. We don’t need radical immigrants from failed states to come here and lecture us about apartheid, genocide and other concerns of theirs. They can return to their countries and lead by example.
Kahil is not a radical immigrant.
He fits my definition of one.
Your definition sounds shady.
And your asymmetrical conflict justifications sound very Bush administration.
"We don’t need radical immigrants from failed states to come here and lecture us about apartheid ..."
Then don't admit them. Once they're here, they have many of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution. Those rights can't be wished away by the executive, or they're not really rights at all.
Greg - "Then don't admit them" you say. Immigration officials aren't mind readers. Foreigners with ill intentions would naturally conceal such intentions in order to gain legal status into the US. If they are successful in doing so, then it shouldn't be that they are home free forever regardless of subsequent behavior.
Their intentions are still the same as before and when they turn those intentions into actions which would have barred them entry in the first place, it follows that they can legitimately be deported. Essentially, isn't a legal immigrant's status probationary until he acquires full citizenship?
Agree with “don’t admit them”. I’d like to hear more about what the rights of green card holders are under U.S. law.
When Trump, Lindsay Graham and others kowtow to Netanyahu, aren’t we already destroying everything we hold dear?