> ... Allowing foreigners to join political protests in your country...
Protests are protected by the 1st Amendment. The constitution applies to everyone in US jurisdiction. Gov actions here are not appropriate or accepatble.
> ...obviously insane thing to advocate for.
Advocating for this individual's right to join a protest is not insane. Safeguarding constitutional rights is wise by default.
> Does it make sense for me and a bunch of friends to go to Thailand and protest the way they run their country?
This topic concerns the actions of US Gov; it's about which actions are specifically limited by the Constitution. Enforcing those limits is how we protect our rights.
It makes sense to advocate for the constitutional rights of individuals.
Further, not advocating for others' constitutional rights - this is a factor in erosion of rights overall. I offer that the 100mi constitution-free zone adjacent to US borders is an example of that¹.
If Thailand's government is similarly bound by it's constitution, it is probably wise for Thai people to advocate for individual rights.
The people who we are debating with seem to have the opinion that people from around the world have the right to assemble in the United States. That indeed is an interesting take.
> The people who we are debating with seem to have the opinion that people from around the world have the right to assemble in the United States. That indeed is an interesting take.
Our opinion is that the US Constitution applies to the people within a US jurisdiction. In this, our opinion is correct.
As far as you disagree with that, your disagreement will be with the Constitution - which is your inalienable right.
It it an actuality and not a not a technicality. The reasons remain the same as the last time you made the assertion. Also for the next time.
You've been heading toward the farthest boundary of good faith discussion for some time now. At this point, I think you are signaling that you have crossed it.
If the person had his visa cancelled, then the ideal way would have been to not let him on the plane at point of departure. As this didn't happen then the next location entry can be denied is at the border within the destination airport, and he was denied entry there. If you argue that he has landed, is on US soil, is handled by US law enforcement, then are you also saying that regardless of whether this person has a visa or not, he should be let assembled in the United States regardless of the visa status?
> It's ideological libertarinism taken to the absurd point of essentially anarchy.
Constitutionalism is about the core restraints placed on Gov. Not violating the constitution is it's own thing. Because it defines order, it is the opposite of anarchy.
Does some ideology or some facet of libertarian overlap here? I have no idea. It isn't relevant tho.
"Does it make sense for a place with a completely different governance structure, completely different laws, and completely different norms (notably lacking the US Constitution and its unique 1st Amendment protections) to behave differently?"
Uhhh yes. You would expect a different result in a different place. Here in America we have the laws that exist in America. In Thailand they have the laws that exist in Thailand.
The technicality being "to avoid violating the foundational laws of our country?"
Yeah, in the world of law you have to do stuff correctly and technically correctly. What country do you live in where this isn't the case, so I know never to go there?
He was trying to enter the country and was denied at the border (for a reason we don't know). The technicality being that he was on US soil. Had he been denied entry to the plane at point of departure, would that have been ok?
How horrible, how unacceptable. He probably even advocates for ending the genocide in Gaza. Good thing we have freedom in this country, to send the boots after those pesky peaceful protesters.
Yes, but you are currently arguing because the person on your side of the argument. For me, the question is more of whether you should allow people enter the country who cause civil unrest. It doesn't sound reasonable to allow a free-for-all entry to anyone, both to me subjectively, but I would also assume to all people for whom the US is their home country.
Well, we don't know the legal reason he was denied entry. Given that this is a foreign student and a protester, it could be that his permission to enter the country was revoked due to exceeding his purpose to be in the US.
I'm not debating what the legal formulation was, I just don't get the people who think he should have been let in. Since as in computer programming and in law, you can't nail down any circumstance in existence - you sometimes need apply the "do what I mean" rather than "do what said". In this case it does seem that the government did what the population would have liked it to have done. Though, I guess if he would sue, then you would do well in being his lawyers.
> “We both know why you’ve been detained…it’s because of what you wrote about the protests at Columbia”
I have no clue if this is actually true, but operating from the same set of facts that you have: we know exactly why he was detained, and assuming the facts we've been provided, we know for sure that it is unconstitutional
> it does seem that the government did what the population would have liked it to have done
You have no clue what "the population would have liked," and neither do I, and neither does the state. That's why we have the First Amendment, to preclude them from attempting such ridiculous assertions of omniscience.
But he was denied entry at the border. I guess it would have been better, if the person could have been not let on the plane in the first place - then it he would have not been needed to be "detained".
