[0] https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116973/documents/...
Edit: yeah ok fair call. it needs to apply to anyone, still the US needs to be able to say : I dont like you, you cant enter.
But even barring people from entry because they don't toe a partisan party line is pretty ludicrous for the "land of the free".
Do you think it should apply only to citizens?
We can default to the Supreme Court's ruling in Bridges vs Wixon: "Freedom of speech and of press is accorded to aliens residing in this country.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=107220981080384...
I'll remove my comment if a clear case exists that is not generally celebrating it here.
Also note that in order to remove your comment, a clear case would have to exist in the first place.
> comments will state that the other side did it first.
That is exactly the excuse they are using for a lot of this type of sick behavior/policy, despite the examples being weak.
So, here is a question: is it for the US gov to tell me, a citizen "we don't like you and wouldn't let you enter if you weren't already here"? Because that certainly seems to be what they are saying? Does it make sense why I'd be worried about the government of the only place where I have citizenship letting me know that they would expel me if I hadn't been born here?
It was pointed out how historically un-American this is, and your response is to say we should in fact expand this policy - to be able to kick people out of the country or deny them entry for saying things online that aren't even as dramatic, hateful, or violence-glorifying as the things that this administration's supporters constantly, constantly, constantly say, for example, about victims of police shooting or victims of mass shootings?
No political party that supports free speech claimed it was so absolute that we ignore the national security implications of non-citizens promoting violence against US citizens.
The richest man in the world called himself a free speech absolutist.
That vanished into the wind.
I see no change in stance.
The stance flipped polarity utterly.
It's not "we should beat up this ethnic group", it's "hey everyone, let's meet downtown at 5pm and strat beating up this ethic group".
It has to be a specific and imminent incitement of violence.
Trump / Kirk U.S. Medal of Freedom hit parade...
https://www.independent.co.:uk/news/world/americas/us-politi...
Young Republican leadership's internal language about their countrymen, writ in rampant death & torture threats, unhinged bigotry and hatred, heartbreaking callousness and disregard for the welfare of others, and all of it festooned with a sociopathic posture of contrition to masquerade an utter perversion of the values of brotherhood and personal "responsibility"...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
halperter•3mo ago