Rubio can say what he wants but there's no record of her doing anything else and he's a proven liar. If it was something else let them allege it. There isn't.

I haven't checked, but perhaps the other authors were citizens?

They might have been citizens. He is a well-known liar. It most certainly is the op-ed. I know for a fact the Adelsons made contributions to the campaign for this single issue (they are fanatically Jewish and donate to Israel exorbitant amounts out of religiosity). The irony is they made their fortunes in gambling... Due process would have our gov lay out explicitly why she and others were arrested, but Thugs will behave as thugs until a bigger bully comes around

the confusion was caused by you using the term fiancée, which is the female form. the male form is fiancé

rooting out bad actors is most effectively done by proper education to keep them from becoming bad actors in the first place. any other approach in rooting out bad actors risks judgement errors and should only be applied in the most egregious of cases. and even there the approach should be: "look, you may mean well, but your actions hurt to many people, and therefore we must reject your approach and tell you to stop"

but this is the problem. we lost good faith. but we can't continue down this road. it will end in a bureaucratic nightmare.

laws can only cover the excesses. if you make laws to detailed then the enforcement of those laws will become to expensive and that will make them even less likely to be enforced. one example are social benefits. it has been argued (i don't know in which country) that being less strict in who gets benefits would save more money than the loss caused by those who should not receive them.

NIMBYism is also an outgrowth of that. another example, in germany large scale projects are taking decades and cost 10 times as much as planned because people are not acting in good faith. the US is not far behind in some areas. (the high speed rail project in california comes to mind)

yes, you can't rely on people acting in good faith. but there was a time when you could. and we need to get back to that.

> How can mankind have any future at all, when education is one of the tools used to indoctrinate children into not wanting children of their own someday? The first priority of any society/civilization must always be that of making the next generation of people... or else that society/civilization will soon cease to exist. And we no longer hold that as a priority. Whatever the solution might be, I do not think that it can use the education system, in whole or in part, without serious reform of the sort that would frighten those who most want to use it.

Education is in no way indoctrinating children into not wanting children.

You are conflating education with the current economical system, which uses education to have a trained workforce to generate value for companies. It's this system that is pushing people to not want kids, when kids are expensive in terms of time and money, where people work under a system that attempts to extract as much time as possible for production, it's just natural people won't be feeling any higher drive to have kids of their own.

You are blaming education while the issue is much more pervasive and systemic, we live in a world of abundant goods but precarious labour, we produce a lot but don't feel safe nor relaxed enough to tackle one of the most stressful events in someone's life.

Just look at workaholic societies like South Korea and Japan, societal pressures around earning money to support a family, showing status about your job, keeping a career as a mom, etc. eventually completely remove any desire to start families.

Dude I live in a hyper red state. The majority of people I know have basically the same common values as friends in Santa Cruz. Now switch to talk in 'propagandized' terms and it switches to extreme, but remove that and just talk and there isn't much difference.

They want immigrants gone, but every immigrant they know is hardworking good people and THEY should be allowed to stay.

They want crime tougher but their friend who fell out of the world because of fent/mexis they wish could get help not prison.

They want capitalism but love their communal national forests and depend on it's deer/elk meat as a huge (normally the majority) source of their protein.

They want smaller government/less government services. But their mom is dependant on government services, and their cousin with a disabled kid wouldn't survive without government help/the school specialized help so that is needed/valued, and when they were kids were dependant at points on government food programs so those are needed.

But one party talks down to them, says they live in flyover country, and promotes people like Jon Stewart unfairly skewering people they see as like them as it's 'entertainment', while the other party pretends it thinks they have value. So they choose the party, eat up the propaganda, that treats them like people/with at least some dignity.

Republicans are not toddlers. If an alcoholic adult falls on stairs, itnis not fault of his wife.

>It's just that they also think the Republicans are beyond hope so there's no point attempting to make them feel guilty.

How could one ever hope to make them feel guilty about wanting different things than Democratic voters? They do not want to be your friends, or your neighbors, or any other relationship where they should feel guilty for their voting interests. You might as well ask yourself why you don't feel guilty for leaning Democrat.

I see the reasoning. But assuming that the cultural threat is real for them, how would you state this problem without being a nazi? Is this possible in your "set of axioms"?

>that gives thugs free rein to grab people who are not harming others off the street, and imprison them, is immoral,

What's harm? Do they have to have harmful intent, or would you object if their presence was unintentionally harmful? Does the harm have to be grievous bodily injury, or is economic harm enough? Why am I allowed to evict trespassers from my home even if they're causing me no physical injury, but the government isn't allowed to evict trespassers to our country unless they can prove some violent felony? It isn't some fundamental human right to live within the borders of the United States.

I believe they are free to challenge the decision in an administrative court in the US (under Attorney General, not an Article III court) but they can be arrested. In any case, most countries would reserve the rights to kick you out. That's the deal you make with the country when you choose to get their visa and go there.

The law spells out exactly what can be done. Your issue is you don't like the law and want more leniency for the alien, which is a fine position to argue, but that is not the law that has been on the books for 30+ years.

I don't want to debate my opinion on the merits of the current law; clearly we can agree/disagree on some of the points on how it should be written, but I will respond your questions with a different one: do you really believe that there are absolutely zero foreign actors/implants on student visas? If not, you should at least give some deference to the US government intelligence apparatus to know what they are doing. They have reportedly cancelled 300 visas? If it were 10x more, I would start to worry, but 300 sounds like security apparatus functioning properly.

I believe you are mixing up different cases. That is not the statute used at all for the Turkey case. The Alien Enemies Act you are referring to was exclusively used for the designated foreign terrorist organizations (i.e. TdA & MS13; Venezuelans who went to El Salvador prison).

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.