| ▲ | codingisfreedom a day ago |
| Agreed. People seem to hold views that getting visas to the US is a human right. It’s no fun, but these are adults (and often very privileged adults) that decided to move to a new country for more upside at the cost of no residency. Conflating this with “inhumane” is just a basic misunderstanding of immigration and the contract these people signed up for. Very uncomfortable, yet a risk these people took, and hopefully a conscious one. |
|
| ▲ | theF00l a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| You are both conflating technical correctness with morality |
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | eudamoniac a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You are conflating morality with proper governance. Democratic government must enact the will of the citizen body, even if immoral in some frameworks. | | |
| ▲ | mixdup a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Democratic government must also allow the citizen body to voice their displeasure with the activity of the government, and to give their reasons for that displeasure | | |
| ▲ | mlrtime 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | They do, it's called voting. And you also have the right to voice your support. | | |
| ▲ | mixdup 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | You also have the right to voice your disapproval, which as the point of my reply to a comment that seemed to indicate otherwise |
|
| |
| ▲ | theF00l a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | So it can be inhumane then, by your definition? | | |
| ▲ | nonethewiser a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I dont think the moral/legal conflation is even the main tension here. I think this distinction would help as well. Inhumane != human rights violation.
Both of these things can be true at the same time: 1. It can be inhumane to halt someone's visa application
2. Visa applicants have no human right to have their application processed
One side hammers the first point because they disagree with the government. The other side hammers the second point because they agree with the government.Everyone is right, except for the implication that their point disproves the other side's point. | |
| ▲ | eudamoniac a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure. Unless you prefer autocratic rule by a moral paragon, democracy involves doing what people want, not what is moral. Often what is nominally moral is not good for the country or its people. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | afavour a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > People seem to hold views that getting visas to the US is a human right. Come on, there's nothing to be gained by misrepresenting people's views. The argument is a simple one: if you are currently within the immigration process you should be able to move through that process in a timely manner, with clear communication of expectations. Freezing appointments is a political hack: they're not changing the law, they're not altering what anyone is entitled to. They're just leaving people in limbo. You're saying "these people took a risk", and you're right. But that doesn't mean we can't criticize the people ensuring their bet is a losing one in the least moral way possible. |
| |
| ▲ | nonethewiser a day ago | parent [-] | | Here is what hvb2 actually said: > “Just ‘putting a pause’ on people with existing appointments with no answer for when they might resume is.... Inhumane” And now you're saying: > “if you are currently within the immigration process you should be able to move through that process in a timely manner, with clear communication of expectations.” Sure it sucks. But do you understand there is no right to have this visa application interview nor a yes/no decision in a timely manner? Applying for a visa is a privilege. You aren't being denied some human right if the process is interrupted. | | |
|
