[ftrflyr]

American citizen here:

I was denied a entry visa into Paraguay left to be stranded in Brazil. I barely made it to my grandmothers funeral. I had to call the embassy and spend several days in limbo. I understood that I was powerless because I was not a citizen of Brazil nor Paraguay. I wasn't entitled to representation by either country nor would they provide it.

I was jailed in Mozambique for refusing to pay a bribe at the border. I did not expect nor receive any special treatment. This is the way things are.

I overstayed my visa in Chile by less than 24 hours, was forced to remain at the border between Argentina and Chile for the day and threatened with jail. I did not fight and riot nor protest. Why would I? I need to follow the laws of the country I am in.

What we have here is a nation so divided that you have people on the right who are for less government and rule, but respect the rule of law and people on the left who have no regard for the law and demand more regulations and laws.

Disappointing

[kchoudhu]

The people being detained here have obeyed all of the rules (visa holders, permanent residents), and are still getting screwed. I skew right of center and am usually the last person to get pissed off enough to protest on the streets, but I went down to LAX tonight. The US got ahead in the world because we play by the rules and don't pull discriminatory ex post-facto stunts like this. As a nation, we should seek to keep things this way.

Protesting and reaching out to the people affected by actions like this is absolutely within the bounds of American civil society's responsibilities.

[ftrflyr]

So far as you know.

[kchoudhu]

I'm not saying "don't expel people who break our rules" -- I'm saying don't change the rules halfway though the game.

[tacomonstrous]

So your point of comparison for the US are Paraguay, Mozambique and Chile? Also, note that none of the people being detained under his EO right now is actually being accused of breaking the law: if they'd arrived two days ago, they wouldn't have faced any issues at all. So it's unclear to me how your experience informs any aspect of our current predicament.

[yongjik]

> ... people on the right who are for less government and rule, but respect the rule of law ...

The right has just elected this guy into WH:

> "Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," Trump said.

"Respect the rule of law," my ass.

[grzm]

No matter how wrong you think others may be, please strive to be even more civil during contentious discussions.

[davesque]

I think what he said was entirely appropriate. You don't have to look very hard to find pretty convincing evidence that Republicans are not the law and order party that they claim to be. Gerrymandering, obstructionism, racist and anarchist dog whistling. There's so much there it's hard to know where to start.

[grzm]

You've written a much more substantive and civil comment than did 'yongjik while raising the same issue. My point was not that the sentiment was unjustified, but that the manner in which it was expressed was uncivil. Especially with politics, we need to strive to be even more civil rather than less so.

[ajmurmann]

And thinks it's OK to molest women...

[grzm]

Please stop bringing up every last thing you can think of, no matter how wrong you think others may be. These discussions are difficult enough as it is without throwing all variety of incendiary materials on the fire. It's not constructive and actively makes things worse.

[ajmurmann]

That is a good point. Thank you for pointing that out! It's way too easy to lose perspective and often control these dayes. I have to get better at what I actually set out to do and ignore politics and news for the next years and just donate s bunch to ACLU. That's really all one can do. I don't think there is anything one could say that would make this situation better either way.

[grzm]

I don't think there is anything one could say that would make this situation better either way.

Well, I'd like to think our little exchange made things a little better. I know it helped reinforce for me that people can step back and reflect, which it's easy to lose sight of. And figuring out ways to do so is increasingly important.

[RockyMcNuts]

well, they're not following the Constitution and the law on this visa situation, so I would respectfully disagree ...

see e.g. - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio... . one can parse words but the whole thing seems clearly intended and specifically designed to make laws with respect to people of a specific religious faith, contrary to the First Amendment.

authorizing torture, proposing Muslim registries, intimidating the media, threatening to send troops to Chicago, bullying companies to score PR points ... all of these things, if Obama had done them, some would have said it was incipient dictatorship. it's plain as day that this Administration falls on the authoritarian end of the spectrum, not for 'less government and rule'.

[ajmurmann]

Why couldn't we just change the rules for new visa that are being given out? People would have had ample warning before they get to the border and people with existing visa who randomly happened to be traveling wouldn't have been impacted. Arguably we would have achieved about the same security without the giant mess.

The only reason I can see why this was done in this fashion, side stepping regular process as if some disaster wag imminent is so that our new president can own this news cycle and make his fanatic voters happy.

[russdill]

Your statement vastly confuses me. Because things are laws they are just and moral and you should respect them? That's a really backwards way of thinking.

[ftrflyr]

Vastly? Like the vast reaches of outer space? Wow...

Because things are laws is the reason the US has been able to maintain its democracy (constitutional republic) for as long as it has. So yes.

Picking and choosing what laws you want to follow based on how popular or pc they are is why Hillary lost and is why we have sanctuary cities and is why welfare wiped out the American family.

[ajmurmann]

Tell that to the nut jobs who occupied the wild life refuge in Oregon after having had a previous police stand off.

It's a good thing not all laws are enforced equally. Otherwise most of us apparently would be on jail because of obscure, old laws that were never revoked.

Also, how did the welfare state destroy the Martian family?

Have you ever been outside the US? Edit: nvm saw you were the same poster who talked about their border experience in other countries. There goes that prejudice of mine.

[russdill]

It is not just morally right to resist laws that are unjust and immoral. It is a moral imperative. It's actually accounted for in jury trials in the US, see jury nullification.

[wvenable]

So you weren't a permanent resident of Paraguay? You didn't have a job, a house, or a family in Brazil? You didn't spend years navigating the immigration system in Mozambique? I fail to see the relevance of your comparison.

People who are legal permanent residents of the US, with lives and jobs here, are being denied entrance.

Since we all love Godwin's law, those people who man the gas chambers in Nazi Germany were also respecting the rule of law. I'd rather be on side of good and decent than have respect for an unjust law.

[dang]

> those people who man the gas chambers in Nazi Germany

Please don't make the thread even worse.

[ftrflyr]

You fail to see my experience (as anecdotal as it was) as relevant and yet, you compare what is currently happening to Jews being gassed in Nazi Germany. I really don't understand you leftist.

Godwin's law...try listening to some Freedman - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCnxOICRtLE It might do you some good.

[wvenable]

> you compare what is currently happening to Jews being gassed in Nazi Germany.

Poor reading comprehension; I did no such thing. It was merely a very strong counter-example to your idea that one should not question the rule of law.