|
|
|
|
|
|
by sachislife
991 days ago
|
|
|
> I am not talking about censorship. So the following is a snippet from your earlier comment where you are clearly saying that arguers as well as the arguments should not be in the US in the first place. >> I know. I am going further, and stating that if South Asians are arguing in the US about the existence and extent of caste-based discrimination, and it's gotten to the point that a law was proposed and almost enacted, maybe we Americans should question whether we should have the arguers, as well as the arguments, in the US in the first place. Since you specifically mention arguments, please tell us how is this not asking for censorship? |
|
|
Not at all. I am saying that
* if there is a real problem with caste-based discrimination between South Asians (as one not such, I have to go by anecdotes and reports), then
* one possible outcome is to prevent further entry by South Asians and, perhaps
* the revoking of visas of the non-citizen South Asians already in the US
The third step isn't so important; as I noted elsewhere, if caste-based discrimination exists in the US I expect the US-born children of South Asian immigrants to not participate, so if there is a problem it will work itself out as long as it is not constantly refreshed by newcomers. Regardless, revoking visas is not censorship, any more than any other country doing so for any other non-citizens living among them means those noh-citizens are being censored; expelling non-citizens for any reason that the state deems is reasonable is, again, a fundamental right of the Westphalian state.
That's it. Nowhere, despite your and others' fevered imaginations, have I proposed violating the First Amendment or the revoking of US citizenship from those of South Asian ethnicity.