weird, don't you think that stance is just fear of free speech? I see it as completely unreasonable. America (of the past now?) has a history of inviting all kinds of people to discuss politics, philosophy, religion from all over the world.... but now you are scared of what people have to say? Also if you don't recognize that it is political targeting (not of citizens, but anyone by any means the government has its disposal), then that's a real problem. We can see the targeting of legitimate visitors, attacks on birth right citizenship, attempts to reconstruct electoral borders. Mass firing from the government institutions of people with differing opinions. Like I said, it's weird americans are so accepting.... "seems reasonable".
> weird, don't you think that stance is just fear of free speech? I see it as completely unreasonable. America (of the past now?) has a history of inviting all kinds of people to discuss politics, philosophy, religion from all over the world.... but now you are scared of what people have to say?
I think active political campaigning is a bit different from discussing political philosophy, and it's a major mistake to treat the former as "just free speech". (I think Citizens United was a massive misjudgement that has lead directly to many of our present-day problems). I think we're all agreed that foreigners should not be standing for office or voting in elections, and foreigners other than permanent residents are already barred from making campaign contributions; to my mind this kind of protest aimed at changing government policy falls into the same category. A protest like that isn't an effort to convey some insight or argument; it's an effort to demonstrate viscerally that the citizenry have a strong view on an issue. I don't think allowing foreign participation helps with that; quite the opposite.
There have been a lot of claims in recent years - from both sides of the aisle - that enemy countries have been deliberately disrupting US politics in order to harm the country. I think it's vital that our political process not only has integrity but is seen to have integrity, and part of that is ensuring that adversaries cannot unduly influence it.
Well, fair enough, but you must acknowledge that that's the democratic consensus and the law as it stands.
> Do they live here? Work here?
The person in question is on a student visa, so (assuming they're not abusing the system) sort of but not really; they're here for a few years, and they might be doing a little part-time work to support themselves but they're meant to be here to study for a limited period rather than have already moved their life here permanently, they're supposed to intend or at least be open to the possibility of going back when their course finishes.
Do you think that having a say in the way the place you live for 5% of your life might increase the odds you want to settle down there and contribute to making it a good place?
Someone is working on completing their higher education here, seems like that would select for folks who had an interest in education, the resilience to complete a degree, the means to do so, etc. If I didn't believe that borders were generally bad, and instead believed that immigration was good if controlled, it would seem that students are people we'd want to immigrate.
> Do you think that having a say in the way the place you live for 5% of your life might increase the odds you want to settle down there and contribute to making it a good place?
I think giving foreign students the vote would make some of them (the most politically opinionated ones) more likely to want to immigrate permanently, yes. Whether that would be a good thing is very much in dispute.
> Someone is working on completing their higher education here, seems like that would select for folks who had an interest in education, the resilience to complete a degree, the means to do so, etc.
But by the same logic, the worse the conditions attached to doing so, the stronger the selection effect will be.
> If I didn't believe that borders were generally bad
Then you might be in a more reasonable position to understand the general citizenry, rather than sitting in a glass house calling others "weird".
> it would seem that students are people we'd want to immigrate
I used to think that before I talked to more wannabe-immigrants. Goodhart's Law is turbocharged when it comes to routes to immigrate; if being a "student" is the easiest way to get a foot in the door then people will eagerly pay thousands for a "degree" they don't care about, and there are plenty of places happy to take their money. See the whole "day 1 CPT" industry for the apotheosis of that. Even if there was an enforcement crackdown on the worst abuses, it would be virtually impossible to eliminate the cases further along the spectrum, because it's a mutually beneficial arrangement for everyone involved except the rest of us.
> Then you might be in a more reasonable position to understand the general citizenry, rather than sitting in a glass house calling others "weird".
Did I call anyone weird? Did I insinuate my opinion was somehow objectively better? I just have a different opinion than you on borders and immigration, and we're allowed to differ on opinions.
