> ... Allowing foreigners to join political protests in your country...
Protests are protected by the 1st Amendment. The constitution applies to everyone in US jurisdiction. Gov actions here are not appropriate or accepatble.
> ...obviously insane thing to advocate for.
Advocating for this individual's right to join a protest is not insane. Safeguarding constitutional rights is wise by default.
> Does it make sense for me and a bunch of friends to go to Thailand and protest the way they run their country?
This topic concerns the actions of US Gov; it's about which actions are specifically limited by the Constitution. Enforcing those limits is how we protect our rights.
It makes sense to advocate for the constitutional rights of individuals.
Further, not advocating for others' constitutional rights - this is a factor in erosion of rights overall. I offer that the 100mi constitution-free zone adjacent to US borders is an example of that¹.
If Thailand's government is similarly bound by it's constitution, it is probably wise for Thai people to advocate for individual rights.
The people who we are debating with seem to have the opinion that people from around the world have the right to assemble in the United States. That indeed is an interesting take.
> The people who we are debating with seem to have the opinion that people from around the world have the right to assemble in the United States. That indeed is an interesting take.
Our opinion is that the US Constitution applies to the people within a US jurisdiction. In this, our opinion is correct.
As far as you disagree with that, your disagreement will be with the Constitution - which is your inalienable right.
It it an actuality and not a not a technicality. The reasons remain the same as the last time you made the assertion. Also for the next time.
You've been heading toward the farthest boundary of good faith discussion for some time now. At this point, I think you are signaling that you have crossed it.
If the person had his visa cancelled, then the ideal way would have been to not let him on the plane at point of departure. As this didn't happen then the next location entry can be denied is at the border within the destination airport, and he was denied entry there. If you argue that he has landed, is on US soil, is handled by US law enforcement, then are you also saying that regardless of whether this person has a visa or not, he should be let assembled in the United States regardless of the visa status?
> It's ideological libertarinism taken to the absurd point of essentially anarchy.
Constitutionalism is about the core restraints placed on Gov. Not violating the constitution is it's own thing. Because it defines order, it is the opposite of anarchy.
Does some ideology or some facet of libertarian overlap here? I have no idea. It isn't relevant tho.
"Does it make sense for a place with a completely different governance structure, completely different laws, and completely different norms (notably lacking the US Constitution and its unique 1st Amendment protections) to behave differently?"
Uhhh yes. You would expect a different result in a different place. Here in America we have the laws that exist in America. In Thailand they have the laws that exist in Thailand.
The technicality being "to avoid violating the foundational laws of our country?"
Yeah, in the world of law you have to do stuff correctly and technically correctly. What country do you live in where this isn't the case, so I know never to go there?
He was trying to enter the country and was denied at the border (for a reason we don't know). The technicality being that he was on US soil. Had he been denied entry to the plane at point of departure, would that have been ok?
