This will be more valuable than his presence at a “No Kings” rally. I hope he gets those names to the ACLU, FIRE and other organizations would can make a list and wait for a change in power.
Regardless, at the border you need to present identification. We have been using biometric identification to identify repeat detainees for decades. It’s the only way to make sure.
It seems like an error in judgement on the part of this individual to believe he can come and protest without presenting the required identification.
> He says he wanted to join Americans at the “No Kings” rally .
> Larson said he felt there was a good chance he’d be turned away at the border, “but I didn't expect the treatment that I got,”
OK, what did he expect by explicitly stating that he wanted to bring disruption to a country?
However you feel about the US situation, I think any border agent in the world would consider you a liability if you explicitly state that you want to take part in a demonstration against the elected government.
We’ve been doing this for 20 years. It’s the only way to be sure when somebody turns up at the border and gets in trouble a second time.
This guy showed up at the border, said he’s here to protest the government, which got him detained, which triggered this mandatory sample collection rule.
If you decide you will visit a foreign country and tell them you’re there to protest their government, you should probably research ahead of time what will happen to you.
Some of us remember pre 9-11 and others have completely normalized it.
I wonder how they knew. Social media?
Exactly right! Order above all else, even rights. If you break the rules, you no longer deserve rights. Rights are based on your adherence to the state, not on natural or universal law.
The original passage reads
"Fascism sees in the world not only those superficial, material aspects in which man appears as an individual, standing by himself, self-centered, subject to natural law, which instinctively urges him toward a life of selfish momentary pleasure; it sees not only the individual but the nation and the country; individuals and generations bound together by a moral law, with common traditions and a mission..."
1. https://dn721808.ca.archive.org/0/items/mussolini-archive/Th...
Cambridge Dictionary's definition of a free country: a country where the government does not control what people say or do for political reasons and where people can express their opinions without punishment.
2. The "elected" government is explicitly prohibited from policing speech, and mostly strongly political speech.
3. That restriction is framed in terms of natural rights that apply to all human beings, not merely citizens.
Sorry, there is no "however you feel about" both-sidesism to be had in this situation. The time for discussing and debating differing political viewpoints is after we've ousted the fascists and restored our Constitutionally-limited government bound by the rule of law.
I'm a libertarian, so I think many of the policies and narratives pushed by Democrats leave much to be desired. In fact I was both-sidesing up until 2020 or so (5d-chess and all). But at this point, I'm no longer going to be suckered by any of the fascists' dishonest appeals to things that I care about. In fact, I am going to criticize them even more because they are burning the credibility of appeals to individual liberty.
We always complain when Russia or China is meddling in any country's affairs but we should accept it when a Canadian does it in the US because we don't like who's in charge.
What’s learned helplessness when it isn’t learned but willed? SCOTUS has rejected “these fascists” multiple times. Electoral consequences to this administration are mounting. It’s wild to continue to ply lines of lazy nihilism when the evidence points so clearly the other way.
My original comment was talking about what ought rather than what is, in case that wasn't clear.