re: #219 subsailor68

re: #210 jvic

Agreed, but we are entitled to have one standard for our citizens and another for non-citizens. In fact, doing so is prudent, IMO.

I hear what you’re saying, but I’m not so sure we even want to go there regarding non-citizens. Suppose the non-citizen is someone like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn?

Reasonable people can disagree and I think your attitude is legitimate. I’d like to agree but I’m wary.

It’s a matter of where to draw the line. I’m willing to use a preponderance-of-evidence standard for non-citizens.

It would be tragic to inadvertently bar a Solzhenitsyn. It would also be tragic to inadvertently help a Mao to regroup here. Some human rights are universal; a government should act on behalf of its citizens. Those two propositions do not always harmonize.

Family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande. True, but so what?