I'm very conflicted on this particular topic. On the one hand, I very much want to protect the right to peaceful assembly and protest.
On the other hand... I consider a whole lot of the "protests" that have been happening to be advocacy for a terrorist organization which is illegal regardless of whether you're a citizen or not.
It's worth saying that there's a fundamental difference between actually being pro-Hamas and saying "Please do something to help the civilians being caught up in this madness!" It's also worth saying that Trump has directly said -
"All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests. Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on on the crime, arrested. NO MASKS!"
From the start of that, it's WTF? Colleges, School, and Universities are not the police. The whole declaration there is fundamentally off from the start and leaves plenty of obvious room for bad actors to act as saboteurs and for Trump Administration abuse of power to interfere with education even more, after having gone after the Department of Education. As for the rest? I'm not opposed to actual criminals getting appropriate punishment, of course, but due process is important even then. That No Masks bit, though... when a bunch of masked people in unmarked cars show up and just grab a girl with no explanation to anyone, then imprison her far, far away, that really should be a huge red flag.
Turkish student at Tufts University detained, video shows masked people handcuffing her
A lawyer for a Turkish national and doctoral student at Tufts University says she has been detained by Department of Homeland Security agents without explanation
No illegal activity has been found to justify the action taken against her. At most, she was involved in an OP Ed that pushed for acknowledging the genocide of Palestinians that's happened, which is far from farfetched.
To go back a little, though...
You didn't. End of story.
This was a bit abrupt, yes, but my tolerance for what looks at first glance like a dishonest defense of something that was already on shaky ground is limited. Still, I don't actually like leaving it at that.
Let me get this straight...
Arth implies that Trump is bringing back racial segregation because Trump rescinded an EO that said racial segregation for federal contractors is disallowed.
That's one way to take what was said. Not at all the most parsimonious, though, but rather a way that seems far more intent on manufacturing cause to dismiss than to actually address the concerns at hand.
I respond by pointing out that it's entirely irrelevant, because racial segregation in any context is entirely illegal by law, based on Civil Rights Act that was passed after that EO.
Okay. That's also a point that had been addressed in recent previous discussion, though. Republicans already have a history of gutting the CRA and immediately enacting things that the CRA would have prevented. Republicans also have a very current history of literally creating and forcing the use of illegally racially gerrymandered maps, among so very much more. That's before getting to the Trump Administration itself. The Republican Party has made it so that whole attempted direction of argument rests on a foundation of swamp mud. You don't like that your argument is deeply unconvincing? Blame the Republican Party.
You respond that I'm wrong, citing a completely different EO.
I'm not Hercules56.
I tell you that wasn't the EO being discussed.
Even if that may have been technically true, it is misleading on the subject when left at that, at best. It was very relevant to the overall subject at hand and trying to simply dismiss it out of hand like that smacks of dishonesty and a complete lack of interest in actually addressing the concerns in play.
