The Supreme Court has ruled against a California woman who said her rights were violated after federal officials refused to allow her husband into the country, in part, because of the way his tattoos were interpreted.
Just to be clear, there is no philosophical or morally consistent principle that anyone has been able to articulate in the history of political philosophy to defend the bizarre policy of excluding people who want to immigrate unless their presence is a danger or detriment to the public good.
The supreme banana court will rule as they like, of course, and I’m not saying they’re wrong from a legal perspective; that’s just beside the point.
Just to be clear, there is no philosophical or morally consistent principle that anyone has been able to articulate in the history of political philosophy to defend the bizarre policy of excluding people who want to immigrate unless their presence is a danger or detriment to the public good.
The supreme banana court will rule as they like, of course, and I’m not saying they’re wrong from a legal perspective; that’s just beside the point.