China Delays Visas to Hindu Pilgrims

[Purgatio]

We've been through this already. Denying visas to nationals of a certain country as part of diplomatic or political jockeying or rivalry is international politics par excellence. There's nothing wrong with States rivalling one another on the world stage and using whatever tools are at their disposal in pursuit of that rivalry.

Well sure playing politics is not automatically invalid. But again drop the security lie. You know that is but the reason. Also it is not automatically moral either.
If you are harming people in the process, they are still harmed.
Sure sometimes you have to harm people but you still have to take that into account.

Its not a harm, as we've recognised already no one is morally-entitled to migrate into a country or cross its borders without permission or consent, so no one is being harmed in a moral sense. They are being harmed in a 'less worse off' sense but morally speaking they haven't been denied anything they are morally-entitled to receive.

And its not a security lie, I do think security concerns play some role in the decision but I also believe diplomacy and politics plays the bigger role, but I think that's legitimate too. Immigration is a matter of untrammelled State discretion.

[Novus America]

Well sure playing politics is not automatically invalid. But again drop the security lie. You know that is but the reason. Also it is not automatically moral either.
If you are harming people in the process, they are still harmed.
Sure sometimes you have to harm people but you still have to take that into account.

Its not a harm, as we've recognised already no one is morally-entitled to migrate into a country or cross its borders without permission or consent, so no one is being harmed in a moral sense. They are being harmed in a 'less worse off' sense but morally speaking they haven't been denied anything they are morally-entitled to receive.

And its not a security lie, I do think security concerns play some role in the decision but I also believe diplomacy and politics plays the bigger role, but I think that's legitimate too. Immigration is a matter of untrammelled State discretion.

No, they are still harmed. If your government cancels your driver’s license for no reason, then you are still harmed.
Which is why they cannot do it without due process.
There is no such thing as untrammeled state discretion. Due process always applies.

[Purgatio]

Its not a harm, as we've recognised already no one is morally-entitled to migrate into a country or cross its borders without permission or consent, so no one is being harmed in a moral sense. They are being harmed in a 'less worse off' sense but morally speaking they haven't been denied anything they are morally-entitled to receive.

And its not a security lie, I do think security concerns play some role in the decision but I also believe diplomacy and politics plays the bigger role, but I think that's legitimate too. Immigration is a matter of untrammelled State discretion.

No, they are still harmed. If your government cancels your driver’s license for no reason, then you are still harmed.
Which is why they cannot do it without due process.
There is no such thing as untrammeled state discretion. Due process always applies.

There's no due process for getting a visa to enter the country, foreign nationals not on your territory aren't entitled even to due process before being given or denied a visa. It's absolutely at a State's untrammelled and absolute discretion whether to allow that person on its soil or not. That's what it means to be a sovereign nation that controls your own borders.

[Novus America]

No, they are still harmed. If your government cancels your driver’s license for no reason, then you are still harmed.
Which is why they cannot do it without due process.
There is no such thing as untrammeled state discretion. Due process always applies.

There's no due process for getting a visa to enter the country, foreign nationals not on your territory aren't entitled even to due process before being given or denied a visa. It's absolutely at a State's untrammelled and absolute discretion whether to allow that person on its soil or not. That's what it means to be a sovereign nation that controls your own borders.

Oh you control your borders. Just like you control who gets driver’s licenses. But due process still applies, limited due process of course, but still. At least in most countries with some degree of rule of law. Of course there is no rule of law or due process in the PRC.

[Purgatio]

There's no due process for getting a visa to enter the country, foreign nationals not on your territory aren't entitled even to due process before being given or denied a visa. It's absolutely at a State's untrammelled and absolute discretion whether to allow that person on its soil or not. That's what it means to be a sovereign nation that controls your own borders.

Oh you control your borders. Just like you control who gets driver’s licenses. But due process still applies, limited due process of course, but still. At least in most countries with some degree of rule of law. Of course there is no rule of law or due process in the PRC.

What precisely is the due process? Because I've applied for student visas in the UK and the US and the 'due process' is you send in your application and you either get accepted or rejected, and if you get rejected then too bad, you can't cry about it to anyone. If that's all you mean by 'due process' when it comes to immigration then the pilgrims had that. They seek visas and they got rejected. Due process, in a thin sense.

[Novus America]

Oh you control your borders. Just like you control who gets driver’s licenses. But due process still applies, limited due process of course, but still. At least in most countries with some degree of rule of law. Of course there is no rule of law or due process in the PRC.

What precisely is the due process? Because I've applied for student visas in the UK and the US and the 'due process' is you send in your application and you either get accepted or rejected, and if you get rejected then too bad, you can't cry about it to anyone. If that's all you mean by 'due process' when it comes to immigration then the pilgrims had that. They seek visas and they got rejected. Due process, in a thin sense.

Due process means the while the government can deny it, they cannot do it just for the lols.
You can also file a motion for reconsideration in many circumstances.
You actually can “cry about it” in most cases.

[Purgatio]

What precisely is the due process? Because I've applied for student visas in the UK and the US and the 'due process' is you send in your application and you either get accepted or rejected, and if you get rejected then too bad, you can't cry about it to anyone. If that's all you mean by 'due process' when it comes to immigration then the pilgrims had that. They seek visas and they got rejected. Due process, in a thin sense.

Due process means the while the government can deny it, they cannot do it just for the lols.
You can also file a motion for reconsideration in many circumstances.
You actually can “cry about it” in most cases.

If you get your visa revoked or the US government tries to deport you, sure, but when you're outside the US and not a US national, applying for a visa, there's very little you can do if it gets rejected, because its up to the US State's discretion whether you come in or not. The 'due process' is you get to apply and receive an answer, no different from what China's doing with the pilgrims here.

[Novus America]

Due process means the while the government can deny it, they cannot do it just for the lols.
You can also file a motion for reconsideration in many circumstances.
You actually can “cry about it” in most cases.

If you get your visa revoked or the US government tries to deport you, sure, but when you're outside the US and not a US national, applying for a visa, there's very little you can do if it gets rejected, because its up to the US State's discretion whether you come in or not. The 'due process' is you get to apply and receive an answer, no different from what China's doing with the pilgrims here.

Except we will only deny it for for legal reasons. Rule of law. There needs to be a clear legal basis for the denial. Playing these sorts of games requires it to actually be recorded into some sort of law, or the Federal Government gets sued.

But the law is not important to the PRC. The law is whatever the CCP says it is. And the CCP is not bound by the law.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Isn't it literally China's own story that they prohibit religion altogether?

[Neko-koku]

Isn't it literally China's own story that they prohibit religion altogether?

Technically nope but in practice Sinostatism and major religions, even Buddhism, do not coexist very well because religion induces a non-state authority and the Leviathan absolutely can not tolerate and authority in its borders other than itself.

[Aureumterra]

Isn't it literally China's own story that they prohibit religion altogether?

Technically nope but in practice Sinostatism and major religions, even Buddhism, do not coexist very well because religion induces a non-state authority and the Leviathan absolutely can not tolerate and authority in its borders other than itself.

Why do you refer to China as the Leviathan, a term historically used for thalassocracies, when in reality the ocean is China’s biggest weakness?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Isn't it literally China's own story that they prohibit religion altogether?

Technically nope but in practice Sinostatism and major religions, even Buddhism, do not coexist very well because religion induces a non-state authority and the Leviathan absolutely can not tolerate and authority in its borders other than itself.

Then why do they say they're a "non-religious" country to justify what they do to Muslims?

[Neko-koku]

Technically nope but in practice Sinostatism and major religions, even Buddhism, do not coexist very well because religion induces a non-state authority and the Leviathan absolutely can not tolerate and authority in its borders other than itself.

Then why do they say they're a "non-religious" country to justify what they do to Muslims?

That's just a justification.

No state of a French model (e.g. one criminal law) is compatible with mainstream Islam. However China is actually much worse than other nations of this kind because Sinostatism inherently can not tolerate religious authority because it is not in the bureaucracy.

[Neko-koku]

Technically nope but in practice Sinostatism and major religions, even Buddhism, do not coexist very well because religion induces a non-state authority and the Leviathan absolutely can not tolerate and authority in its borders other than itself.

Why do you refer to China as the Leviathan, a term historically used for thalassocracies, when in reality the ocean is China’s biggest weakness?

It's a term from Hobbes that I think describes China very well.

[Purgatio]

If you get your visa revoked or the US government tries to deport you, sure, but when you're outside the US and not a US national, applying for a visa, there's very little you can do if it gets rejected, because its up to the US State's discretion whether you come in or not. The 'due process' is you get to apply and receive an answer, no different from what China's doing with the pilgrims here.

Except we will only deny it for for legal reasons. Rule of law. There needs to be a clear legal basis for the denial. Playing these sorts of games requires it to actually be recorded into some sort of law, or the Federal Government gets sued.

But the law is not important to the PRC. The law is whatever the CCP says it is. And the CCP is not bound by the law.

You're missing the point, any immigration system, when we're talking a non-national without an existing visa and who is on foreign soil applying for a visa, works by receiving application and saying yes or no, simple as that. I got student visas from both the UK and US when I applied, but if I had been rejected there's actually very little I can do about it, because visas are a matter of absolute, untrammelled discretion of those authorities, because a State can decide who comes to its territory and crosses its borders, for whatever reason, for any justification or criterion or standard.

China, in the exercise of its lawful discretion, chose to deny visas to these pilgrims. There's literally nothing wrong with that at all. No one has a right to enter a country without that country's consent.

[Novus America]

Except we will only deny it for for legal reasons. Rule of law. There needs to be a clear legal basis for the denial. Playing these sorts of games requires it to actually be recorded into some sort of law, or the Federal Government gets sued.

But the law is not important to the PRC. The law is whatever the CCP says it is. And the CCP is not bound by the law.

You're missing the point, any immigration system, when we're talking a non-national without an existing visa and who is on foreign soil applying for a visa, works by receiving application and saying yes or no, simple as that. I got student visas from both the UK and US when I applied, but if I had been rejected there's actually very little I can do about it, because visas are a matter of absolute, untrammelled discretion of those authorities, because a State can decide who comes to its territory and crosses its borders, for whatever reason, for any justification or criterion or standard.

China, in the exercise of its lawful discretion, chose to deny visas to these pilgrims. There's literally nothing wrong with that at all. No one has a right to enter a country without that country's consent.

And this is wrong because there are things you could have done.
And it would be rejected based on laws you can read.
For something to be lawful you have to have the rule of law. Something the CCP completely disregards.

[Purgatio]

You're missing the point, any immigration system, when we're talking a non-national without an existing visa and who is on foreign soil applying for a visa, works by receiving application and saying yes or no, simple as that. I got student visas from both the UK and US when I applied, but if I had been rejected there's actually very little I can do about it, because visas are a matter of absolute, untrammelled discretion of those authorities, because a State can decide who comes to its territory and crosses its borders, for whatever reason, for any justification or criterion or standard.

China, in the exercise of its lawful discretion, chose to deny visas to these pilgrims. There's literally nothing wrong with that at all. No one has a right to enter a country without that country's consent.

And this is wrong because there are things you could have done.
And it would be rejected based on laws you can read.
For something to be lawful you have to have the rule of law. Something the CCP completely disregards.

Like what? Visas to foreign nationals (not the revocation of an existing visa) are a matter of Home Office discretion, if the Home Office doesn't grant it you really can't do much about it. There is due process, but that due process consists of application followed by discretionary approval or rejection. Same as what China has done for the pilgrims. They can still apply for visas, they'll just probably be rejected. No harm, no foul.

[Novus America]

And this is wrong because there are things you could have done.
And it would be rejected based on laws you can read.
For something to be lawful you have to have the rule of law. Something the CCP completely disregards.

Like what? Visas to foreign nationals (not the revocation of an existing visa) are a matter of Home Office discretion, if the Home Office doesn't grant it you really can't do much about it. There is due process, but that due process consists of application followed by discretionary approval or rejection. Same as what China has done for the pilgrims. They can still apply for visas, they'll just probably be rejected. No harm, no foul.

No, because the Home Office has limited discretion.
The rejections must be in accordance with transparent laws.

[Purgatio]

Like what? Visas to foreign nationals (not the revocation of an existing visa) are a matter of Home Office discretion, if the Home Office doesn't grant it you really can't do much about it. There is due process, but that due process consists of application followed by discretionary approval or rejection. Same as what China has done for the pilgrims. They can still apply for visas, they'll just probably be rejected. No harm, no foul.

No, because the Home Office has limited discretion.
The rejections must be in accordance with transparent laws.

Those transparent laws are generally broadly-worded empowering statutes given the Home Secretary lots of powers to decide at his or her own discretion who to give visas to or not. Again, not very different from what's happening here with China.

[Novus America]

No, because the Home Office has limited discretion.
The rejections must be in accordance with transparent laws.

Those transparent laws are generally broadly-worded empowering statutes given the Home Secretary lots of powers to decide at his or her own discretion who to give visas to or not. Again, not very different from what's happening here with China.

Yes the Home Secretary has broad powers, but not complete power. There are still checks and balances and transparent laws to follow. Things that do not exist in the PRC.

[Purgatio]

Those transparent laws are generally broadly-worded empowering statutes given the Home Secretary lots of powers to decide at his or her own discretion who to give visas to or not. Again, not very different from what's happening here with China.

Yes the Home Secretary has broad powers, but not complete power. There are still checks and balances and transparent laws to follow. Things that do not exist in the PRC.

Its no different in the PRC. Just like in the UK, the PRC has a legislature that passes empowering statutes that gives legal authority to administrative authorities to do things like issue visas to foreigners. There's no difference.

[Novus America]

Yes the Home Secretary has broad powers, but not complete power. There are still checks and balances and transparent laws to follow. Things that do not exist in the PRC.

Its no different in the PRC. Just like in the UK, the PRC has a legislature that passes empowering statutes that gives legal authority to administrative authorities to do things like issue visas to foreigners. There's no difference.

Ha, really?
You really think a transparent democracy is no different than a one party dictatorship?
The PRC legislature is a rubber stamp joke.
And the CCP is not bound by the laws of the PRC.