Is it morally wrong for an immigrant or naturalized citizen to "keep a low profile" and avoid speaking up against the government in order to minimize the risks of denaturalization/deportation?

No. It is never morally wrong to ensure your own safety.

"But those who allowed nazis to come to power were doing just that!"

...no. Most of those weren't ensuring their safety. They were ensuring their own comfort (in the beginning, at least)

If a regime is targeting you or your loved ones: Lay low. If the regime is targeting someone else: Resist, especially if at worst you're gonna get a slap on the wrist.

Yup, this is why allies are so important. It’s the ally’s job to be angry and belligerent when the targeted group can’t. When the targeted group needs to keep their head down, that’s when allies should be the loudest. The ally’s largest point is that they’re beyond reprisal, because they don’t belong to the targeted group.
If someone throws a slur at your friend, that friend may not be able to speak up out of fear of further harassment and/or retaliation. Also, any anger they show will be DARVO’ed around and used to paint them as the aggressor. It will be used to confirm any stereotypes that the bigot already holds; fascists and bigots regularly weaponize decorum, by saying/doing awful things to marginalized groups while pretending to be civil. Then when those people get angry, the fascist turns it around and makes the targeted group look unreasonable. When the victim needs to maintain decorum, that’s when the ally should step up.
A great example of this in action can be found here. Rep Sarah McBride is openly transgender, and Keith Self intentionally misgenders her during her introduction. Sarah throws back a quick “thank you Madam Chair” (misgendering Self) joke in response, but then leaves it at that. Rep William Keating quickly recognizes what is going on, and asks Self to repeat the introduction using McBride’s chosen pronouns. At this point, McBride steps back and doesn’t say anything else; Any anger or belligerence she shows will be used by Self to justify further marginalizing trans people. Self tries to come up with a loose explanation, but quickly flees the situation when it becomes obvious that Keating isn’t going to let the flimsy reasoning stand. Self immediately adjourns the meeting, but he only does this because Keating is the one pushing back; If McBride had been the one to push back, Self would have dug his heels in and used it to grab anti-trans soundbites for later campaigns.
- i agree in principle, but that clip leaves a lot of nuance out. if taken to the small scale, pretend you’re trying to get into a bar with a trans friend and someone says some transphobic remark… yes, you have more power to make a scene than your friend, but being in a minority group can feel like a constant fight… they might not want to make a scene, to fight; they might just want to drop it and get on with their night in that moment
  going above and beyond like keating did is admirable if they know it’s what mcbride wanted, but it could also have been more upsetting to a lot of people than just replying with the quick quip and getting on with their day
  point absolutely stands though that allies are hugely important because they have the ability to say and do things in ways that get both more attention and less retribution

Do you blame the Jews for hiding from the Nazis and even trying to look as non Jewish as possible? No? Exactly.

Are you asking if it's morally wrong for someone to save their own arse from an opressive government?

Because I've read a lot of comments online, especially Lemmy, saying that (paraphrased) "they are gonna come for you eventually, so you might as well start resisting now" and "if you don't take up arms against your oppressors, you deserve whatever happens"
- These are short sighted reactionary takes from people who think resisting is nothing more than voting and protesting, they say to take up arms but never talk about organizing together with arms, so what they're really asking for is a mass shooting to make them feel good. Resistance isnt a monolith and requires more than just physically showing up to protests and town halls. Beyond that the same people accusing of others of not speaking up would have likely been just as shitty to the people in ww2 who kept quiet because they hid jews in their houses. I tell this type of person all the time, you don't know someones situatuon, don't do ICEs job for them simply because you don't think someone is being loud enough.
- It's important to support those in your community that have the target on them before the target gets placed on you. Once the target is on you and the community has failed you keep yourself safe.
- Fair enough. No, it's not morally wrong. Also you said to keep a low profile. That doesn't mean you don't do anything if your identity is protected.

No. Let the white people (like me) who were born here (like me) continue to speak out on behalf of people being brutalized. Keep your head down. Stay safe.

It's morally wrong to make them feel the need to hide. What someone decides to do with their free speech is up to them.

Correct.
Free speech encloses the right to say nothing.

If I broke into your house holding a knife would it be morally wrong for you to hide in the wardrobe?

I'd add that they also have your roommate at knife point. I don't think it changes the answer too much, but it's closer to the scenario that OP is probably thinking about.

Regardless of whether you're in a part of the country where the effects of you speaking up won't have as much consequence, I don't think it's morally wrong to try and keep yourself, friends, family, and loved ones safe by not speaking out.

No. This is simply self-preservation.

Absolutely not.

We all have to make personal decisions about safety and risk, for our own unique situation.

While not in the US, I'm a straight, white, middle-aged dude. My risk in loudly speaking out is probably still orders of magnitude lower than yours is by staying quiet. If there are any moral decisions to be made, I'd say that it's my moral duty to use my overly-consequential and protected voice to stand up for the vulnerable and suffering.

There is no moral flaw in trying to survive within your means - and if that means keeping your head down, then hopefully I and many others will have your back.

I'm not saying it's a "stupid question", but I don't understand it. How and why could it possibly be considered "wrong" or even a moral issue at all to keep a low profile?? Saying/doing nothing is our natural state, no one can say it's bad to just neutrally exist! Don't let anyone tell you you have to speak up, especially if it endangers or harms yourself or your friends and family.

If you're referring to the current US administration, they're not acting lawfully and are currently trying to arrest or deport legally-protected people and even citizens! You don't owe them or anyone else anything, certainly not at the expense of you or your family! When you're acting defensively and protecting yourself, it's not immoral. This is how hostile to immigrants we've become that you are even asking this question... ☹️

TL;DR: Absolutely not. You do you, and be safe!

Here's an example: in the us, international students are now required to have public social media accounts before they're allowed in. Unclear what happens if they don't have any accounts at all, but they're not allowed to have private social media accounts anymore.
Edit: wait I just woke up, this thread was about morality. My bad.

This depends entirely on your prescribed system of ethics.

Duty-based ethical systems would say yes, because you have a duty to speak out.

Point utilitarianism would say no, because the good outweighs the bad for that scenario.

The other utilitarianism of which I can’t remember the umbrella term would say yes, because it’s better for everyone if people speak out.

My understanding of Kant is that the unethical act is being performed by the government and that it is not morally wrong to keep a low profile.

TLDR: If you’re asking, the answer is no. If you’re being pedantic, the answer is “it depends”

No, it's okay to keep your head down.

No, it's morally wrong to contribute to the circumstances in which that would be a logical action

its the "attackers" that are morally wrong
for the communities it would be very valuable if everyone would work together but someone keeping a low profile can also be quite valuable

TLDR: Depends on a person’s personal situation but generally the more power someone has the more of an obligation they have to speak up and do something. —————- I think it’s dependent on the individual’s situation. Most people don’t have the platform or personal power to move the needle on nativism. If we use the recent unrest in LA as an example someone would need to consider the weight their presence would contribute to the cause against the likelihood of their being singled out and targeted by the government. What are the ramifications of their staying silent versus having that attention on them, their families and their community.

If you’re talking about those with platform and power then we can add an argument about the responsibility of those with privilege. We have a lot of pretty famous arguments for that example in favor of them being morally obligated to use it. The old school take is noblesse oblige, or noble obligation, while a modern version of the same sentiment would be “with great power comes great responsibility” from spider man.

You should know that in many countries, and now also the U.S., the government will revoke the visa of "political irritants". In other words, your question is actually a historical one, and it is equivalent to, "Is it immoral to immigrate?"

I don't think it's morally wrong — it's just human nature to want to survive. Not everyone has the same level of safety or privilege to speak out. Sometimes staying quiet is the only realistic option.

No.

Of course not.

I mean its what they want. This whole thing is not about getting rid of folks as much as making sure any folks coming in are ready to bend the knee and actively support the bs. At a minimum stay silent but that may not be enough. Need to loud the ones in power and how good and just they are. Basically the ideal is north korea.

You can keep a low profile with the government and still be active in rallying support from non-targeted communities. If you are the group in danger, we will hide you and help keep you safe but we need you to ensure that we actively know about this so that we can protest for you.

Sometimes discretion is the greater part of valour.

Ok so I bring this up all over Lemmy for this reason and people always push back like "har har ok touch grass"

Why the hell do you need to identify yourself in a digital world. How fucking mental are we to not realize you are on a device that offers anonymity whole allowing you to engage and capture as many people as you're willing to do.

How much effect did libsotiktok inflict? How'd she do it?

How much effect did.... Anyone have any examples of that on the left?

Why? Well maybe it's because online accounts on the left keep telling others to not engage, remove ourselves from platforms, show up in IRL resulting in lots of images of people like you getting your head kicked in and disappear.

Maybe it's time to realize its free and fun to download meme and use AI to create shit posts online with the intention of keeping things in front of the public's eye. The left keeps picking fights on arenas it cannot win and it's weirdly not correcting for it.

It's 2025, everything is fucking digital. Why is the left so hell bent on standing in a street and getting beat up by people who have trained for 8 years to beat them up effectively.

Come on people, it's not 1967 FFS Gimp is free. What the fuck are people sleeping on.

"Oh guys I'm conflicted, I want you do something but I don't want to get arrested and harassed."

"Ok here's an Internet connection, a VPN and few software plus free accounts. You just need to make fun of them, share opinions and network online in your underwear."

"No, no no that's crazy talk."

Meanwhile the fucking right shit posted their way into they presidency. Trump talked about cat litter in classrooms, officially. Sunshine to kill COVID. Doesn't matter.

You people act like you're my grandmother trying to send an email.

Back in the day the left were the tech people. Now uncle Glenn with 8 Trump flags on his truck admin for 30 let's go Brandon Facebook groups.

The Left does both. The purpose of real life stikes and protests is because its proof that Leftist organizations have the logistical capacity to plan, demonstrate, and act in a cohesive and unified manner. Organizing is more important than meme sharing. Memes, agitprop, etc are very useful recruitment tools, so they should not be ignored, but it's more important to actually put in the work of organizing effectively once recruited.
Sharing memes without actually organizing is just an outlet for people to express frustration, but organizing is an actual necessary and important step in toppling the existing system and replacing it with a better one, as the hard work on organizing has already been laid out.
- There's no way you can say it's more important given that all the left has done is show up for protests, including multiple "greatest protests ever" and all the right does is shit post and has nothing but victories. That math doesn't math.
  I have no idea how none of you see this. It's like horse blinders or worse, willful ignorance.
  You cannot spend decades losing and doing the thing you said while the right has shit posted digitally into the Whitehouse. They still do it daily. There's a reason RSA and Cambridge and all these companies and nations invested into channels and digital tools.