resident aliens and first amendment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass.)

Has survived the government's motion to dismiss related to the 1st amendment (5th amendment claims are dismissed). This relates directly to the actions taken against foreign students and academics who have voiced pro-Palestine opinions. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, there are 1st amendment rights for non-citizens. Hard to grasp, I know.

Yes they have a right to voice their opinions. And as democrats loved spouting since 2016, using your right to free speech doesn’t absolve you of the consequences of that action. The government will not imprison anyone over speech, but it can have a noncitizen’s visa revoked.

No foreign national has an absolute right to be present in the US.

This is correct. If your exercise of Free Speech violates one of the conditions of your visa or permanent residency status, those can be revoked.

Where does it say in visa or permanent status regulations that exercising free speech is a basis on which to revoke that status? Please link to that language. Thank you.

The Immigration and Nationality Act allows the denial or revocation of a visa of ‘any alien who . . . endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization."

So, in your mind, protest of any kind = "terrorism"? Because the Turkish PhD student who is still being held in captivity in a Louisiana jail 1+ months after being abducted off the street, did not commit terrorism. She co-authored an op-ed--along with three other individuals--which did not contain any anti-semitic language but instead was focused on human rights. If an op-ed is enough to get anyone, including a visitor to this country, imprisoned then, Houston, we have a problem.

Yes, "of any kind", as long as it includes all foreign jihadist and sympathizers that should be sufficient.

I am an American citizen. I believe that what Israel is doing to Palestinians in Gaza is genocide. Am I a "jihadist" or a "sympathizer'? Are you going to report me to someone?

No, but you don't seem to comprehend my use of the term foreign very well now that you have to ask, not a tribute to your ideology for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass.)

Has survived the government's motion to dismiss related to the 1st amendment (5th amendment claims are dismissed). This relates directly to the actions taken against foreign students and academics who have voiced pro-Palestine opinions. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, there are 1st amendment rights for non-citizens. Hard to grasp, I know.

Yes they have a right to voice their opinions. And as democrats loved spouting since 2016, using your right to free speech doesn’t absolve you of the consequences of that action. The government will not imprison anyone over speech, but it can have a noncitizen’s visa revoked.

No foreign national has an absolute right to be present in the US.

This is correct. If your exercise of Free Speech violates one of the conditions of your visa or permanent residency status, those can be revoked.

Where does it say in visa or permanent status regulations that exercising free speech is a basis on which to revoke that status? Please link to that language. Thank you.

The Immigration and Nationality Act allows the denial or revocation of a visa of ‘any alien who . . . endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization."

So, in your mind, protest of any kind = "terrorism"? Because the Turkish PhD student who is still being held in captivity in a Louisiana jail 1+ months after being abducted off the street, did not commit terrorism. She co-authored an op-ed--along with three other individuals--which did not contain any anti-semitic language but instead was focused on human rights. If an op-ed is enough to get anyone, including a visitor to this country, imprisoned then, Houston, we have a problem.

Yes, "of any kind", as long as it includes all foreign jihadist and sympathizers that should be sufficient.

I am an American citizen. I believe that what Israel is doing to Palestinians in Gaza is genocide. Am I a "jihadist" or a "sympathizer'? Are you going to report me to someone?

No, but you don't seem to comprehend my use of the term foreign very well now that you have to ask, not a tribute to your ideology for sure.

I don't "comprehend" because you make no sense. You don't write clearly or particularly well. What clever point do you think you're making?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass.)

Has survived the government's motion to dismiss related to the 1st amendment (5th amendment claims are dismissed). This relates directly to the actions taken against foreign students and academics who have voiced pro-Palestine opinions. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, there are 1st amendment rights for non-citizens. Hard to grasp, I know.

Yes they have a right to voice their opinions. And as democrats loved spouting since 2016, using your right to free speech doesn’t absolve you of the consequences of that action. The government will not imprison anyone over speech, but it can have a noncitizen’s visa revoked.

No foreign national has an absolute right to be present in the US.

This is correct. If your exercise of Free Speech violates one of the conditions of your visa or permanent residency status, those can be revoked.

Where does it say in visa or permanent status regulations that exercising free speech is a basis on which to revoke that status? Please link to that language. Thank you.

The Immigration and Nationality Act allows the denial or revocation of a visa of ‘any alien who . . . endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization."

So, in your mind, protest of any kind = "terrorism"? Because the Turkish PhD student who is still being held in captivity in a Louisiana jail 1+ months after being abducted off the street, did not commit terrorism. She co-authored an op-ed--along with three other individuals--which did not contain any anti-semitic language but instead was focused on human rights. If an op-ed is enough to get anyone, including a visitor to this country, imprisoned then, Houston, we have a problem.

Yes, "of any kind", as long as it includes all foreign jihadist and sympathizers that should be sufficient.

I am an American citizen. I believe that what Israel is doing to Palestinians in Gaza is genocide. Am I a "jihadist" or a "sympathizer'? Are you going to report me to someone?

That you don’t know the difference between being a US citizen and a foreign national explains everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass.)

Has survived the government's motion to dismiss related to the 1st amendment (5th amendment claims are dismissed). This relates directly to the actions taken against foreign students and academics who have voiced pro-Palestine opinions. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, there are 1st amendment rights for non-citizens. Hard to grasp, I know.

Yes they have a right to voice their opinions. And as democrats loved spouting since 2016, using your right to free speech doesn’t absolve you of the consequences of that action. The government will not imprison anyone over speech, but it can have a noncitizen’s visa revoked.

No foreign national has an absolute right to be present in the US.

This is correct. If your exercise of Free Speech violates one of the conditions of your visa or permanent residency status, those can be revoked.

Where does it say in visa or permanent status regulations that exercising free speech is a basis on which to revoke that status? Please link to that language. Thank you.

The Immigration and Nationality Act allows the denial or revocation of a visa of ‘any alien who . . . endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization."

So, in your mind, protest of any kind = "terrorism"? Because the Turkish PhD student who is still being held in captivity in a Louisiana jail 1+ months after being abducted off the street, did not commit terrorism. She co-authored an op-ed--along with three other individuals--which did not contain any anti-semitic language but instead was focused on human rights. If an op-ed is enough to get anyone, including a visitor to this country, imprisoned then, Houston, we have a problem.

Yes, "of any kind", as long as it includes all foreign jihadist and sympathizers that should be sufficient.

I am an American citizen. I believe that what Israel is doing to Palestinians in Gaza is genocide. Am I a "jihadist" or a "sympathizer'? Are you going to report me to someone?

That you don’t know the difference between being a US citizen and a foreign national explains everything.

Oh, no the jihadist sympathizer is offended by my free speech.

Let's think about what happens to people who criticize certain beliefs in other countries, and why we don't want that here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass.)

Has survived the government's motion to dismiss related to the 1st amendment (5th amendment claims are dismissed). This relates directly to the actions taken against foreign students and academics who have voiced pro-Palestine opinions. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, there are 1st amendment rights for non-citizens. Hard to grasp, I know.

Yes they have a right to voice their opinions. And as democrats loved spouting since 2016, using your right to free speech doesn’t absolve you of the consequences of that action. The government will not imprison anyone over speech, but it can have a noncitizen’s visa revoked.

No foreign national has an absolute right to be present in the US.

Then don't ever say we are a great nation. If that's a natural consequence, we suck. Especially because you know very well it's not uniformly applied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass.)

Has survived the government's motion to dismiss related to the 1st amendment (5th amendment claims are dismissed). This relates directly to the actions taken against foreign students and academics who have voiced pro-Palestine opinions. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, there are 1st amendment rights for non-citizens. Hard to grasp, I know.

Yes they have a right to voice their opinions. And as democrats loved spouting since 2016, using your right to free speech doesn’t absolve you of the consequences of that action. The government will not imprison anyone over speech, but it can have a noncitizen’s visa revoked.

No foreign national has an absolute right to be present in the US.

Comments like the above just show how MAGA doesn’t understand the basic concepts and ideas that we are discussing in the first place. The first amendment is clear. Government cannot “prohibit” or “abridge” free speech. Period. Trump is counting on the stupidity of the American people and it seems like the people are really going to give it to him.

Not without a compelling state interest. They can abridge speech, but it is subject to strict scrutiny by the Court. Just being clear. In this case are the restrictions narrowly tailored to protect a compelling state interest? Guess we will see. I doubt it, since there is literally no written policy about these deportations. They’re completely random.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass.)

Has survived the government's motion to dismiss related to the 1st amendment (5th amendment claims are dismissed). This relates directly to the actions taken against foreign students and academics who have voiced pro-Palestine opinions. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, there are 1st amendment rights for non-citizens. Hard to grasp, I know.

Yes they have a right to voice their opinions. And as democrats loved spouting since 2016, using your right to free speech doesn’t absolve you of the consequences of that action. The government will not imprison anyone over speech, but it can have a noncitizen’s visa revoked.

No foreign national has an absolute right to be present in the US.

This is correct. If your exercise of Free Speech violates one of the conditions of your visa or permanent residency status, those can be revoked.

Would you happen to have a source for these "conditions" so I can read them myself? Or do those "conditions" just pop-up when it is convenient?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass.)

Has survived the government's motion to dismiss related to the 1st amendment (5th amendment claims are dismissed). This relates directly to the actions taken against foreign students and academics who have voiced pro-Palestine opinions. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, there are 1st amendment rights for non-citizens. Hard to grasp, I know.

Yes they have a right to voice their opinions. And as democrats loved spouting since 2016, using your right to free speech doesn’t absolve you of the consequences of that action. The government will not imprison anyone over speech, but it can have a noncitizen’s visa revoked.

No foreign national has an absolute right to be present in the US.

This is correct. If your exercise of Free Speech violates one of the conditions of your visa or permanent residency status, those can be revoked.

Would you happen to have a source for these "conditions" so I can read them myself? Or do those "conditions" just pop-up when it is convenient?

It's probably stamped in fine print on their Visa papers, right next to the big bold letters "Temporary".

[Anonymous]

Under U.S. immigration law (Immigration and Nationality Act and 22 CFR 41.122), a foreign national’s visa can be revoked for:

- Violating visa terms (e.g., overstaying, unauthorized work).
- Committing crimes, especially aggravated felonies or moral turpitude.
- Fraud or misrepresentation in the visa application.
- Being deemed a security or public health threat.
- Inadmissibility under INA Section 212 (e.g., prior violations, economic grounds).
- Material changes in circumstances (e.g., job loss for H-1B).
- Consular or USCIS discretion if ineligibility is found post-issuance.


BTW, Musk committed the third item on the list— fraud or misrepresentation in the visa application.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass.)

Has survived the government's motion to dismiss related to the 1st amendment (5th amendment claims are dismissed). This relates directly to the actions taken against foreign students and academics who have voiced pro-Palestine opinions. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, there are 1st amendment rights for non-citizens. Hard to grasp, I know.

Yes they have a right to voice their opinions. And as democrats loved spouting since 2016, using your right to free speech doesn’t absolve you of the consequences of that action. The government will not imprison anyone over speech, but it can have a noncitizen’s visa revoked.

No foreign national has an absolute right to be present in the US.

Then don't ever say we are a great nation. If that's a natural consequence, we suck. Especially because you know very well it's not uniformly applied.

DP.

Ridiculous. No nation on earth allows foreign visitors unfettered and unlimited rights to protest and otherwise disrupt society.

Doing so (a) raises obvious national security concerns and (b) interferes with our (Americans’) ability to govern ourselves.

Should devout foreign students visiting the US be allowed to protest against gay rights and call for violence against LGBTQ people?

Should Russian tourists be allowed to protest against US support for Ukraine?

I don’t think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass.)

Has survived the government's motion to dismiss related to the 1st amendment (5th amendment claims are dismissed). This relates directly to the actions taken against foreign students and academics who have voiced pro-Palestine opinions. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, there are 1st amendment rights for non-citizens. Hard to grasp, I know.

Yes they have a right to voice their opinions. And as democrats loved spouting since 2016, using your right to free speech doesn’t absolve you of the consequences of that action. The government will not imprison anyone over speech, but it can have a noncitizen’s visa revoked.

No foreign national has an absolute right to be present in the US.

Then don't ever say we are a great nation. If that's a natural consequence, we suck. Especially because you know very well it's not uniformly applied.

DP.

Ridiculous. No nation on earth allows foreign visitors unfettered and unlimited rights to protest and otherwise disrupt society.

Doing so (a) raises obvious national security concerns and (b) interferes with our (Americans’) ability to govern ourselves.

Should devout foreign students visiting the US be allowed to protest against gay rights and call for violence against LGBTQ people?

Should Russian tourists be allowed to protest against US support for Ukraine?

I don’t think so.

No other nation has this constitution and its first amendment. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass.)

Has survived the government's motion to dismiss related to the 1st amendment (5th amendment claims are dismissed). This relates directly to the actions taken against foreign students and academics who have voiced pro-Palestine opinions. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, there are 1st amendment rights for non-citizens. Hard to grasp, I know.

Yes they have a right to voice their opinions. And as democrats loved spouting since 2016, using your right to free speech doesn’t absolve you of the consequences of that action. The government will not imprison anyone over speech, but it can have a noncitizen’s visa revoked.

No foreign national has an absolute right to be present in the US.

Then don't ever say we are a great nation. If that's a natural consequence, we suck. Especially because you know very well it's not uniformly applied.

DP.

Ridiculous. No nation on earth allows foreign visitors unfettered and unlimited rights to protest and otherwise disrupt society.

Doing so (a) raises obvious national security concerns and (b) interferes with our (Americans’) ability to govern ourselves.

Should devout foreign students visiting the US be allowed to protest against gay rights and call for violence against LGBTQ people?

Should Russian tourists be allowed to protest against US support for Ukraine?

I don’t think so.

What you think and what the law says are two different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass.)

Has survived the government's motion to dismiss related to the 1st amendment (5th amendment claims are dismissed). This relates directly to the actions taken against foreign students and academics who have voiced pro-Palestine opinions. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, there are 1st amendment rights for non-citizens. Hard to grasp, I know.

Yes they have a right to voice their opinions. And as democrats loved spouting since 2016, using your right to free speech doesn’t absolve you of the consequences of that action. The government will not imprison anyone over speech, but it can have a noncitizen’s visa revoked.

No foreign national has an absolute right to be present in the US.

Detention center vs. prison … a distinction without a difference.

Why didn’t they inform these abducted students that their visas were revoked, and that they had 30 days to leave U.S. soil (or even 72 hours, if they felt the need to be punitive and unreasonable)?

You know why. So do I. They abducted them and have deprived them of their liberty (aka detained/jailed/imprisoned them) because the sick Fs that instigated the actions taken against these individuals are uncivilized POS foreign state actors pulling the marionette strings on out government while POS scumbags cheer them on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass.)

Has survived the government's motion to dismiss related to the 1st amendment (5th amendment claims are dismissed). This relates directly to the actions taken against foreign students and academics who have voiced pro-Palestine opinions. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, there are 1st amendment rights for non-citizens. Hard to grasp, I know.

Yes they have a right to voice their opinions. And as democrats loved spouting since 2016, using your right to free speech doesn’t absolve you of the consequences of that action. The government will not imprison anyone over speech, but it can have a noncitizen’s visa revoked.

No foreign national has an absolute right to be present in the US.

Comments like the above just show how MAGA doesn’t understand the basic concepts and ideas that we are discussing in the first place. The first amendment is clear. Government cannot “prohibit” or “abridge” free speech. Period. Trump is counting on the stupidity of the American people and it seems like the people are really going to give it to him.

Not without a compelling state interest. They can abridge speech, but it is subject to strict scrutiny by the Court. Just being clear. In this case are the restrictions narrowly tailored to protect a compelling state interest? Guess we will see. I doubt it, since there is literally no written policy about these deportations. They’re completely random.

They are NOT random.

They are being done in servile prostration to the perverse interests of a foreign state. The end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass.)

Has survived the government's motion to dismiss related to the 1st amendment (5th amendment claims are dismissed). This relates directly to the actions taken against foreign students and academics who have voiced pro-Palestine opinions. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, there are 1st amendment rights for non-citizens. Hard to grasp, I know.

Yes they have a right to voice their opinions. And as democrats loved spouting since 2016, using your right to free speech doesn’t absolve you of the consequences of that action. The government will not imprison anyone over speech, but it can have a noncitizen’s visa revoked.

No foreign national has an absolute right to be present in the US.

This is correct. If your exercise of Free Speech violates one of the conditions of your visa or permanent residency status, those can be revoked.

Where does it say in visa or permanent status regulations that exercising free speech is a basis on which to revoke that status? Please link to that language. Thank you.

The Immigration and Nationality Act allows the denial or revocation of a visa of ‘any alien who . . . endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization."

So, in your mind, protest of any kind = "terrorism"? Because the Turkish PhD student who is still being held in captivity in a Louisiana jail 1+ months after being abducted off the street, did not commit terrorism. She co-authored an op-ed--along with three other individuals--which did not contain any anti-semitic language but instead was focused on human rights. If an op-ed is enough to get anyone, including a visitor to this country, imprisoned then, Houston, we have a problem.

Yes, "of any kind", as long as it includes all foreign jihadist and sympathizers that should be sufficient.

I am an American citizen. I believe that what Israel is doing to Palestinians in Gaza is genocide. Am I a "jihadist" or a "sympathizer'? Are you going to report me to someone?

That you don’t know the difference between being a US citizen and a foreign national explains everything.

Oh, no the jihadist sympathizer is offended by my free speech.

Let's think about what happens to people who criticize certain beliefs in other countries, and why we don't want that here.

^^^ oh the irony dripping in this radical, extremist Zionists blathering!

First amendment for me, guys, but not for you!