resident aliens and first amendment
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Democrat here. I think all these people should be able to protest those things. Everyone here gets 1st amendment rights. |
Anonymous
Obviously. 1. On the law, it’s not at all clear what rights noncitizens have under the 1st Amendment. I’ve read multiple cases and law review articles on the subject. You? 2. Putting the law aside, what’s your personal opinion? Should Saudis visiting the US be allowed to call for criminal punishment for homosexuality? German NeoNazis allowed to protest outside an elementary school in MoCo bc Black students are allowed to attend? Or are you just a free speech absolutist when it comes to causes you find sympathetic? |
Anonymous
PP here. Appreciate your answer but disagree. Foreign visitors are just that—visitors—and government should have the right to deport under some circumstances. —left-leaning independent |
Anonymous
My free speech is better than yours is. It's a pretty low bar. Want to fight for free speech, great you can go home and do that now. |
Anonymous
Come on. The real line should be “ any alien who . . . endorses or espouses terrorist activity THAT THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION DEEMS TO BE OUR ENEMY or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization THAT THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION DEEMS TO BE OUR ENEMY“ Nicaraguan contras? Mujahideen in Afghanistan? Taliban? These are all terrorist organizations that the U.S., at one point, supported. Trump has done a 180 with his treatment of Ukraine and I honestly would not be surprised if he started to accuse Zelenskyy of being an anti-Semite and a nazi, like his hero, Putin. What then? Do we revoke visas and deport all non citizens who have a history of sympathy for Ukraine? What if we get elect a president who doesn’t believe in Zionism? Do we get rid of everyone who espoused pro-Israel views? If we don’t protect free speech, we are sunk. |
Anonymous
DP. Free speech for citizens, absolutely. Limits on speech for foreign agitators. Absolutely. |
Anonymous
Melania violated 1st item. |
Anonymous
Yes, that is how democracy works. Whoever is elected gets to set the rules. Enforcement of our borders and who we allow in the country and who we remove is done at the executive branch level. And the US has zero need to keep foreign agitators here. Because THEY ARE GUESTS. |
Anonymous
Thanks for that explanation Jefferson 
|
Anonymous
The second is the slippery slope that will destroy the first. You really think thin skinned snowflake Trump wants anyone to have free speech to speak against him? |
Anonymous
You may wish to rethinK that. "This case raises the issue of whether certain Public Officials can enforce a policy of arresting, detaining and deporting non-citizens who are otherwise here legally based solely upon their pro-Palestine or anti-Israel political speech. . . . It is well established that noncitizens have at least some First Amendment rights, see Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148 (1945), and political speech is “at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect,” Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 365 (2003). Although case law defining the scope of noncitizens’ First Amendment rights is notably sparse, the Plaintiffs have at least plausibly alleged that noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents, are being targeted specifically for exercising their right to political speech. See American-Arab Anti-Discrim. Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045, 1063-64 (9th Cir. 1995), rev’d on other grounds, 525 U.S. 471 (“The Supreme Court . . . has accorded to aliens living in the United States those protections of the Bill of Rights that are not, by the text of the Constitution, restricted to citizens.”); OPAWL – Building AAPI Feminist Leadership v. Yost, 118 F. 4th 770, 776 (6th Cir. 2024) (“Lawful permanent residents have First Amendment rights. . . . [T]hey have developed sufficient connections with the United States to be considered part of the national community: They live and work here lawfully, and they can serve in the military.”); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271 (1990) (“[A]liens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country.”); but see Price v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 962 F.2d 836, 841-42 (9th Cir. 1991)." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282460/gov.uscourts.mad.282460.73.0_2.pdf As this case finds its way to appellate courts, we shall see. The First Amendment claim did survive the motion to dismiss though. |
Anonymous
PP here. In general, I see absolutely no risk of a “slippery slope” here. There’s a clear and obvious delineation between citizens and non-citizens. With respect to Trump, I agree that he puts everyone’s rights in jeopardy, but that’s because of his overall disregard for the rule of law. Taking a position on speech rights of noncitizens will have no impact whatsoever on Trump’s actions. |
Anonymous
Yup. This in no way undermines my point. The money quote here is “ case law defining the scope of noncitizens’ First Amendment rights is notably sparse”. I’d wager a LOT of money that SCOTUS finds that noncitizens first amendment rights are narrower than those of citizens, and that the government has the right to deport under some circumstances. Exactly where they draw those lines is the key question here. |
Anonymous
You could also say that this is the money quote. “The Supreme Court . . . has accorded to aliens living in the United States those protections of the Bill of Rights that are not, by the text of the Constitution, restricted to citizens.” |
Anonymous
Yup. And it has also held that noncitizens’ rights are limited or that government has the right to deport in other cases. Unsettled law + big constitutional issues = SCOTUS granting cert (once it gets there). Only time will tell, but do you really think that SCOTUS will wholly deprive the government of the ability to deport aliens for speech/protest activities? I don’t. Defies common sense. |