Reply to resident aliens and first amendment

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "resident aliens and first amendment"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. 
[/quote]

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, [b]but it can have a noncitizen’s visa revoked[/b].

No foreign national has an absolute right to be present in the US. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.”[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics