4 ms·

> 1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US soil. Why on earth do you say such things? Like, seriously, what's the point of sayi

by jMyles 7y ago

> 1 - no. The constitution explicitly only applies to US citizens / on US soil. Why on earth do you say such things? Like, seriously, what's the point of saying something so easily refuted? Is this just to be inflammatory for the sake of it? The suggestion that the US Bill of Rights only applies to citizens is so unbelievably toxic and contrary to the history of the country I am saddened to even read the words. The Bill of Rights intentionally does not even include the word "citizen" and instead uses "people." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

tagrun 7y ago
You should check this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#As_regulator_of_immigration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- jMyles 7y ago
  Kleindienst v. Mandel does not take a stance on the matter of the reach of the Bill of Rights to foreign nationals and was instead decided on different grounds. The fact that the government can be compelled to allow US citizens to cross the border irrespective of any enumerated standards is orthogonal to the reach of the first amendment to non-citizens. These are entirely different legal matters, and the case you're linking to was decided entirely on the former and not the latter.
  - tagrun 7y ago
    I have 0 expertise on my own country's law, let alone US law or some specific cases in your (?) country. But that's not what Wikipedia says: "Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare." It refers to multiple cases, not just the one you cherry picked. And it says the courts are divided, which implies that some judges did not agree with your narrative. Now I don't know it's about amendments or laws or some footnote or whatever you call it in legalese. The bottom line is (and that's what would matter to a foreigner), this doesn't sound like foreigners have the same level of free speech protections as citizens do at the border or within the country, and implies that they can be punished in one way or another for what they say. It won't matter to people who get deported or rejected entry whether they were rejected based on nth amendment or mth law, so your point is entirely irrelevant. Now you can argue that this is probably the case in other nations, and it could well be. But I don't see other people here trying to portray it's all roses in their country. Again, this isn't about whether some amendment or footnote extends to non-citizens, or some particular case. Those are just details, which won't matter if there's even just one piece of law or regulation (such as this new social media details requirement) that discriminates foreigners. So try to remember what this whole topic is about, and look at the bigger picture, from the perspective of a foreigner. Edit You apparently prefer to double down on details which don't matter (for people who'll be negatively affected by such regulations), which is fine, but I don't really care enough to write another reply. Maybe if you travel abroad someday in the future, you can try asking how people who got their US visa application denied because of their social media postings "enjoyed" their rights. Also, you're claiming in your reply that the Wikipedia page is wrong and implying the reference therein is unreliable, maybe you can fix it if you're sure there was no case in the history which makes it unclear, and cite a better reference?
    - jMyles 7y ago
      "cherry picked"? I pointed you directly to the decision that SCOTUS rendered on this matter. And I don't understand the point you're trying to make: even the dissent acknowledged that Mandel had no first amendment protections while outside the country - this has nothing to do with citizenship. Literally nobody - not the majority nor either dissent, said anything whatsoever about citizenship being an issue here. If a non-citizen were not subject to the enumerated standard test here (ie, if they were a permanent resident), they'd be in the exact same boat as a citizen. This entire line of jurisprudence has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether the Bill of Rights extends to non-citizens (and to be absolutely clear: it does.). > "Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare." So let me get this straight - WikiPedia cites Eugene Volokh discussing a matter on which there has been no case or controversy and no court has rendered an opinion, and this is your basis to say that the unambiguous tradition, predating the founding, of rights being enjoyed by non-citizens within the United States is "unclear"? Please tell me that you can see how ridiculous this sounds.
nothrabannosir 7y ago
> Why on earth do you say such things? Like, seriously, what's the point of saying something so easily refuted? Is this just to be inflammatory for the sake of it? I imagine your reply came from a good place and you're genuinely trying to improve the knowledge out here, but I just want to take a moment to address something that comes up often: this tone is very combative and it makes it incredibly hard for someone to yield and turn to you. What is OP supposed to say to this? "Oh I guess you're right. Thanks for taking my pride and putting me down. I see your point now." -- this is not how people work. Or, from another angle: you can usually tell a sarcastic question is off, if the honest answer is readily found, and defensible. In this case: OP said such things because they thought it was true. The point was to share information with someone else and contribute to a conversation. If you think they're wrong, there's more productive ways of getting that point across than calling into question good faith. For the record: I thought it as well, so there were at least two of us, out here ;) and now after Googling, and judicial rabbitholes far beyond my expertise I still can't tell whether it's limited geographically or also meant to apply world-wide, or how I was meant to know, to avoid getting told off for being toxic if I ever daresay something else about it...
- refurb 7y ago
  Sorry, having good intentions means nothing when you’re spreading falsehoods that could easily be checked with a quick google search. The one thing I appreciated about HN is the signal to noise ratio. Plenty of comments are actually insightful, but the one in question is just noise.
- jMyles 7y ago
  You're right of course. But I also think that there is a palpable and strange injection into the zeitgeist a notion that non-citizens are less human - and it comes at the same time that a lot of racism and anti-immigrant ideology is reaching its way into public policy. I'm finding myself with decreased patience for it than I might have for other falsehoods making their way through echo chambers. But yeah, that's probably my bad.
mushufasa 7y ago
after reading through your comments, I'm not convinced that I was spreading a falsehood. The fact that there are some legal policies on treatment of non-nationals is not the same thing as non-nationals being fully protected by constitutional rights. They are not. Other comments above have also said this. (I submitted simultaneously as someone who gave a better phrased answer but couldn't figure out how to delete my redundant comment). > palpable and strange injection into the zeitgeist a notion that non-citizens are less human I did not and would not ever suggest that non-citizens are less than human. I am puzzled and saddened that my words were taken that way. If anything, I was attempting to point out that the US policies have a problematic history of prioritizing its own citizens at the expense of human rights globally. That's a longer conversation, and this thread is one example.

by jMyles 7y ago

tagrun 7y ago

You should check this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#As_regulator_of_immigration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

jMyles 7y ago
Kleindienst v. Mandel does not take a stance on the matter of the reach of the Bill of Rights to foreign nationals and was instead decided on different grounds. The fact that the government can be compelled to allow US citizens to cross the border irrespective of any enumerated standards is orthogonal to the reach of the first amendment to non-citizens. These are entirely different legal matters, and the case you're linking to was decided entirely on the former and not the latter.
- tagrun 7y ago
  I have 0 expertise on my own country's law, let alone US law or some specific cases in your (?) country. But that's not what Wikipedia says: "Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare." It refers to multiple cases, not just the one you cherry picked. And it says the courts are divided, which implies that some judges did not agree with your narrative. Now I don't know it's about amendments or laws or some footnote or whatever you call it in legalese. The bottom line is (and that's what would matter to a foreigner), this doesn't sound like foreigners have the same level of free speech protections as citizens do at the border or within the country, and implies that they can be punished in one way or another for what they say. It won't matter to people who get deported or rejected entry whether they were rejected based on nth amendment or mth law, so your point is entirely irrelevant. Now you can argue that this is probably the case in other nations, and it could well be. But I don't see other people here trying to portray it's all roses in their country. Again, this isn't about whether some amendment or footnote extends to non-citizens, or some particular case. Those are just details, which won't matter if there's even just one piece of law or regulation (such as this new social media details requirement) that discriminates foreigners. So try to remember what this whole topic is about, and look at the bigger picture, from the perspective of a foreigner. Edit You apparently prefer to double down on details which don't matter (for people who'll be negatively affected by such regulations), which is fine, but I don't really care enough to write another reply. Maybe if you travel abroad someday in the future, you can try asking how people who got their US visa application denied because of their social media postings "enjoyed" their rights. Also, you're claiming in your reply that the Wikipedia page is wrong and implying the reference therein is unreliable, maybe you can fix it if you're sure there was no case in the history which makes it unclear, and cite a better reference?
  - jMyles 7y ago
    "cherry picked"? I pointed you directly to the decision that SCOTUS rendered on this matter. And I don't understand the point you're trying to make: even the dissent acknowledged that Mandel had no first amendment protections while outside the country - this has nothing to do with citizenship. Literally nobody - not the majority nor either dissent, said anything whatsoever about citizenship being an issue here. If a non-citizen were not subject to the enumerated standard test here (ie, if they were a permanent resident), they'd be in the exact same boat as a citizen. This entire line of jurisprudence has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether the Bill of Rights extends to non-citizens (and to be absolutely clear: it does.). > "Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare." So let me get this straight - WikiPedia cites Eugene Volokh discussing a matter on which there has been no case or controversy and no court has rendered an opinion, and this is your basis to say that the unambiguous tradition, predating the founding, of rights being enjoyed by non-citizens within the United States is "unclear"? Please tell me that you can see how ridiculous this sounds.

nothrabannosir 7y ago

> Why on earth do you say such things? Like, seriously, what's the point of saying something so easily refuted? Is this just to be inflammatory for the sake of it? I imagine your reply came from a good place and you're genuinely trying to improve the knowledge out here, but I just want to take a moment to address something that comes up often: this tone is very combative and it makes it incredibly hard for someone to yield and turn to you. What is OP supposed to say to this? "Oh I guess you're right. Thanks for taking my pride and putting me down. I see your point now." -- this is not how people work. Or, from another angle: you can usually tell a sarcastic question is off, if the honest answer is readily found, and defensible. In this case: OP said such things because they thought it was true. The point was to share information with someone else and contribute to a conversation. If you think they're wrong, there's more productive ways of getting that point across than calling into question good faith. For the record: I thought it as well, so there were at least two of us, out here ;) and now after Googling, and judicial rabbitholes far beyond my expertise I still can't tell whether it's limited geographically or also meant to apply world-wide, or how I was meant to know, to avoid getting told off for being toxic if I ever daresay something else about it...

refurb 7y ago
Sorry, having good intentions means nothing when you’re spreading falsehoods that could easily be checked with a quick google search. The one thing I appreciated about HN is the signal to noise ratio. Plenty of comments are actually insightful, but the one in question is just noise.
jMyles 7y ago
You're right of course. But I also think that there is a palpable and strange injection into the zeitgeist a notion that non-citizens are less human - and it comes at the same time that a lot of racism and anti-immigrant ideology is reaching its way into public policy. I'm finding myself with decreased patience for it than I might have for other falsehoods making their way through echo chambers. But yeah, that's probably my bad.

mushufasa 7y ago

after reading through your comments, I'm not convinced that I was spreading a falsehood. The fact that there are some legal policies on treatment of non-nationals is not the same thing as non-nationals being fully protected by constitutional rights. They are not. Other comments above have also said this. (I submitted simultaneously as someone who gave a better phrased answer but couldn't figure out how to delete my redundant comment). > palpable and strange injection into the zeitgeist a notion that non-citizens are less human I did not and would not ever suggest that non-citizens are less than human. I am puzzled and saddened that my words were taken that way. If anything, I was attempting to point out that the US policies have a problematic history of prioritizing its own citizens at the expense of human rights globally. That's a longer conversation, and this thread is one example.