3 ms·

Given some forms of speech are illegal and the government would have an interest in preventing people engaging in those forms of speech, why would denying someo

Given some forms of speech are illegal and the government would have an interest in preventing people engaging in those forms of speech, why would denying someone based on their speech be a negative thing? I've seen a few people try to argue around this by saying the specific types of speech that are illegal (and which most everyone agree should be illegal) don't actually count as speech, but that feels like playing semantics. There is a concern that government will make their judgments based on something other than illegal speech, but that is a larger concern with the government in general and selective enforcement of laws. Consider the guy who was publishing 3d weapon designs. Officially he wasn't punished for his speech but for other crimes (which just so happens to be one of the few strict liability crimes so the government doesn't have to prove mens rea), but he was given special focus that appears to have been because of his legal speech. Selective enforcement of laws already leads to a chilling effect on speech that is a much larger concern as it impacts all citizens, residents, immigrants, and potentials thereof, not just visa applicants.

michaelt 6y ago
There's plenty of things that are illegal, but that we don't collect the maximum amount of evidence at the border to detect. For example rape is illegal, and collecting DNA samples at the border might deter or detect rapists. Some drugs are illegal, and hair sample drug tests might deter or detect drug users. Money laundering is illegal, and requiring online banking credentials be handed over might deter or detect money launderers. As it's at the border, there would be no constitutional concerns. And yet we don't do these things - why do you think that is?
- SkyBelow 6y ago
  Cost and backlog. Take DNA, we aren't even able to work through the existing backlog of DNA collected specifically surrounding allegations of crimes. For many crimes that aren't at the level of seriousness of murder we don't even collect DNA from a crime scene. >Money laundering is illegal, and requiring online banking credentials be handed over would deter money launderers. We do far more than that to stop money laundering and not merely at the border. To say nothing of the many other types of searches we already perform at the border.

michaelt 6y ago

There's plenty of things that are illegal, but that we don't collect the maximum amount of evidence at the border to detect. For example rape is illegal, and collecting DNA samples at the border might deter or detect rapists. Some drugs are illegal, and hair sample drug tests might deter or detect drug users. Money laundering is illegal, and requiring online banking credentials be handed over might deter or detect money launderers. As it's at the border, there would be no constitutional concerns. And yet we don't do these things - why do you think that is?

SkyBelow 6y ago
Cost and backlog. Take DNA, we aren't even able to work through the existing backlog of DNA collected specifically surrounding allegations of crimes. For many crimes that aren't at the level of seriousness of murder we don't even collect DNA from a crime scene. >Money laundering is illegal, and requiring online banking credentials be handed over would deter money launderers. We do far more than that to stop money laundering and not merely at the border. To say nothing of the many other types of searches we already perform at the border.