3 ms·

This can't be legal can it? Wouldn't freedom of speech apply even to non-citizens? Freedom of speech would suggest that I could be pro-Hamas if I wanted to be.

This can't be legal can it? Wouldn't freedom of speech apply even to non-citizens? Freedom of speech would suggest that I could be pro-Hamas if I wanted to be. Is this administration really going back to fucking McCarthyism?

freeone3000 2y ago
It’d be the twentieth illegal thing this week. So what? What’s anybody gonna do about it?
woodruffw 2y ago
I find this administration hateful, but the 1A argument doesn’t quite work: the first amendment doesn’t impart special entitlements on visa holders. I think a better argument here is to observe that the use of “AI” here is entirely pretextual, as is the connection to the Israel-Palestine conflict. This is purely an action within the existing xenophobic policies of the administration, dressed up against current topics to make that less obvious. The goal is to deport people full stop; these are just “easy” cases to make, and they’re hoping that the next round of people to be deported keep cheering until it’s their turn.
- sitkack 2y ago
  The constitution doesn’t give rights, it puts controls on the behavior of the government. The constitution calls out citizens where necessary. Your statement about special rights for Visa holders is a nonsequitur
  - ty6853 2y ago
    But are tourists and foreign students people? This is a real question, as current interpretation appears they are not.
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    > The constitution doesn’t give rights, it puts controls on the behavior of the government. The constitution calls out citizens where necessary. I don't think this is relevant (or even correct, but that doesn't matter). 1A is simply not a right (or "control on the behavior of the government") that applies here: visas are issued at the discretion of the State Department. Or more simply: I don't think a visa holder could successfully argue that the State Department is obligated to renew their visa solely on 1A grounds. If this isn't the case, then an argument against revoking would fail similarly.
    - sitkack 2y ago
      Revocation and renewal are much different things, and if the renewal was mechanical but denied on speech grounds, I do think they would have a case. > Trump himself hinted at as much during his speech. “The Senate just passed the Take It Down Act,” he said. “Once it passes the House, I look forward to signing that bill into law. And I’m going to use that bill for myself too if you don’t mind, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody.”
      - woodruffw 2y ago
        > Revocation and renewal are much different things As best I can tell, the State Department exercises the same of rules (enshrined in law) during both renewal and revocation. The adjacent thread points out that visa eligibility already contains explicit proscriptions around expression: advocating for a designated terrorist group makes one ineligible for a visa, per federal law. I'm not aware of any challenge to that rule that's been mounted on 1A grounds. (I don't think anything Trump says about the Take It Down Act is relevant here. That's an entirely separate miscarriage of justice that does have 1A relevance.)
- tantalor 2y ago
  Revoking a visa has to cite a legal reason for doing so, such as ineligibility or criminal activity. 1A would obviously be material.
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    You’re right that it has to cite a legal reason. It happens that one of those legal reasons is endorsing or espousing the views of entities designated by the US as terrorists[1]. But again, I cannot emphasize enough how much all of this is pretextual: the people doing this don’t give a damn about Hamas, or anti-Semitism, or anything else. It’s about deporting people, full stop. [1]: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/waivers.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...
    - drivingmenuts 2y ago
      It wouldn't matter anyway, because it seems one of the tenets of this particular government is: Sure, there's a law. Try and enforce it. Unless I'm mistaken, all the agencies with the power to arrest a member of the Executive branch, lie within the Executive branch itself and they are all controlled, or soon will be controlled, by persons appointed by the President. All of these persons are expected to be more faithful to the current President than to the Constitution. Which means: even if Congress wanted to stop him, there's nothing that it can do to enforce that.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        Supreme Court Marshalls can enforce the courts order (and arrest) and answer to the court rather than the executive/ DOJ. Only federal police I can think of outside the executive branch that would have the power to do it.
        _DeadFred_ 2y ago
        The Judicial branch has US Probation and Pretrial as an armed internal branch with legal powers.
jmye 2y ago
> Is this administration really going back to fucking McCarthyism? I mean, it’s what their voters want. Burn the constitution if there’s a chance you can singe a “liberal” in the process. The only thing any of them fear is being primaried by someone even more strident.
goku12 2y ago
Is that even relevant here? It might be 'pro-Hamas' and 'deportation' today. Tomorrow it may become 'pro-liberal' or 'woke' and 'denial of benefits'. This slippery-slope isn't even that farfetched. Is that an acceptable risk?
nick238 2y ago
A site [1] mentions that student visas (F-1) may alter the protections of the first amendment, but doesn't go into any specific detail. Legal or not, if you're deported, it's ruinous, and forcing people to try to litigate against it is a practical win. Sounds like we need anti-SLAPP laws to protect us from the feds now... [1]: https://www.freedomforum.org/non-citizens-protected-first-amendment/ https://www.freedomforum.org/non-citizens-protected-first-am...
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Freedom of speech would suggest that I could be pro-Hamas if I wanted to be Short answer, yes [1]. The First Amendment prohibits the Congress from passing a law that abridges the freedom of speech. There is no visa exception. That would make such visa terminations unlawful. (If a student on a visa got themselves arrested, that’s a separate matter.) On a strategic level, this should give us hope. Trump is back to his first term arrogance and chaos. If State had moved quietly and decisively, damage could have been done before it was too late. The Palestinian cause is only a little bit more popular than USAID; in the end, there wouldn’t have been a broad fight. Instead, they got caught by Axios [2]. So we can get injunctions ex ante. [1] https://oiss.yale.edu/campus-community-life/for-students/legal-considerations/know-your-rights/participating-in-a-protest-know-your-rights-and-risks https://oiss.yale.edu/campus-community-life/for-students/leg... [2] https://www.axios.com/2025/03/06/state-department-ai-revoke-foreign-student-visas-hamas https://www.axios.com/2025/03/06/state-department-ai-revoke-...
- pianom4n 2y ago
  Nothing on that page supports what your claim. In reality even permanent residents could be deported for what would be 1st Amendment protected activity for citizens. In Harisiades v. Shaughnessy the deportation of legal residents for membership in the Communist party was upheld as Constitutional. This hasn't been overturned or narrowed and remains good law today. Whether current immigration law allows for this I don't know, but this isn't a 1st Amendment issue based on current precedent.
oefrha 2y ago
Visas can be revoked at any time for any reason. USCIS can revoke your visa because the supreme leader doesn't like your haircut and that's probably good enough for SCOTUS. > In the Court’s opinion, they noted Section 1155 as an absolute confirmation of discretion. USCIS may choose to revoke previously approved visa petitions at any time, for any reason the Secretary and USCIS determine is a “good and sufficient cause.” https://bizlegalservices.com/2024/12/12/supreme-court-confirms-no-judicial-review-for-revoked-visas/ https://bizlegalservices.com/2024/12/12/supreme-court-confir... https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/24 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/24 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/604us1r03_3f14.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/604us1r03_3f14.p... Disclaimer: My understanding, IINAL, etc. etc.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > In the Court’s opinion, they noted Section 1155 as an absolute confirmation of discretion Discretion by the Congress on the President. Congress is still bound by the Constitution. If they’d cancelled the visas and left the reason blank, that would have probably been legal. By explicitly tying the reason to speech, however, I believe it crosses the line.
  - pianom4n 2y ago
    Nope. The 1st Amendment (as currently interpreted at least) doesn't protect non-citizens against deportation. See Harisiades v. Shaughnessy
    - ty6853 2y ago
      Everything surrounding immigration is a giant gaping hole in the Constitution. The gestapo stops people up to 100 miles from the border, with no probable cause or articulated suspicion that they are even non citizens. Systematically. CBP holds even citizens for basically as long as they like ( yes technically there is some vague directive it be speedy but I can tell you first hand if you ask for a lawyer they'll tell you to get fucked; they take your communication devices too, you have no way to object or record it for evidence). I think most people don't know HSI is practically as big(ger?) as the FBI, they and CBP goons served as a sort of presidential army rolling into places like Portland taking people in unmarked vans [0]. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-us...

freeone3000 2y ago

It’d be the twentieth illegal thing this week. So what? What’s anybody gonna do about it?

woodruffw 2y ago

I find this administration hateful, but the 1A argument doesn’t quite work: the first amendment doesn’t impart special entitlements on visa holders. I think a better argument here is to observe that the use of “AI” here is entirely pretextual, as is the connection to the Israel-Palestine conflict. This is purely an action within the existing xenophobic policies of the administration, dressed up against current topics to make that less obvious. The goal is to deport people full stop; these are just “easy” cases to make, and they’re hoping that the next round of people to be deported keep cheering until it’s their turn.

sitkack 2y ago
The constitution doesn’t give rights, it puts controls on the behavior of the government. The constitution calls out citizens where necessary. Your statement about special rights for Visa holders is a nonsequitur
- ty6853 2y ago
  But are tourists and foreign students people? This is a real question, as current interpretation appears they are not.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  > The constitution doesn’t give rights, it puts controls on the behavior of the government. The constitution calls out citizens where necessary. I don't think this is relevant (or even correct, but that doesn't matter). 1A is simply not a right (or "control on the behavior of the government") that applies here: visas are issued at the discretion of the State Department. Or more simply: I don't think a visa holder could successfully argue that the State Department is obligated to renew their visa solely on 1A grounds. If this isn't the case, then an argument against revoking would fail similarly.
  - sitkack 2y ago
    Revocation and renewal are much different things, and if the renewal was mechanical but denied on speech grounds, I do think they would have a case. > Trump himself hinted at as much during his speech. “The Senate just passed the Take It Down Act,” he said. “Once it passes the House, I look forward to signing that bill into law. And I’m going to use that bill for myself too if you don’t mind, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody.”
    - woodruffw 2y ago
      > Revocation and renewal are much different things As best I can tell, the State Department exercises the same of rules (enshrined in law) during both renewal and revocation. The adjacent thread points out that visa eligibility already contains explicit proscriptions around expression: advocating for a designated terrorist group makes one ineligible for a visa, per federal law. I'm not aware of any challenge to that rule that's been mounted on 1A grounds. (I don't think anything Trump says about the Take It Down Act is relevant here. That's an entirely separate miscarriage of justice that does have 1A relevance.)
tantalor 2y ago
Revoking a visa has to cite a legal reason for doing so, such as ineligibility or criminal activity. 1A would obviously be material.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  You’re right that it has to cite a legal reason. It happens that one of those legal reasons is endorsing or espousing the views of entities designated by the US as terrorists[1]. But again, I cannot emphasize enough how much all of this is pretextual: the people doing this don’t give a damn about Hamas, or anti-Semitism, or anything else. It’s about deporting people, full stop. [1]: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/waivers.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...
  - drivingmenuts 2y ago
    It wouldn't matter anyway, because it seems one of the tenets of this particular government is: Sure, there's a law. Try and enforce it. Unless I'm mistaken, all the agencies with the power to arrest a member of the Executive branch, lie within the Executive branch itself and they are all controlled, or soon will be controlled, by persons appointed by the President. All of these persons are expected to be more faithful to the current President than to the Constitution. Which means: even if Congress wanted to stop him, there's nothing that it can do to enforce that.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      Supreme Court Marshalls can enforce the courts order (and arrest) and answer to the court rather than the executive/ DOJ. Only federal police I can think of outside the executive branch that would have the power to do it.
      - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
        The Judicial branch has US Probation and Pretrial as an armed internal branch with legal powers.

jmye 2y ago

> Is this administration really going back to fucking McCarthyism? I mean, it’s what their voters want. Burn the constitution if there’s a chance you can singe a “liberal” in the process. The only thing any of them fear is being primaried by someone even more strident.

goku12 2y ago

Is that even relevant here? It might be 'pro-Hamas' and 'deportation' today. Tomorrow it may become 'pro-liberal' or 'woke' and 'denial of benefits'. This slippery-slope isn't even that farfetched. Is that an acceptable risk?

nick238 2y ago

A site [1] mentions that student visas (F-1) may alter the protections of the first amendment, but doesn't go into any specific detail. Legal or not, if you're deported, it's ruinous, and forcing people to try to litigate against it is a practical win. Sounds like we need anti-SLAPP laws to protect us from the feds now... [1]: https://www.freedomforum.org/non-citizens-protected-first-amendment/ https://www.freedomforum.org/non-citizens-protected-first-am...

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Freedom of speech would suggest that I could be pro-Hamas if I wanted to be Short answer, yes [1]. The First Amendment prohibits the Congress from passing a law that abridges the freedom of speech. There is no visa exception. That would make such visa terminations unlawful. (If a student on a visa got themselves arrested, that’s a separate matter.) On a strategic level, this should give us hope. Trump is back to his first term arrogance and chaos. If State had moved quietly and decisively, damage could have been done before it was too late. The Palestinian cause is only a little bit more popular than USAID; in the end, there wouldn’t have been a broad fight. Instead, they got caught by Axios [2]. So we can get injunctions ex ante. [1] https://oiss.yale.edu/campus-community-life/for-students/legal-considerations/know-your-rights/participating-in-a-protest-know-your-rights-and-risks https://oiss.yale.edu/campus-community-life/for-students/leg... [2] https://www.axios.com/2025/03/06/state-department-ai-revoke-foreign-student-visas-hamas https://www.axios.com/2025/03/06/state-department-ai-revoke-...

pianom4n 2y ago
Nothing on that page supports what your claim. In reality even permanent residents could be deported for what would be 1st Amendment protected activity for citizens. In Harisiades v. Shaughnessy the deportation of legal residents for membership in the Communist party was upheld as Constitutional. This hasn't been overturned or narrowed and remains good law today. Whether current immigration law allows for this I don't know, but this isn't a 1st Amendment issue based on current precedent.

oefrha 2y ago

Visas can be revoked at any time for any reason. USCIS can revoke your visa because the supreme leader doesn't like your haircut and that's probably good enough for SCOTUS. > In the Court’s opinion, they noted Section 1155 as an absolute confirmation of discretion. USCIS may choose to revoke previously approved visa petitions at any time, for any reason the Secretary and USCIS determine is a “good and sufficient cause.” https://bizlegalservices.com/2024/12/12/supreme-court-confirms-no-judicial-review-for-revoked-visas/ https://bizlegalservices.com/2024/12/12/supreme-court-confir... https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/24 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/24 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/604us1r03_3f14.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/604us1r03_3f14.p... Disclaimer: My understanding, IINAL, etc. etc.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> In the Court’s opinion, they noted Section 1155 as an absolute confirmation of discretion Discretion by the Congress on the President. Congress is still bound by the Constitution. If they’d cancelled the visas and left the reason blank, that would have probably been legal. By explicitly tying the reason to speech, however, I believe it crosses the line.
- pianom4n 2y ago
  Nope. The 1st Amendment (as currently interpreted at least) doesn't protect non-citizens against deportation. See Harisiades v. Shaughnessy
  - ty6853 2y ago
    Everything surrounding immigration is a giant gaping hole in the Constitution. The gestapo stops people up to 100 miles from the border, with no probable cause or articulated suspicion that they are even non citizens. Systematically. CBP holds even citizens for basically as long as they like ( yes technically there is some vague directive it be speedy but I can tell you first hand if you ask for a lawyer they'll tell you to get fucked; they take your communication devices too, you have no way to object or record it for evidence). I think most people don't know HSI is practically as big(ger?) as the FBI, they and CBP goons served as a sort of presidential army rolling into places like Portland taking people in unmarked vans [0]. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-us...