3 ms·

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

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.

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.