8 ms·

The whole idea of looking at people's social media for undesirable political views is contrary to the spirit of the first amendment. It's fine for private unive

The whole idea of looking at people's social media for undesirable political views is contrary to the spirit of the first amendment. It's fine for private universities to vet their incoming students, but government shouldn't be doing that at all.

EGreg 1y ago
I thought first amendment was only for our citizens Congress shall pass no law — but executive branch under Trump does whatever it wants regardless of laws anyway…
- howard941 1y ago
  The 1st amendment covers "US persons." A US Person is a term of art broader than a citizen. OTOH since this is for a visa review that a non citizen wouldn't need I don't see where it comes into play.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > 1st amendment covers "US person” Read textually, it covers “the people...of the United States" [1][2]. The courts have interpreted this to mean people physically within the United States, with some ambiguity at the borders. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/preamble/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/preamble/ [2] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
    - breppp 1y ago
      If you want to be overly semantic it only talks about freedom of assembly for the "people", which as you defined above might refer to "the people of the united states" Also, going through social account history is not only for reasons of oppressing freedom of speech. Presumably you might want to reject visa applications from someone who threatens others with murder
      - alephnerd 1y ago
        > If you want to be overly semantic That's how the law works in the US, due to the textualist nature of our jurisprudence.
    - relaxing 1y ago
      No, the preamble to the constitution is not law, and it does not set boundaries for the rest of the document.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > the preamble to the constitution is not law, and it does not set boundaries for the rest of the document Sort of [1]. (“We the people” has specific case law.) [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/pre-3/ALDE_00001235/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/pre-3/ALDE_00...
  - donnachangstein 1y ago
    "US Person" has a very specific definition in government parlance. It includes citizens and green card holders, a few very specific exceptions like those granted permanent asylum, but NOT visa holders.
    - 8note 1y ago
      you could challenge it by saying youve touched US dollars, and therefore theres a US nexus where US law, and thus the constitution, applies
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  It covers US citizens and people physically present in the US.
  - hyperliner 1y ago
    “Present in the US” also has caveats at the border. A border is defined specifically in the law, which is 100 miles. A citizen of another country is not allowed to open carry at the border just because they showed up, for example. Similarly, there is no universal right to get a student visa.
    - impossiblefork 1y ago
      Yes, but if it's a place where the US has jurisdiction, then obviously the first amendment applies. The US borders aren't a constitution free zone. It's a region where you can search people, not anything else.
- sseagull 1y ago
  I think the key part is "spirit" of the 1st amendment. A better way to put it is that even if the 1st amendment doesn't apply, it's still against the ideal of "free speech"
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - bradchris 1y ago
    Not just spirit, they do entirely apply. Some Supreme Court decisions (there are many clarifying the first amendment)— Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945) > freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) > constitutional protections extend to “all persons” within the U.S, including undocumented immigrants.
    - breppp 1y ago
      So it doesn't apply to people that are applying for visa status?
      - bradchris 1y ago
        Being subject to unreasonable searches likely does, still. Depends on what is “reasonable” or not, but just because they’re applying for a status does not mean they give up their right to unreasonable searches and detainment. Note: US Embassies, where interviews are often conducted, are still considered US soil subject to US laws (otherwise the latest declaration from Trump pausing them would not apply to them)
        breppp 1y ago
        > Note: US Embassies, where interviews are often conducted, are still considered US soil subject to US laws (otherwise the latest declaration from Trump pausing them would not apply to them) I don't think that's how it works. The US visa application requests significant amount of personal information, and this is supposedly cross-checked with the US databases/intelligence agencies. So I doubt they sit down with you going over all your posts on hackernews, but rather ask what you use and your usernames and cross reference that with lists of people interested in ISIS telegram groups. I would be uncomfortable giving that data myself, but i was uncomfortable writing a lot other things in my visa application, and never thought anyone is forcing me to visit the US
- bradchris 1y ago
  The US constitution has generally been thought to apply to _everyone_ interacting with the US government, citizen or not. It’s why in the past tourists could expect due process under the law, and not be disappeared out of the blue, etc. So if the US is rewriting that social contract, they should probably explicitly say what provisions only protect US citizens and which apply to everyone. Because otherwise, is it none?
  - hyperliner 1y ago
    This is incorrect. There is specific distinction between citizens and persons. Habeas Corpus applies to persons. But there is no right that applies to every person in the world that would give them a right to get a student visa to a US university.
    - bradchris 1y ago
      You're misconstruing what I said— nowhere in the constitution is a student visa a “right” to a citizen or not. But subjecting a non-citizen to a potentially unreasonable search while exempting regular citizens is likely against the 4th and 5th amendments (due process + unreasonable searches). Of course, “unreasonable” depends on the court’s interpretation. Some Supreme Court decisions— Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945) > freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) > constitutional protections extend to “all persons” within the U.S, including undocumented immigrants.
    - bakuninsbart 1y ago
      One of the things every democratic constitution henceforth, and supported by the US, did differently. Maybe a constitutional change to afford basic rights to aliens is in order.
  - onli 1y ago
    That's the same country that operates an illegal torture prison (Guantanamo), claiming the rule of law does not apply there because it is not on US soil. That prison is still open. It did imprison minors. It is none, and that predates Trump.
- legitster 1y ago
  Citizenship wasn't even a concept in the constitution until the 14th Amendment in 1866! When the constitution and First Amendment was written, it applied to all residents of the US and citizenship was mostly defined at the state level.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    Uh... https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri... > No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. > No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. "it applied to all residents of the US…" Slaves? Native Americans?
    - legitster 1y ago
      It uses the term of "citizen" but does not specify a requirement or legal definition. The constitution implies a continuance of English Common Law in regards to citizenship: https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv/clauses/700 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/a... In regards to slaves or Native Americans - again it depended on the states' laws. Hence the entire reason why the 14th Amendment was passed. The fact that they only called out the requirement of citizenship for office should make it pretty clear they intended the rest of the constitution was universal.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        > It uses the term of "citizen" but does not specify a requirement or legal definition. Then we agree; it very much includes the concept of citizenship.
decremental 1y ago
Yeah the government shouldn't care at all what these foreign nationals might be saying on the internet before letting them into our country.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- bigyabai 1y ago
  Yes, but unironically. I guarantee that you cannot imagine the course of American history if every foreign national was vetted for dissident works. Losing WWII would have only been the tip of the iceberg.
  - decremental 1y ago
    [dead]
whatshisface 1y ago
Especially because it's not like all US citizens agree with this extreme level of shoring up support for destroying Gaza. Sec. Rubio and this administration are willing to throw away a century of slowly earned international prestige, just to slow down Europe's response to the one-sided war. The only logical interpretation is that they're hoping Israel can rejoin the world after it is over (if they could be enabled until it's finished) with some mixture of regret and denial, and don't care too much about what happens here at home in the process of getting there. (Just to make sure we're all aware of the facts, here's information from the State Department that the nature of "catch and revoke" social media screening is to target this issue: 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-...)
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  They aren't doing this to protect israel. They are doing this to destroy academia. Antisemitism is rife within people hired to significant positions within the trump administration. This was never about israel. That's just the cover story.
  - whatshisface 1y ago
    One of the unfortunate lessons of the past year has been that there is no ideological conflict between supporters of "return to home" (I don't recall the precise translation) and antisemites. I myself discovered this fact in the writings of pre-Nazi German nationalists, but did not expect it to become relevant in my lifetime. The track record of extreme support for Israel is as strong in the present administration as the track record of accepting probable or evident you-know-whats, who (and I can dig up evidence if you want to see it, but I don't want to do that - it's in the documents of white nationalists dating to the alt-right era as distinct from older groups) have actually adopted Israel as a model for their own nationalist views in the past decade or two.
  - loufe 1y ago
    Out of curiosity, who in a significant position within the trump administration has antisemitic views, in your opinion?
impossiblefork 1y ago
After letting them in, yes, but before letting them in seems unproblematic.
- ModernMech 1y ago
  > seems unproblematic. You say that without having seen the screening criteria.
  - oldpersonintx2 1y ago
    it can be arbitrary, like for any nation screening entrants
- Analemma_ 1y ago
  No, it’s still problematic because it creates chilling effects and self-censorship, which is deeply wrong if you care about the spirit and not just the letter of the First Amendment.
- nielsbot 1y ago
  I mean we should definitely screen for heretical thought in anyone wanting to visit the greatest country in the world.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > After letting them in, yes, but before letting them in seems unproblematic I mean, when China bars renowned scholars from entering its borders because of what they might say, we judge it pretty straightforwardly.
catigula 1y ago
The idea that the first amendment disallows vetting of non-citizens is unfortunately not tenable and this is the argument that they're using.
- abeppu 1y ago
  > The idea that the first amendment disallows vetting of non-citizens is unfortunately not tenable Yeah, I keep hearing people say this kind of thing, or that the first amendment only protects US citizens. But ... where does that come from? I thought SCOTUS was supposed to have been jammed with conservative "textualist" justices, and the amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Nowhere does this mention citizenship. Nowhere does it say it can regulate speech outside or at our borders. Now, from just the text I could imagine someone trying to claim that the Executive is not bound by the first amendment which specifically says "Congress shall make no law" ...
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > from just the text I could imagine someone trying to claim that the Executive is not bound by the first amendment which specifically says "Congress shall make no law" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory
  - bitshiftfaced 1y ago
    > I keep hearing people say this kind of thing, or that the first amendment only protects US citizens. But ... where does that come from? A couple of places to start are Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) and United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990).
    - arunabha 1y ago
      But the executive is supposed to implement laws that Congress passed. So isn't the executive bound by the first amendment as well?
dmitrygr 1y ago
1st amendment covers us citizens and people in USA. Before a noncitizen enters, there is no 1st amendment protection. Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant to this fact.
- affinepplan 1y ago
  it also covers anyone "presumed to be" an us citizen, even if the gov. does not have specific knowledge that they definitively are.
- afavour 1y ago
  I assume that’s why OP said “the spirit of”. The spirit of the first amendment is free speech. Once you start litigating exactly who gets to speak freely and in what scenarios in an attempt to limit it as much as possible then I’d agree it’s very much not in the spirit of the amendment.
- 01100011 1y ago
  No. It's an inalienable right inherent to all humans regardless of citizenship. That said, the right to free speech does not mean you are free from consequences from that speech. If you're hoping to gain access to a country, it would be wise to refrain from criticizing that country. Yes, views can change and maybe you talked negatively before realizing you wanted to visit the offended country. Not sure what to say to that.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > It's an inalienable right inherent to all humans regardless of citizenship No, it's not. The First Amendment is a legal provision restricting what the U.S. government can do. Free speech, as a principle, is a broader construct. Some people believe it's a natural right [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights#Contemporary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right...
  - 8note 1y ago
    in this case its to make sure people arent criticising a third party. say something bad about israel, and you lose entry to the US, if you're poor
pfannkuchen 1y ago
I’m pretty sure the men who actually wrote the first amendment would have been strongly against any non-European foreigner being educated in America, let alone those among them with anti-American views. I agree with you that this violates the spirit of the first amendment as it is currently interpreted and portrayed, but how do we square that with this interpretation producing results that are squarely at odds with the intent of the founders? Pornography being protected by the first amendment is another example that is pretty straightforwardly against the original spirit. If this is actually about anti-Israel sentiment being policed though then I’m just confused generally. If the views in question aren’t “destroy America” or “revolution in America”, both of which should be left to US voters and not foreign agitators, I don’t think that is really any of the US government’s business.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1267&context=falr https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... > In the eighteenth century, bookstores in the American colonies carried an extraordinary array of erotica, ranging from Boccaccio’s Decameron to such explicitly sexual works as Venus in the Cloister, The Politick Whore, and Letters of an Italian Nun and an English Gentleman, and there were no statutes forbidding obscenity during the entire colonial era. To the contrary, throughout this period, the distribution, exhibition, and possession of pornographic material was simply not thought to be any of the state’s business. > The first obscenity prosecution in the United States did not occur until 1815, at the height of the evangelical explosion of the Second Great Awakening, which triggered a nationwide effort to transform American law and politics through the lens of evangelical Christianity. Benjamin Franklin would've loved Pornhub. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_to_a_Friend_on_Choosing_a_Mistress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_to_a_Friend_on_Choosing...
  - pfannkuchen 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
lesuorac 1y ago
I mean, the time to deal with that was 4 years ago under Biden. Least nobody forget the twitter files where it was revealed the Trump administration was ordering twitter to take down tweets.
jasonhong 1y ago
I'd say it's worse than that. This new policy of vetting will be extremely high cost in terms of time, money, and lost opportunities for students and universities, while also be rather useless in practice. Seriously, what student applicant won't clean up their social media profile? What threats will actually be caught by this approach? This whole policy is dumber than conventional security theater. But then again, that's the point of this policy. It has the thinnest veneer of being for a legitimate purpose while hurting those that this administration wants to hurt.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > what student applicant won't clean up their social media profile? Every social-media background check I've seen searches extant and archived media.
- michaelt 1y ago
  > Seriously, what student applicant won't clean up their social media profile? That is the goal of the policy. > What threats will actually be caught by this approach? Catching threats is not the goal.
belorn 1y ago
Could it be time for the US to look towards European declaration of human rights and define political views, or any world views for that matter, to be equally worth defining as a protected class as for people who visit a holy place regularly. None should be looking at people's social media for undesirable political views, no more than they should dig into peoples life to determine if they are a devout something.
- chneu 1y ago
  Won't ever happen. Americans believe we're exceptional. The mere idea of copying Europe is dead in the water before you can explain why it's a good idea. You can always count on Americans to do the right thing after we've tried everything else.
  - bamboozled 1y ago
    Americans believe we're exceptional. This attitude and culture will probably be the downfall of the USA. Trump personifies this view and takes it to extremes, he basically talks as if whatever he says is all that matters and nothing else is important. Going to learn the hard way, that's for sure.
    - ben_w 1y ago
      "Hard way", sure; just don't count on the "learning" part. I'm a British national. When I left the UK in 2018, people were still talking about Dunkirk like it was a British victory rather than a rolling defeat whose only (even then partially) successful component was the final evacuation; about WW2 like it was a simple victory rather than a Pyrrhic victory; and about the Empire like the end of it was the UK's choice.
    - tremon 1y ago
      Going to learn the hard way, that's for sure. I don't share your positive outlook. There's at least two other likely scenario's: - a large part of the country might not learn at all - the only lessons being learned are about how to stay in power

EGreg 1y ago

I thought first amendment was only for our citizens Congress shall pass no law — but executive branch under Trump does whatever it wants regardless of laws anyway…

howard941 1y ago
The 1st amendment covers "US persons." A US Person is a term of art broader than a citizen. OTOH since this is for a visa review that a non citizen wouldn't need I don't see where it comes into play.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > 1st amendment covers "US person” Read textually, it covers “the people...of the United States" [1][2]. The courts have interpreted this to mean people physically within the United States, with some ambiguity at the borders. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/preamble/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/preamble/ [2] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
  - breppp 1y ago
    If you want to be overly semantic it only talks about freedom of assembly for the "people", which as you defined above might refer to "the people of the united states" Also, going through social account history is not only for reasons of oppressing freedom of speech. Presumably you might want to reject visa applications from someone who threatens others with murder
    - alephnerd 1y ago
      > If you want to be overly semantic That's how the law works in the US, due to the textualist nature of our jurisprudence.
  - relaxing 1y ago
    No, the preamble to the constitution is not law, and it does not set boundaries for the rest of the document.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > the preamble to the constitution is not law, and it does not set boundaries for the rest of the document Sort of [1]. (“We the people” has specific case law.) [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/pre-3/ALDE_00001235/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/pre-3/ALDE_00...
- donnachangstein 1y ago
  "US Person" has a very specific definition in government parlance. It includes citizens and green card holders, a few very specific exceptions like those granted permanent asylum, but NOT visa holders.
  - 8note 1y ago
    you could challenge it by saying youve touched US dollars, and therefore theres a US nexus where US law, and thus the constitution, applies
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
impossiblefork 1y ago
It covers US citizens and people physically present in the US.
- hyperliner 1y ago
  “Present in the US” also has caveats at the border. A border is defined specifically in the law, which is 100 miles. A citizen of another country is not allowed to open carry at the border just because they showed up, for example. Similarly, there is no universal right to get a student visa.
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    Yes, but if it's a place where the US has jurisdiction, then obviously the first amendment applies. The US borders aren't a constitution free zone. It's a region where you can search people, not anything else.
sseagull 1y ago
I think the key part is "spirit" of the 1st amendment. A better way to put it is that even if the 1st amendment doesn't apply, it's still against the ideal of "free speech"
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- bradchris 1y ago
  Not just spirit, they do entirely apply. Some Supreme Court decisions (there are many clarifying the first amendment)— Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945) > freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) > constitutional protections extend to “all persons” within the U.S, including undocumented immigrants.
  - breppp 1y ago
    So it doesn't apply to people that are applying for visa status?
    - bradchris 1y ago
      Being subject to unreasonable searches likely does, still. Depends on what is “reasonable” or not, but just because they’re applying for a status does not mean they give up their right to unreasonable searches and detainment. Note: US Embassies, where interviews are often conducted, are still considered US soil subject to US laws (otherwise the latest declaration from Trump pausing them would not apply to them)
      - breppp 1y ago
        > Note: US Embassies, where interviews are often conducted, are still considered US soil subject to US laws (otherwise the latest declaration from Trump pausing them would not apply to them) I don't think that's how it works. The US visa application requests significant amount of personal information, and this is supposedly cross-checked with the US databases/intelligence agencies. So I doubt they sit down with you going over all your posts on hackernews, but rather ask what you use and your usernames and cross reference that with lists of people interested in ISIS telegram groups. I would be uncomfortable giving that data myself, but i was uncomfortable writing a lot other things in my visa application, and never thought anyone is forcing me to visit the US
bradchris 1y ago
The US constitution has generally been thought to apply to _everyone_ interacting with the US government, citizen or not. It’s why in the past tourists could expect due process under the law, and not be disappeared out of the blue, etc. So if the US is rewriting that social contract, they should probably explicitly say what provisions only protect US citizens and which apply to everyone. Because otherwise, is it none?
- hyperliner 1y ago
  This is incorrect. There is specific distinction between citizens and persons. Habeas Corpus applies to persons. But there is no right that applies to every person in the world that would give them a right to get a student visa to a US university.
  - bradchris 1y ago
    You're misconstruing what I said— nowhere in the constitution is a student visa a “right” to a citizen or not. But subjecting a non-citizen to a potentially unreasonable search while exempting regular citizens is likely against the 4th and 5th amendments (due process + unreasonable searches). Of course, “unreasonable” depends on the court’s interpretation. Some Supreme Court decisions— Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945) > freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) > constitutional protections extend to “all persons” within the U.S, including undocumented immigrants.
  - bakuninsbart 1y ago
    One of the things every democratic constitution henceforth, and supported by the US, did differently. Maybe a constitutional change to afford basic rights to aliens is in order.
- onli 1y ago
  That's the same country that operates an illegal torture prison (Guantanamo), claiming the rule of law does not apply there because it is not on US soil. That prison is still open. It did imprison minors. It is none, and that predates Trump.
legitster 1y ago
Citizenship wasn't even a concept in the constitution until the 14th Amendment in 1866! When the constitution and First Amendment was written, it applied to all residents of the US and citizenship was mostly defined at the state level.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  Uh... https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri... > No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. > No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. "it applied to all residents of the US…" Slaves? Native Americans?
  - legitster 1y ago
    It uses the term of "citizen" but does not specify a requirement or legal definition. The constitution implies a continuance of English Common Law in regards to citizenship: https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv/clauses/700 https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/a... In regards to slaves or Native Americans - again it depended on the states' laws. Hence the entire reason why the 14th Amendment was passed. The fact that they only called out the requirement of citizenship for office should make it pretty clear they intended the rest of the constitution was universal.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > It uses the term of "citizen" but does not specify a requirement or legal definition. Then we agree; it very much includes the concept of citizenship.

decremental 1y ago

Yeah the government shouldn't care at all what these foreign nationals might be saying on the internet before letting them into our country.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
bigyabai 1y ago
Yes, but unironically. I guarantee that you cannot imagine the course of American history if every foreign national was vetted for dissident works. Losing WWII would have only been the tip of the iceberg.
- decremental 1y ago
  [dead]

whatshisface 1y ago

Especially because it's not like all US citizens agree with this extreme level of shoring up support for destroying Gaza. Sec. Rubio and this administration are willing to throw away a century of slowly earned international prestige, just to slow down Europe's response to the one-sided war. The only logical interpretation is that they're hoping Israel can rejoin the world after it is over (if they could be enabled until it's finished) with some mixture of regret and denial, and don't care too much about what happens here at home in the process of getting there. (Just to make sure we're all aware of the facts, here's information from the State Department that the nature of "catch and revoke" social media screening is to target this issue: 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-...)

UncleMeat 1y ago
They aren't doing this to protect israel. They are doing this to destroy academia. Antisemitism is rife within people hired to significant positions within the trump administration. This was never about israel. That's just the cover story.
- whatshisface 1y ago
  One of the unfortunate lessons of the past year has been that there is no ideological conflict between supporters of "return to home" (I don't recall the precise translation) and antisemites. I myself discovered this fact in the writings of pre-Nazi German nationalists, but did not expect it to become relevant in my lifetime. The track record of extreme support for Israel is as strong in the present administration as the track record of accepting probable or evident you-know-whats, who (and I can dig up evidence if you want to see it, but I don't want to do that - it's in the documents of white nationalists dating to the alt-right era as distinct from older groups) have actually adopted Israel as a model for their own nationalist views in the past decade or two.
- loufe 1y ago
  Out of curiosity, who in a significant position within the trump administration has antisemitic views, in your opinion?

impossiblefork 1y ago

After letting them in, yes, but before letting them in seems unproblematic.

ModernMech 1y ago
> seems unproblematic. You say that without having seen the screening criteria.
- oldpersonintx2 1y ago
  it can be arbitrary, like for any nation screening entrants
Analemma_ 1y ago
No, it’s still problematic because it creates chilling effects and self-censorship, which is deeply wrong if you care about the spirit and not just the letter of the First Amendment.
nielsbot 1y ago
I mean we should definitely screen for heretical thought in anyone wanting to visit the greatest country in the world.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> After letting them in, yes, but before letting them in seems unproblematic I mean, when China bars renowned scholars from entering its borders because of what they might say, we judge it pretty straightforwardly.

catigula 1y ago

The idea that the first amendment disallows vetting of non-citizens is unfortunately not tenable and this is the argument that they're using.

abeppu 1y ago
> The idea that the first amendment disallows vetting of non-citizens is unfortunately not tenable Yeah, I keep hearing people say this kind of thing, or that the first amendment only protects US citizens. But ... where does that come from? I thought SCOTUS was supposed to have been jammed with conservative "textualist" justices, and the amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Nowhere does this mention citizenship. Nowhere does it say it can regulate speech outside or at our borders. Now, from just the text I could imagine someone trying to claim that the Executive is not bound by the first amendment which specifically says "Congress shall make no law" ...
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > from just the text I could imagine someone trying to claim that the Executive is not bound by the first amendment which specifically says "Congress shall make no law" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory
- bitshiftfaced 1y ago
  > I keep hearing people say this kind of thing, or that the first amendment only protects US citizens. But ... where does that come from? A couple of places to start are Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) and United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990).
  - arunabha 1y ago
    But the executive is supposed to implement laws that Congress passed. So isn't the executive bound by the first amendment as well?

dmitrygr 1y ago

1st amendment covers us citizens and people in USA. Before a noncitizen enters, there is no 1st amendment protection. Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant to this fact.

affinepplan 1y ago
it also covers anyone "presumed to be" an us citizen, even if the gov. does not have specific knowledge that they definitively are.
afavour 1y ago
I assume that’s why OP said “the spirit of”. The spirit of the first amendment is free speech. Once you start litigating exactly who gets to speak freely and in what scenarios in an attempt to limit it as much as possible then I’d agree it’s very much not in the spirit of the amendment.
01100011 1y ago
No. It's an inalienable right inherent to all humans regardless of citizenship. That said, the right to free speech does not mean you are free from consequences from that speech. If you're hoping to gain access to a country, it would be wise to refrain from criticizing that country. Yes, views can change and maybe you talked negatively before realizing you wanted to visit the offended country. Not sure what to say to that.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > It's an inalienable right inherent to all humans regardless of citizenship No, it's not. The First Amendment is a legal provision restricting what the U.S. government can do. Free speech, as a principle, is a broader construct. Some people believe it's a natural right [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights#Contemporary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right...
- 8note 1y ago
  in this case its to make sure people arent criticising a third party. say something bad about israel, and you lose entry to the US, if you're poor

pfannkuchen 1y ago

I’m pretty sure the men who actually wrote the first amendment would have been strongly against any non-European foreigner being educated in America, let alone those among them with anti-American views. I agree with you that this violates the spirit of the first amendment as it is currently interpreted and portrayed, but how do we square that with this interpretation producing results that are squarely at odds with the intent of the founders? Pornography being protected by the first amendment is another example that is pretty straightforwardly against the original spirit. If this is actually about anti-Israel sentiment being policed though then I’m just confused generally. If the views in question aren’t “destroy America” or “revolution in America”, both of which should be left to US voters and not foreign agitators, I don’t think that is really any of the US government’s business.

ceejayoz 1y ago
https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1267&context=falr https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... > In the eighteenth century, bookstores in the American colonies carried an extraordinary array of erotica, ranging from Boccaccio’s Decameron to such explicitly sexual works as Venus in the Cloister, The Politick Whore, and Letters of an Italian Nun and an English Gentleman, and there were no statutes forbidding obscenity during the entire colonial era. To the contrary, throughout this period, the distribution, exhibition, and possession of pornographic material was simply not thought to be any of the state’s business. > The first obscenity prosecution in the United States did not occur until 1815, at the height of the evangelical explosion of the Second Great Awakening, which triggered a nationwide effort to transform American law and politics through the lens of evangelical Christianity. Benjamin Franklin would've loved Pornhub. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_to_a_Friend_on_Choosing_a_Mistress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_to_a_Friend_on_Choosing...
- pfannkuchen 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago

lesuorac 1y ago

I mean, the time to deal with that was 4 years ago under Biden. Least nobody forget the twitter files where it was revealed the Trump administration was ordering twitter to take down tweets.

jasonhong 1y ago

I'd say it's worse than that. This new policy of vetting will be extremely high cost in terms of time, money, and lost opportunities for students and universities, while also be rather useless in practice. Seriously, what student applicant won't clean up their social media profile? What threats will actually be caught by this approach? This whole policy is dumber than conventional security theater. But then again, that's the point of this policy. It has the thinnest veneer of being for a legitimate purpose while hurting those that this administration wants to hurt.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> what student applicant won't clean up their social media profile? Every social-media background check I've seen searches extant and archived media.
michaelt 1y ago
> Seriously, what student applicant won't clean up their social media profile? That is the goal of the policy. > What threats will actually be caught by this approach? Catching threats is not the goal.

belorn 1y ago

Could it be time for the US to look towards European declaration of human rights and define political views, or any world views for that matter, to be equally worth defining as a protected class as for people who visit a holy place regularly. None should be looking at people's social media for undesirable political views, no more than they should dig into peoples life to determine if they are a devout something.

chneu 1y ago
Won't ever happen. Americans believe we're exceptional. The mere idea of copying Europe is dead in the water before you can explain why it's a good idea. You can always count on Americans to do the right thing after we've tried everything else.
- bamboozled 1y ago
  Americans believe we're exceptional. This attitude and culture will probably be the downfall of the USA. Trump personifies this view and takes it to extremes, he basically talks as if whatever he says is all that matters and nothing else is important. Going to learn the hard way, that's for sure.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    "Hard way", sure; just don't count on the "learning" part. I'm a British national. When I left the UK in 2018, people were still talking about Dunkirk like it was a British victory rather than a rolling defeat whose only (even then partially) successful component was the final evacuation; about WW2 like it was a simple victory rather than a Pyrrhic victory; and about the Empire like the end of it was the UK's choice.
  - tremon 1y ago
    Going to learn the hard way, that's for sure. I don't share your positive outlook. There's at least two other likely scenario's: - a large part of the country might not learn at all - the only lessons being learned are about how to stay in power