It all comes down to whether non-citizens enjoy First Amendment rights per existing law. I don't see any benefit to the US to bend over backwards to grant that right if it doesn't already exist. Nothing redeeming in allowing non-citizens to trash the place as stated by Rubio. Citizens being allowed to do pretty much as they please is quite enough.
Agreed. Matt mentioned that the 1st amendment is not specific as to applicability to a non-citizen. I wonder, are constitutional rights applicable to non-citizens. In general, of late, it seems like illegal immigrants have more rights than me.
Visas may complicate the answers to these questions, but Rubio had stated, with regard to Khalil, that he would have never been granted a visa if his views had been made known when he applied.
That should be the answer. Not speech. And Khalil has an interesting background. Since I think he is now a public figure, I will risk a defamation suit. I think he's tied into one or more intelligence services. At the very least, a talent spotter. And he also achieved legal permanent residency in record time. I know he married, but the speed of visa, green card, then legal permanent begs the question. Why and how so fast?
Every person in the US is protected by the bill of rights. They can speak, attend Church, get a jury trial, have their Miranda rights read to them, require a warrant to search their private property.
All of those are sacrosanct.
The question is whether the “words” are speech or not. But the same analysis is made for citizens and non citizens.
The beauty of the Constitution is that it governs the government not that it “restricts “ the people.
There is no bigger fan of the Constitution than me.
I'm not particularly versed in the Khalil case or the FIRE case. But Rubio enforces immigration law, apparently including who gets deported. And there are exceptions to the 1A protections. Did Khalil incite?
I think you are hitting on the aspect of this particular case that the writter omitted; that is, are there other potential aspects of this person's behavior (such as terroristic speach, incitement that resulted in an unlawful occupation of private property and extensive property damage, and immigration application fraud) that are permissible reasons to deport someone here on a student visa. Given Rubio's explicit legal powers to deport without having to go through the time-consuming and expensive process of judicial hearings, he opted instead to deport. It will take a SCOTUS ruling to overturn Rubio's actions because he was working within existing law, but even if ultimately overturned, this person will likely be deported after a court hearing, and facts of his actions are presented. The bar for deporting visa holders is lower than the one for finding crinimal guilt.
That is the question. And it is a question of fact so he gets a chance to present his side of it if the basis of the removal is possibly covered by 1A.
Not if the Govt has other grounds which are not pretextual.
Both illegal aliens and legal immigrants who aren't citizens already have their first amendment rights abridged. They cannot, for example, contribute to a US political campaign. They do not share the same rights as US citizens. The SC has found they can be deported for who they are, such as a Communist. If they go on stage and announce in a loud voice that they are a Communist and are then deported, they are not being deported for their speech and it is permissible to deport them for who they have revealed themselves to be. That has been adjudicated constitutional.
Mahmoud doesn't hide from the fact that his speech was not all First Amendment protected. The second outdoor encampment at Columbia absolutely violated the law given the prohibitions that came after the first one. That’s why it resulted in swift arrests of many involved, criminal charges, and guilty pleas. Mahmoud Khalil stood in front of cameras as an organizer of that. It was illegal to conduct that protest action, without question, which means that his speech organizing it was not protected under the First Amendment. It fails the Brandenburg test, given that it was speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” as evidenced by the fact that it did in fact immediately produce lawless behavior.
Plenty of folks have spoken against Israel's policies and not been deported; the Gov't has specifically focused in their actions and words on those that disrupted life in the US with ILLEGAL protests. That's focusing on illegal non-protected speech, not punishing protected speech.
The gov't has explicitly focused on illegal speech. Rubio was explicit and discerning in his language: “If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student, and you tell us that the reason you are coming to the United States is not just because you want to write op-eds but because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus, we are not going to give you a visa,”
"Illegal" immigrants want to keep their heads low. It's "legal" immigrants who are getting deported for saying bad things about a country that they aren't even in when they're saying it, Israel.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. Exceptions include that schools can restrict speech that is considered disruptive, among other exceptions such as for child pornography or inciting violence.
The right to assemble for peaceful dissent is also in the First Amendment, is it not? So demonstrators have to remain “peaceful,” that is, not vandalize property or assault people; but to say that their mere presence or words “make Jewish students feel unsafe” is a twisting beyond the breaking point the concept of assault, in exactly the way the Right mocked that whiny precept when it was part of wokism.
The issues at hand create quite a sticky wicket in this case. First, the comparison of deportation authorities in the US being compared to Gestapo who delivered Jews to death camps in the thirties after deprivation of homes, businesses, money, belongings, teeth, etc. is not an accurate comparison. Secondly, the insistence that everyone agree on genocide of Palestinians needs more information. Genocide by whom and what means?
But the meat of the matter is the understanding of our Constitution, and whom it was written to. “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, promote the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This tells us distinctly that We the People are the beneficiaries of the document, the laws and the civil rights and liberties established. The fact that a SCOTUS case held that the first amendment rights were granted to an alien (proper term) prior to the Immigration and Naturalization Act, specifically determining that the Secretary of State has the authority to determine a foreign national a continued right to hold a Visa alters the precedent of court’s prior ruling. The Secretary’s decision stands.
Having had the liberty of freedom of speech and conscience by the blessing of birth or naturalization of course makes us understand its value, and understand it is a natural right, given by God for all people. My understanding of the reason for the revocation of the Visa is that the trouble he was causing the State went beyond speech to activities, and that his verbiage was inconsiderate towards other students of Semitic origin.
Khalil crossed the line when his "free speech" led to campus disruption. It could be argued that his fervent speeches weren't the cause, but his followers were certainly influenced it seemed. Inflammatory rhetoric is just that, protected rhetoric, until his adoring acolytes (as should be reasonably expected) act out in a disruptive manner that affects others. That would be incitement.
The speech has to directly incite a criminal act. That is a tough argument. As it should be.
One can say in a speech “ I think they all should die” ( perhaps the speech was rhetorical or hyperbole) . If the following week some guy kills one the “them” there is zero chance the speaker is charged.
If he points to them and says “I think they should die” and right them a person listening shoots one of them … different kettle of fish.
Free speech jurisprudence is not a simple headline answer.
Too many reporters and pundits treat it like it is.
It is the intersection of the State Departments authority to determine the rights of visa holder's to stay in country. He has that statutory authority.
That would depend on the action taken. If their action is only to join in and express their opinions also, fine. If, on the other hand, their actions disrupt, intimidate and infringe on the rights of others, now they have been incited to perform criminal acts.
Did Trump incite people to commit criminal acts on Jan. 6? You're failing to grasp a simple point: that it cannot be people's reactions to speech that determine whether the speech is lawful or not.
I think that's the key argument. The US should, and often does, argue that everyone throughout the world should have free speech rights; it's an inalienable right that humans should possess, not something given to us by the government. Members of the Trump administration are arguing, rightly I should add, the UK and European citizens should have free speech rights and not be banned from social media or thrown in jail for things said online. How can we argue that people throughout the Anglo-sphere should have free speech protections, but not immigrants in our country?
I'd agree that students on visas actively engaging in illegal behavior, like rioting, stopping traffic or building takeovers — things that are often claimed to be part of peaceful protest but aren't — could be charged, and deportations or revocations of visas could be in order. Throwing students and other visa holders out of the country for speeches and articles, which are in no way illegal behavior in the US, goes way too far. Creating an AI-powered database to comb social media posts for "anti-American sentiment" is really going too far, and everyone — no matter their party affiliation — should reject it. How would we feel if the EU/UK used that same platform to throw citizens expressing anti-immigration or gender-critical speech in jail?
We're either for free speech, and think it's a human right for everyone, or we aren't.
It pisses me off every time I go to an airport the amount of security everyone has to put up with, especially on international travel. Meanwhile, millions of people crossed the border without question. It made me wonder if I could get through the lines quicker without an ID and pretending not to speak english.
Next citizens who hang with non citizens will be censored....oh, yeah, that's already happening... Anything the government does to aliens or overseas they will do to you, friend..
That orange shithead bragged that he would end the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and release everything on Epstein immediately. Instead that fucker is taking bribes through cryptocurrency and hiding the fact that he was sex trafficking girls through his beauty pageants.
Wow. Trump took out the nuclear enrichment facility in Iran, got Iran to stop firing missiles at Israel, brokered peace deals with India & Pakistan, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the Congo. Now he has a meeting with Putin to negotiate peace in Ukraine. All in 200 days. And HE is the orange shithead? Hahahahahahaha.
The basic question in the litigation is under what conditions a temporary permission to be in-country can be revoked and the person whose permission was revoked then be deported.
Speech, practiced by non-citizens in the U.S. with permission, might be an activity we want to protect, or should want to protect.
Non-citizens here without permission present a different question.
I think the first amendment applies to all of it. There are a lot of people in this world that you don't agree with, and that I don't agree with. Does that mean they shouldn't have a right to say what you don't like? Of course not. That includes being infringed upon
The truth comes out - you're more interested in CERTAIN speech, that which aligns with your beliefs than actual "free" speech and the rights of EVERYONE (if as you say, the Constitution applies to foreigners as well). Got it.
To be more specific.... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Are you as much a originalist when it comes to the 2A?
You bet. A good musket, and bowie knife and a manual crossbow. Spears and Pikes, maybe cannon, you go for it. That's what the founders had in mind and I will defend that such weapons not be infringed on. Oh wait, are you talking about interpreting 2A to included allllll weapons regardless?
According to the Supreme Court it means "weapons in common use". If more than 1 million citizens own a type of weapon, that is pretty much in common use.
Two examples: 1) more than 40 million citizens carry a pocket knife EVERY DAY. 2) about 82M own 1 or more semi-automatic firearms. For me, both catagories of weapons would qualify as 'in common use'.
I missed the part in the 2nd amendment where it specifies "arms". Sounds like you've seen it somewhere since you're stating that "thats what the founders had in mind" would you care to share that source?
I generally agree....BUT, I've also observed how burning the American flag is categorized as "free speech", but burning a *pride* flag is a hate crime. A bit off-topic analogy, but here the case is relative to people we (citizens, via our government) have ALLOWED to visit; is their right to free speech the same as mine? I don't believe it is.
Not so off topic. “Hate speech” is a terrible concept, just as is deporting someone for what he said publicly. First Amendment infringements that puts the government in the position of regulating speech. I don’t want Democrats doing that; I don’t want Republicans doing that.
Just limiting to speech (ie, not actions) would Khalil have been permitted to come to the US if he'd made those statements overseas? If not, that is government *regulating* speech....
Does freedom of speech mean freedom from consequences? I don't know what the scenario is to compare with someone who is a citizen, but democrats jailed Douglas Mackey for posting a meme. Khalil isn't being threatened with a criminal punishment for what he's said/done, just that he's no longer welcome in this country.
Glen Greenwald points this out: so would you be okay with a Democrat President deporting Jordan Peterson (Canadian conservative who spends a lot of time in US) because of (insert some nonsense about how he "trashes" trans Americans). Because once the precedent is set..... So if America does not "bend over backwards to grant that right", will you be defending the Democrats when they do this to conservative voices? And don't think bat shit crazy governors like Gavin Newsom won't try to pile on and stretch their power to limit free speech in their states once this precedent is set. How about Green Card/visa holders that go to Pro Life rally ? Gone! Green Card/visa holders advocating against socialist polices? Gone! You going to be consistent and defend the "don't need to bend over backwards" argument then?
But it does already exist. The U.S. government does not *allow* freedom of speech. The Constitution forbids the government from making laws *restricting* freedom of speech. It's an important distinction.
According to the 1945 Supreme Court ruling (Bridges v. Wixon), it already came down to it. They decided that legal aliens are entitled to First Amendment rights. So neither Trump, Rubio, or even Congress can change that without SCOTUS overturning the 1945 decision or amending the Constitution. So there is no if or other uncertainty about it.
That doesn't mean their visas can't be revoked and there is often more behavior than "speech." Matt and most liberals seem to define it as holding up a library, keeping Jewish students from class, inciting language that threatens their safety. All fine. If foreigners now have the same rights as we do, that should be changed. Lying on an application and other behavior is reason enough.
Exactly. “Due process” differs based on your immigration status. Illegals have limited “due process “ green card holders, “US Persons” ( not citizens)etc. have various “ due process “ .
Yes, but many of them talk like occupying libraries and stopping students from going to class is "free speech." You are right. It is usually more than that.
Where in the Constitution does it say such people don’t have First Amendment protections? I can’t find it. The use of “citizen” is used specifically for such things as voting or running for office; otherwise “people” seems to be the preferred word.
And this isn’t just any country, I agree.
Finally, this falls under the same misbegotten category with “hate speech.” Once the government gets to determine what “hate speech” is, we’re lost.
So now that you're letting the government decide what speech by an alien can be punished...
...how long do you think it will take until our rulers grow accustomed to that power, and turn it on citizens? Comfortingly, it will only be used against citizens you disagree with...
...at first, until an election inevitably changes who reigns and holds the reins, and they come after opinions you agree with, and you.
If an alien is committing actual crimes, charge them and deport them.
If they're saying shit you disagree with, well, that's the cost of *your* freedom to also speak your mind.
Are you really willing to tear down America's constitution just so some yahoos can't chant "from the river to the sea"? Are you seriously that naïve or that partisan?
Your slippery slope argument doesn't hold because the government cannot revoke the visa of a US citizen. On top of that, I am not comfortable with allowing people admitted on a visa unlimited latitude to politically agitate. Absolutely people should be able to express their opinions, but when you start organizing mass protests and creating unrest, I think it is fair game to have your visa revoked. What bothers me greatly is the selective revoking of visas to those who criticize the war in Gaza. There needs to be hard pushback on that.
In WW1, V. I. Lenin had been run out of Russia for trying to stir up a revolution. He fled to Switzerland.
Late in the war, to shut down the Eastern Front, the Germans smuggled Lenin back to Russia to give the Czar something different to worry about. The operation succeeded beyond all imagination, gave us Communist Russia, set the stage for WW2, Vietnam, and the CCP.
Imagine V. I. demanding his rights to hang out in Russia and sing The Internationale and you have a good analogy to the FIRE claim.
The Trumpers’ opponents, globally and domestically, have been trampling or double-standardizing freedom of speech. I think it’s important that they not do the same. Khalil is a poncey entitled loudmouth, but making him a hero is a mistake. Overreach on anything FA related makes Trump/Rubio seem hypocritical, even if selective interpretation of the Constitution allows it. Quid pro quo is right in certain areas. Freedom of speech isn’t one of them. Deporting people who are here illegally is one thing. Cases involving activism by legal residents should be approached more surgically. Rubio’s blanket-deportation needs to be limited by clear guidelines.
“Citizens being allowed” means you do not understand what a “right” is or what this country was founded on. Maybe you should learn or self deport. The Government cannot “allow” or remove an inherent right. Get it?
The world is a much healthier place when we don’t empower social collectives to try to punish people merely for saying things we may not like.
Free Speech should be understood as a human right, and we should do everything in our power to protect the individual from the heavy hands of the State.
It’s crazy how much people who support the Rubio position sound like the Woke wankers who so many of them rightfully opposed.
The “blinders of bigotry”—thanks for helping to put that alliterative poetic meme into my head, and yes, you’re right!
This is why it’s so important to do at least a little bit of shadow work, so we can understand that the very patterns we find distasteful in others can be patterns in our own behavior.
Legally yes, but does anyone like the idea that a government official gets to arbitrarily use their own opinion of what is "bad speech" to deport someone?
People might like Trump and Marco Rubio's take on this, but what about the next guy or the next?
I stopped contributing to FIRE when they sued DeSantis for banning teaching critical race theory in FL public schools. Since 95+% of free speech cases in recent years involved conservative getting censored or cancelled I think FIRE has strained to show that it’s non-partisan.
I never understood why curriculum design is confused with "free speech".
Teaching kids how to have gay sex or how to be white-hating racists isn't speech. It's curriculum -- and taxpayers/parents have every right to say no.
If the kid wants to learn how to have gay sex, he or she can go to Amazon and buy books or watch videos -- after they learn how to read, write and do arithmetic. No censorship there.
And when they get around to reading about gay sex, they'll better understand the lessons! LOL.
This should be an issue that unites cultural conservatives (curriculum design focused on core competence) and the democrat base (better gay sex skills). hahahahaha
Oy Vey. Strange bedfellows there (no pun intended. hahahah)
Indeed. Florida is not violating the free speech rights of teachers. Teachers in government schools are agents of the state. As such, they cannot hamper the free speech rights of students.
But like any employer, the government can stipulate what its employees are and are not allowed to say and do on the job. It's preposterous to claim that working for the government should give one more free speech protections than working for a private company.
I think it’s more about the free marketplace of ideas and allowing the people to speak up against those they don’t agree with (or don’t think should be taught in public schools). And while I tend to not want my kids to be told they’re bad (or the oppressor) because they’re white, the problem is often in the vague wording of legislation and bans such as the one in Florida.
Matt, you are on the wrong side of the issue, and you are conflating free speech with active participation as an organizer in a riot (intimidating other students, seizing a building, locking a janitor in a room, shutting down a campus, other actions verging on a hate crime, etc.) at Columbia. None of this is free speech.
If this had been a peaceful event, there would not be an issue; however, these students crossed the line. Having a visa granted is a privilege. It is not a right. The Secretary of State is empowered to revoke any visa, and wailing free speech is a red herring.
I shared your opinion almost verbatim when Khalil was first arrested. The likelihood of his involvement in those activities seemed quite high given his spokesperson role, such that I expected the government would release evidence to that effect. Yet I haven’t seen corroborating evidence since then (would love to see it if it’s out there). Matt’s initial skepticism on Khalil’s arrest was more prescient than I gave him credit for at the time.
If I’m State in this scenario I would just “take the L” on Khalil and nail someone for whom I can find such evidence, then. And proceed to turn the screws on the uncooperative jurisdictions (heck, Trump has mightily humbled Columbia this year—and I support it).
It’s just like Rubio said- you’re a guest in our house. If you come in my house and talk smack and pee on the living room rug, I’m gonna have to ask you to leave. (On the other hand, If my kid talks smack and pees on the rug,well, that’s our problem)
Free speech is for citizens, not for everyone on the planet. If you allow non-citizens to come to America and say whatever they want, they can foment rebellion and claim it's free speech. The Constitution was written for and protects US citizens and only US citizens. Non-citizens have basic human rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) but they cannot claim the same rights a citiznes
Your argument is that we cannot throw people out of the country when they are only here because of our good graces to begin with, not because they had the right to come here and not because they have the right to argue for the overthrow or our Constitution. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
It's a stupid argument, and one would hope that the courts have enough sense to see through it.
So if Joe Biden had deported Jordan Peterson or any other conservative non-citizen for political speech that offended libs you’d have been cool with that, right?
You can't deport a non-citizen who is here visiting because they didn't apply to live here to begin with. in order to be deported, you first have to apply to come to America to live and apply for the proper permits. Then you have to be granted the right to come. Only then can you be deported, and then only under certain specific circumstances.
If Jordan Petersen incited a riot, he could be tried for that, and if convicted, sentenced. Just as anyone who commits a crime can be charged with that crime. Their citizenship is irrelevant.
But there is a vast difference between a Jordan Petersen visiting American and expressing his views and engaging in debates and a student who was granted a visa to study expressing the desire to overthrow the republic. They are here because we granted them the privilege to attend one of our universities, and we have an equal right to rescind the privilege if we find their behavior to be offensive in any way or in no way at all. We could simply decide we don't want them here any more and rescind the privilege. It's a privilege, not a right.
As Marco Rubio has pointed out, if I allow you to enter my home, and then you begin trashing the home, even just verbally, I have an equal right to throw you out of my home. You had no right to enter to begin with. I granted you that privilege, and I have the right to take the privilege away.
Your assertion was that free speech is for citizens. Jordan Peterson is not a citizen. So leaving out the question of deportation, free speech is not for Jordan Peterson, right?
And as for visa-holders, any legal non-citizen resident whom any president (including any future Democrat) determines is "trashing" our country should be subject to deportation at the discretion of that president, right?
You're comparing apples to oranges. The context is students who obtain visas to study here then abuse their privilege by advocating for violence. and disruption of campus life, harassment of Jewish students, etc.. Visas are a privilege.
Think of it this way.Parents give a child a phone. The child misbehaves. The parent takes the phone away. The child had not right to the phone. It was a privilege. Similarly, students here on visas have no rights and can have their visas revoked at any time.
It would be apples and oranges if he were accused of inciting violence or anything else remotely criminal, but he's not. What he's accused of is participating in student demonstrations on campus and making other students "feel unsafe" by expressing political views that the president doesn't like.
So in the future, if a foreign student on a lawful visa participates in nonviolent political demonstrations on campus against biological men participating in women's sports -- and then some campus trans activists say they feel unsafe and that they felt harrassed and disrupted by his protest activities and political views -- you would recognize a lib president's unilateral legal authority to arrest and deport that student, right?
It's apples and apples. If you can live with it in both directions, I still disagree with you, but I can respect that at least you're being consistent in your view.
(Also, since you didn't answer, I'll assume you do agree that by your standards Jordan Peterson, as a non-citizen, has no free speech rights in America.)
The apples and orange refers to comparing legal residents to foreign visitors.
"So in the future, if a foreign student on a lawful visa participates in nonviolent political demonstrations on campus against biological men participating in women's sports -- and then some campus trans activists say they feel unsafe and that they felt harassed and disrupted by his protest activities and political views -- you would recognize a lib president's unilateral legal authority to arrest and deport that student, right?"
Absolutely. We may not like it, but the Executive branch has compete discretion to issue and revoke student visas for cause or without cause. You'd have to get Congress to change that
I personally have no problem with that.
With regard to free speech for non-citizens, I overstated my case. I was responding to Matt's claim that students with visas have free speech rights.
They do not. They are here at the whim of the Executive and can be expelled on that same whim.
"a student who was granted a visa to study expressing the desire to overthrow the republic." -- I've seen no evidence of this. If you have it, please share it.
"we have an equal right to rescind the privilege if we find their behavior to be offensive in any way or in no way at all." -- Please cite the USCIS statute which states that.
Speaking of apples and oranges, this country (with all its founding documents, laws, regulations, policies, etc) is not in any way like a "home."
"After the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation. Notice of such revocation shall be communicated to the Attorney General, and such revocation shall invalidate the visa or other documentation from the date of issuance: Provided, That carriers or transportation companies, and masters, commanding officers, agents, owners, charterers, or consignees, shall not be penalized under section 1323(b) of this title for action taken in reliance on such visas or other documentation, unless they received due notice of such revocation prior to the alien's embarkation. There shall be no means of judicial review (including review pursuant to section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title) of a revocation under this subsection, except in the context of a removal proceeding if such revocation provides the sole ground for removal under section 1227(a)(1)(B) of this title."
You are correct. A common tactic for Islamist radicals has been to use free speech as a subversion. They know that they can dance around our free speech .
They came when? And fomented a rebellion when? (While they were here on temporary visas?)
They also wrote a Declaration explaining under what (general) circumstances rebellion, or abolishing one government and forming another, is justified, and listing specific offenses by the British government of the time.
"The Constitution was written for and protects US citizens and only US citizens." -- A Constitutional scholar you clearly are not. The rights of ANYONE on US soil are PROTECTED by the Constitution. Period. Full stop.
Wrong. SCOTUS has ruled that people here on student visas can be deported at the will of the Executive. Foreign visitors have some protections but not all of the protections that citizens have. Again, SCOTUS has ruled on that.
I think Matt's point is that it's free speech, regardless. That's one of the greatest things about this country. You're missing the entire point of the article.
I understand exactly what the case is about. I understand that a very conservative administration thinks that someone standing up for the rights of Palestinians shouldn't be in the country.
You know what, whether or not I agree with him is not the issue, the issue is this is the first amendment. Both of them should be allowed to speak their mind regardless of what you think about his opinion
Dude…our whole country is based on the idea that things like freedom of speech are rights not privileges and government should not have the power to take away these rights. Jesus Christ no wonder we’re sliding toward authoritarianism, nobody even believes in this stuff anymore
The entire body of 1st amendment jurisprudence is based on the idea that government cannot “retaliate” for speech. This comes in many forms, including, yes revoking privileges such as grant, contracts, employment, tax benefit etc. visas are no different
I agree with you 100% that you would think that a case could be made against him and others using either anti-discrimination laws and/ or exciting riots, but I am not a lawyer, and not sure how difficult that would be to prosecute. If found guilty of a crime,then he could legally have his Visa revoked. (There were definite abuses of Jewish student’s civil liberties on campuses.)
I don't think the criteria for allowing someone on a temporary visa to stay here should be that s/he didn't break any laws. We shouldn't have to even waste resources to prosecute them if they do. Why do we need any more legal justification to boot them out? No non-citizen has a fundamental right to stay in the US. We are being taken advantage of, and the country is the worse off for it. As others have pointed out, we should be taking care of our own citizens and sending home people who are not peaceful and respectful during their time visiting the US. It is irrelevant that this criteria doesn't apply to US citizens.
Please understand, Khalil is a legal permanent resident. I don't know exactly when he earned that status, but before that he was a Green Card holder. I don't know Ozturk's status - student visa or green card.
Rubio will have to revoke much to get rid of Khalil. Ozturk probably just her student visa.
The First Amendment is a right, and the controlling case says visitors have the same rights as citizens. But that case was decided before the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was enacted in 1952, since amended numerous times. I cannot see how a Secretary of State can deny the right to speech using the INA when the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". The courts need to resolve this.
Trump effectively ran on freedom of speech, and now his administration is trying to limit it when it is speech they don't favor. I didn't like it when Biden did it, and I don't like it now. And I voted for Trump five times, two primaries and three general elections.
Agreed. The INA is unconstitutional. There are currently groups petitioning Congress to revoke it, but we all know those AIPAC lackeys never will, and so it will need to be brought before SCOTUS.
You don't have to have a conviction to have your visa revoked. I once experienced a visa holder being rude at an airport which resulted in his arrest for disturbing the peace, revocation of his visa, and immediately being put on the next plane back out of the country. A judge never got involved.
"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"
You miss the entire point of the Constitution- the president is not a king, and does not get to decide unilaterally what “government-granted privileges” are. The Constitution does. By getting up to the same shenanigans of the Biden administration, and curbing the free speech of someone who is here with a legal Visa, they are perpetuating this behavior. I agree with you 100% that Mahmoud Khalil is an asshole, antisemite, and I find his actions at Columbia absolutely abhorrent, but I also find it abhorrent that an administration would usurp the powers of the first amendment of our Constitution. I can hold both things in my mind at once, as is the point of this article. It’s easy to uphold the Constitution when it protects those ideas that we favor, it is a true test of American patriotism to do so when it is those that we do not.
That's a very reasoned and courteous response. Thank you.
I guess my posture is that after 4 years of opening the floodgates to millions of unvetted assholes, the pendulum needs to swing pretty hard the other way. Making a constitutional issue on behalf of those millions is not going to solve the problem we so irresponsibly created.
There were no laws enforced when they crash the border and entered illegally. But trying to deport them, now all of a sudden laws are being enforced. That’s totally fucked up. Khalil has big money backing and will continue to use our laws against us, Trojan Horse style. If we keep this up, the US will look like the U.K. very quickly.
It's more complicated than that. Even Jefferson didn't oppose the Alien Enemies Act. He and Madison were against the Federalists and promoted nullification of federal laws - the Alien and Sedition Act--that states deemed unconstitutional. Most states didn't agree with nullification, viewed the bills themselves as unconstitutional, and overrode them. Congress ultimately overturned the Act. Ironically, when Jefferson became president, he threw a couple of federalist newspaper editors in the slammer.
There are different types of war, undeclared war, cold war, the lead up to war, and there are different types of enemies. There is propaganda. For instance, a region or faction that calls the United States "The Great Satan" and engages in terrorism against us and our allies isn't especially friendly. Yet for ideological and financial reasons, colleges admit and even prioritize students from regions hostile to the United States. China. The Middle East. Odd, isn't it? Schools hire professors antagonistic toward our own country, and its people, to the West. Edward Said is one example. Foreign money pours in, some acknowledged, much not, for "studies" and centers that undermine the United States and the West. It's serious. We're seeing the results in the upcoming election in New York City, the young vote.
Singleminded,mysteriously funded "student" organizations propagandize and disrupt campus life. They are busy bees. They denigrate U.S policy, and the country itself - "Death to America," engage in mobbery, break- ins, occupations and threats, push people around figuratively and literally, fly foreign flags, burn ours, and possess, distribute, and wear scarves telegraphing much more than pro- Palestine leanings. They behave like, what's the word,oh, enemies. Mamdani's "revolutionary," Marxist, anti- colonialist father is but one example. He's teaching kids at Columbia. Imagine what. Fascinatingly, an acknowledged anti- Western, Islamist teaches American studies at Yale, teaches kids about the US, which she hates.
Foreign Enemies Act? Hell yes. To quote Dodsworth: love, or speech, has to stop somewhere short of suicide.
"Smart," like "bad- ass" Cuba. They have it all, dont they? The revolution worked like a charm. It took real smarts to get there, but they did it. Or thriving LA- and how about that mayor and fire department? First rate, high performance. And let's not forget Chicago. Safety first. And SF, and what's left of Portland? It takes real smarts to run a city, or a country, into the ground.
No, he'll win, if he does, because enough New Yorkers today are the spoiled, stupid children of a system that gave them everything and taught them nothing.
Mamdani is only convincing to them because he's one of them.
The Gov’t is supposed to vet every visa applicant prior to issuing one. The vetting process is, by its very nature, subjective, and already includes review of opinions and comments made by the individual. That’s nothing new.
It’s completely legal for the United States to deny someone a visa for exposing viewpoints that are not aligned with our values and interests. That is enshrined in the law and happens every day.
But who gets to decided what’s in our values and interests? Well, the Gov’t that got elected and holds power. What happens if they abuse that authority? We have elections and can throw them out if it’s egregious enough.
Is that a perfect solution? No, but there are no perfect solutions.
Admittedly I think some of these cases are bumping up against the line I personally hold for what should be tolerated and what should not, but I also don’t believe that we have any constitutional or moral obligation to harbor rabble rousers indefinitely just because they were issued a visa at some point.
I get the point Matt is struggling to make. It sounds good, but I also like the way steven koenig says what he says. Why can't we just get along the way the WASPS of the 1950s had it? Me and my 15 year old girl friend had it so good. It's been all down hill, after.
“Choose the tenor of discussion by immigrants.” Amazing. Who gets to choose? Who decides the accepted tenor? Consider that yet? Maybe someone in government will decide the “tenor” of your post (speech) isn’t correct. See how the works?
Not dictating anything. Just pointing out that if a visitor to our country wants to rail against its customs, we have the right to have him not be here.
Khalil and Ozturk are very different cases. Khalil's activity at Columbia went way way beyond what is protected by the first amendment. Ozturk apparently did nothing more than write it editorial.
For my two cents, Khalil should be subjected to deportation without any constitutional defense. Ozturk has a much much better case, and I believe Rubio is misguided with respect to her.
That's right. Khalil was a leader in the anti-semitic, anti-Israel protests, which means he organized groups to protest and, in his leadership position, met with Columbia administrators. It was at Columbia that the protesters organized by Khalil assaulted Columbia janitors, which is entirely unacceptable and unrelated to speech. And yes, as a leader of the group of protesters, Khalil is responsible for theie actions.
He did not "lead" the protesters, nor "incite" them. Their actions were their own. Khalil simply acted as a representative of CUAD in negotiations with Columbia admins.
That is exactly the point. Rubio has responsibility for foreign policy. Why would he allow a someone working inside the US against US foreign policy interests when he can deport the guy ? This is a political matter, not a free speech matter. As such. Jurisdiction lies in the Executive Branch. Not the Judicial Branch.
No it's not. All sorts of college advocacy groups call on administrations to boycott, divest or sanction all sorts of policies. But somehow, it's not "allowed" when it comes to only one foreign country. Hmmm, what's wrong with that picture?
Nobody does "nothing more than write [an] editorial." You don't get selected to write an editorial on behalf of a group if you aren't a leader of the group.
Oh jeez what a dumb statement. Your Post here is an “editorial,” or don’t you get that? Who do you represent? If you’re leading your household or self or neighborhood militia it’s your “Right” to express your opinion. You may recall people with more to lose than you fought for this 250 years ago.
"Oh jeez what a dumb statement," you say in the first of a series of incredibly dumb statements.
My comment here is not analogous to an editorial formally published in a newspaper and claiming to speak on behalf of an organization, not that that would make any difference to my point if it were. And no, the revolutionaries who fought and died 250 years ago didn't do so because they wanted a bunch of hateful and ungrateful foreign students to break laws and campus rules with impunity while trying to hide behind the principles they hate. I'm quite certain revolutionary soldiers anticipated no such scenario, much less fought and died for it.
You have no sense of the depth and intimacy of history, so this is my advice to you: Go read books whose mission isn't to tell you what you want to hear; and in the meantime, stop making a fool of yourself on the internet.
Amazing: You just committed a non sequitur by calling a non-non sequitur a non sequitur.
There's nothing strange about the idea that an activist's participation in a protest movement didn't likely begin and by writing a formal op-ed "demanding that the University acknowledge the Palestinian genocide." What's strange is your conclusion otherwise.
Never mind that, by its own admission, the op-ed was: published on behalf of "Graduate Students for Palestine"; published in solidarity with "Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine, the Tufts Faculty and Staff Coalition for Ceasefire and Fletcher Students for Palestine"; and "endorsed by 32 other Tufts School of Engineering and Arts and Sciences Graduate Students."
*The fact of having written the op-ed* means she was selected to write the op-ed, which, again, identifies its authors as members of Graduate Students for Palestine.
Stop trying and failing to point out others' errors, and start trying and succeeding in finding your own. At least once you're able to do that, you won't be such a waste of other people's time.
Writing an op-ed in no way implies that anyone selected her. Hence the characterization non-sequitur - "it does not follow" - which I don't think you understood in the posts above.
Pray tell, what "activity" exactly did Khalil himself (a lawful permanent resident, protected by ALL of the Bill of Rights) engage in that violates said lawful permanent resident status?
I love these comments that begin ‘pray tell’. What ineffable condescension.
Khalil’s role as chief negotiator for the Columbia resistance, which involved vandalism, harassment, false imprisonment, etc., is sufficient to confer accessorial and conspiratorial liability for all the illicit activity of that dubious movement.
And what, pray tell, gave a dilettante like yourself some hazy notion that his responsibility for these acts had to be proven as an individual and beyond a reasonable doubt? His role as head of the movement, and the natural inference that he is responsible for all the activities of the movement, either directly or by support, is a sufficient showing to justify Rubio’s determination. I’d give Khalil an opportunity to rebut, but I doubt he’d even tr,
These are not criminal proceedings, or even formal litigation. To repeat, what, pray tell, gave you the notion that they are?
"I love these comments that begin ‘pray tell’. What ineffable condescension." -- And then you hypocritically go on to use it twice in your response. LOL
"Columbia resistance?" "dubious movement?" -- LOL
"False imprisonment?" - How so?
"is sufficient to confer accessorial and conspiratorial liability for all the illicit activity" -- According to which law/statute/rule/policy?
"his responsibility for these acts" -- Nope. Only those committing the acts are responsible for their own actions.
"His role as head of the movement" -- Nope. He was a representative who negotiated on behalf of CUAD, NOT a "leader" of it.
"is a sufficient showing to justify Rubio’s determination." -- Nope. Not for legal permanent residents.
And yet, in all of that word salad, you never answered my original question. Shocker.
Reminds me of Roberts using the imperative of "Why" in not allowing Trump 45 to include a citizen question on the census. Since when is a judge allowed to use its own set of ‘reasons’ to determine the merits of an action? You can’t do that because of you are doing it for the ‘wrong’ reason.
Yeah, you do seem to legitimately misunderstand all of this. It'll be up to a further ruling by federal courts, it is not decided, nor is your factoid dispositive.
You may not like him or what he says, but that doesn't give you or the government the right to deport him. He has the same right to speak his mind as you do.
Yet many NOT "in Taibbi’s orbit" don't seem to reach that point in the discussion, regardless of how often it's noted. It's like they're colorblind and simply are not able to see that particular color. Strange...
I think ultimately the court is going to decide that somebody in the government has the power to make a final determination on visas, and right now that person in Marco Rubio. That said, I'm happy the issue is going to court and will therefore be discussed.
Blocking aid to disaster states that boycott Israel is (IMO) much less defendable. Glad to see they turned it around, but that they were even thinking it raises all sorts of questions about who's running what.
"Immigration law says they can be thrown out at any time, for any reason, but can speech rights exist at all if they vary according to visa status?"
---
They already do exist according to visa status, because you can be refused a visa for purely speech-based reasons. This is why I think Rubio will ultimately win.
The rather arbitrary ability by the Secretary of State to cancel an immigrant's visa reminds me of the Rodney Dangerfield joke:
"My psychiatrist told me I'm going crazy. I said, 'If you don't mind, I'd like a second opinion.' He said, 'All right. You're ugly, too.'"
Whether FIRE wins or loses the case, Mahmoud Khalil is going to be deported from the US, because the Secretary of State can just find different grounds to deport him.
Until, of course, the Democrats get another occupant of the White House, in which case Khalil will be granted permanent resident status again and treated like a returning hero (assuming they even remember who he is by then - he may simply be overtaken by the newest shiny thing of the moment).
That is why there must be a vetting process in place. Obama let some Islamist in and many people died. Biden's folks, if they did vet anyone, it was for reasons a sane Admin would have said no way.
“Much less defendable “?!? It’s batshit crazy. I can’t believe that this issue hasn’t brought out the torch pitchfork people. The comment section reaffirms my belief that the population is irredeemable.
Stunning to see how many of Matt's readers take the standard "I'm for free speech when it's my speech" stance on this issue.
I'm with 90% of folks here that Khalil is a POS and I won't lose a wink of sleep if he's deported. And if he's been charged with incitement, harassment, assault, rioting, etc., get his ass on a plane.
But the First Amendment makes no distinction regarding citizens. And as Matt notes, there's SCOTUS precedent that it applies to non-citizens.
Yet, the majority of readers here seem willing to toss out the protections of the Constitutional provision that has distinguished us from the barbarian hordes for 236 years.
Ask yourselves why you're taking that position? Why so willing to take an absolutist stance that diminishes free speech rights? Seems kinda perverse for this readership.
The government can already stop people from getting visas for purely speech-based reasons. It stands to reason they can also revoke visas for the same reasons.
"The government can already stop people from getting visas for purely speech-based reasons"
Yes. Because they're not yet in the country. They're seeking to enter.
"stands to reason they can also revoke visas for the same reasons"
No. Because now they're here. Legally. And are therefore afforded the protections of the First Amendment, which says Congress shall pass no law abridging the right to speak freely. And which makes no distinction for non-citizens. As affirmed by the SCOTUS.
Again, they CAN revoke the Visa for breaking the law. But not for exercising a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
I understand there may be a legal difference (we're going to find out), but I don't see any underlying reason we shouldn't treat the situations the same. We shouldn't be stuck with these people forever they they simply keep their 'visa-denying' speech under wraps until after they're here.
But if we ARE stuck with those people, the reaction will probably be to simply mass deny such visas in the first place.
Fine. You'll get no argument from me. Who needs 'em here?
But SC, you obviously don't need me to tell you, that one needs to take a pretty absolutist stance regarding free speech in order adequately to protect it.
And once they're here, and ostensibly subject to the protections of the 1st Amendment, it's bad for ALL of our free speech to allow for unilateral interpretations (by Marco fucking Rubio!!) to decide what speech constitutes a deportable opinion.
And yet, that is precisely what Sec 237(a)(4) does - it gives Rubio the sole discretion to determine whether Khalil's otherwise free speech causes his further presence in the U.S. as compellingly damaging to U.S. foreign policy interests. It is black letter law. I'm not saying that it's constitutional, but I am saying that the SC hasn't yet ruled on this issue (despite what Matt and others have asserted). This is why Khalil recently lost at the lower court level. The judge sided with Rubio's discretion under the Act.
Thanks for your analysis throughout this portion of the comment thread.
I, too, am a lawyer, and to be honest, I hate 95% of lawyers 95% of the time. But . . .
. . . there are times when it's such a pleasure to do a deep dive alongside another asshole-esquire who understands, and is facile in, the practice of stepping from law-to-facts-to-application, as we're trained to do.
I still hate most lawyers, myself included, but thanks for the thoughtful and well-reasoned back-and-forth.
Almost correct, except for the final sentence. Section 237(a)(4) of the 1952 Immigration Act grants Rubio an exception to the free speech clase contained in the same Act, if he in his sole discretion declares that Khalil's presence in the U.S. is in a compelling way detrimental to U.S. foreign policy. It's black letter law, and no, the SC has not yet ruled on its constitutionality. But it may yet do so in the Khalil case; we're just not there yet. A lower court judge sided with Rubio already on this point, but that decision can be overturned on appeal, and if not, I think the SC will grant cert and hear the case. I think it's a coin flip as to how the 9 Justices will rule on this.
If they lie on their visa application, that's grounds for deportation. I think there's a question that's something like do you consort with terrorists -- I know that's not exactly it, but something in that ball park. I'm believe that Khalil did write or say in his visa application something to the effect he would not consort or has not consorted with terrorists, which, if he is supporting Hamas, would mean he lied on the application. I haven't looked at that issue for a while, so my details may not be completely accurate, but its something like that.
No. I'm arguing that the First Amendment doesn't apply to people who are not in the US, and therefore not subject to, or protected by, the jurisdiction of its courts and laws.
If you go to China and hold up a sign saying "Free the Uigars," the First Amendment won't protect you from being jailed by the Chinese government.
Nor does the First Amendment allow the US government to go to China and tell them to free Chinese citizens who were jailed for holding up the same sign.
But if a Chinese national comes to the US and loudly protests that China should free the Uigars, that right is protected. Hell, it would (and should) protect him or her from repercussions of protesting US policy towards China! So long as it stays at the level of speech, and not harassment, incitement, etc.
"The government can already stop people from getting visas for purely speech-based reasons"
[you said]
"Yes. Because they're not yet in the country. They're seeking to enter."
But it's not a foreign government in this case--it's the US government.
If I go visit Mexico, I am subject to the laws of Mexico, but my free speech rights in the US aren't revoked while I am in Mexico. If I post US constitutionally protected speech on the internet while in Mexico, Mexico may arrest me but the US can't because of the first amendment.
So obviously non-citizens are different in this respect.
In other words, a US citizen can't be denied entry at the border because of constitutionally protected speech, but a non-citizen can.
So at least in this context non-citizens don't have first amendment protections.
The idea that we can't kick non-citizens out for the same "infraction" we can use to deny them entry to begin with is just extra silly.
Punish people who follow the law and reward people who don't. And somehow, the constitution requires it.
The idea that if something is a huge burden on the United States and requires mass sacrifice, that it therefore must be good and a constitutional right--really needs to put out to pasture.
There's a lot in there, and you make some interesting points.
But I think this quotation of yours gets to the heart of something we're disagreeing about: "The idea that we can't kick non-citizens out for the same "infraction" we can use to deny them entry to begin with is just extra silly. Punish people who follow the law and reward people who don't."
What is the "infraction" you're alluding to? What "law" isn't being followed?
Speaking out against Israel or in favor of Palestinians isn't an "infraction." It's not a violation of the "law."
What you wrote makes no sense at all, especially since you’re replying to the Post that tells you straight out that the Supreme Court already ruled on this.
According to McCarthy, that's a closer call, however sound the logic. He said in his podcast on the Khalil case that if he were the lawyer arguing for the government with the facts you just stated, he better have more than just a summary of unpleasant opinions about our own government or about Israel. But he agreed with your logic that the statutes that allow the government to turn down a visa application are linked to the statutes that provide reasons the government can revoke a previously issued visa.
The same basic logic you apply in your support of Khalil's removal applies to Ozturk's. Her visa wasn't revoked because she wrote an op-ed, as Rubio has explicitly stated. Her visa was revoked because she's a participant in a group that has engaged in sufficiently unacceptable behavior: harassment, vandalism, trespassing, etc. Far from suggesting that she was at arm's length from the group's activities, the fact that she was trusted to write an op-ed officially speaking for the group tells us how intimately she was involved with it.
Talk about straw-manning! I don't support Khalil's removal based on the facts I know. I said that if he's charged with a crime, he can and should be deported. But as far as I've read, he's never been charged with anything except holding the wrong opinions (opinions with which I strongly disagree, fwiw).
And the same would go for Ozturk. If she "participated" in activities that violate the law, she can have her Visa revoked. But far as I've read, that's not the case.
Perhaps you know facts that I don't, in which case we may agree. But I ain't seen 'em.
FWIW, I dug into the Ozturk case when it first hit the news, and the only thing I found was that she attended a protest with a group that was at the time banned from campus activities. The protest was not on campus and I could find no evidence it got out of control and turned into an illegal gathering.
But she’s in a group in college! Don’t you see? When someone in a college group does something, they should all be held accountable (especially if it’s something I personally despise). That’s why when a fraternity brother gets a DUI, the whole chapter has to go to jail! They’re in a group, that’s how it works.
You don't seem to understand what straw-manning is. Even if I had omitted some minor technical distinction from my reference to your argument—which I didn't, since I simply referenced the logic you stated would lead you to support deportation—I wouldn't have committed a straw man. On the other hand, you distorting others' arguments into a form so weak it may as well be made of straw is, of course, a textbook straw man.
And now you're carelessly shifting your logic from a standard of "charged" in Khalil's case to "participated" in Ozturk's. So maybe you should spend a little more time thinking and a little less time typing.
More importantly, none of us has absolute access to facts. But it sure seems like you haven't bothered to seek out, whether through a priori or a posteriori analysis, any of the insights you say would be determinant of your conclusions here.
Is it possible Ozturk dropped in from the ether to write an op-ed for a group she was otherwise totally divorced from? Sure. Is it remotely plausible? Nope.
This is the difference between Walter fans and Constitutional understanding. I struggle with the same questions you pose to others. They can't see past the alleged clear and present danger, to a future that not so subtly takes their rights in someone else fear based crusade to save our countries values. I wish those people could tell me what values they speak of.
* I dont typically respond to meaningless jabs on socials, but for the first amendment, I guess I will break my rule.
@glitterpuppy
-yes, I know your comment was rhetorical. But, I'm referring to all presidents and their adminstrations that wish to curtail freedom. We can use the same mantra that gets us into war: if not us then who. We must protect protected speech.
How many times have we all read about regimes in other areas of the world that imprison, torture, and kill for saying the wrong thing against their "own" country? Hell, what about when an American in another country breaks a law that we don't have in our country? There laws just to them. Why would you want to open that door here?
Mr. Tabbi is a 1A purest. I respect it because I can see past the present.
Matt's argument is about how making one law in one context leads to the means to make the same law in its opposite.
Let's say the SC decides in favor of the current administration; legal foreigners do not have free speech protection. Would we want a Democrat in office that still cant define what a foreigner is, or that believes we are all legal foreigners, that "no one is illegal, or we're all illegal?" Under this presumption, you or I could be kicked out to our ancestral country. If you support this move by party alone, you ultimately do not value your own right to speech. That's a shallow belief to have in a political party: get the bad guys out. All that defined bad would be who appointed whom to a position.
I dont want this Rubio/Trump interpretation of the law any more than I wanted Biden's surveillance for protection from so called domestic terrorists on social media. Bidens inflammatory speech towards people that held conservative views about J6 led to people losing their jobs, family, friends and their freedom. This current move is the next step in censorship.
If you choose to look at our rights as binary, or even singularly applicable, then when a democrat gets into office again, you better hope Substack protects your right to freespeech...oh wait...
you dont have free speech protections on a private platform (because well twitter files) according to democrats if it encourages treason, incitement of violence, blocks someone from viewing my comments, hurts my feelings you will get canceled, then you and I get sent back to our home country.
Even if the SC upholds the government's position here, it would be to affirm Sec 237(a)(4) such that only speech that causes the Secretary to become compellingly concerned that your speech makes your continued presence in the U.S. untenable vis-a-vis the U.S.'s legitimate foreign policy concerns. They cannot put you in jail for that, but they can deport you
I've been pretty clear that I'm not doing that. Free speech, per se, does apply to non-citizen visa holders like Khalil, with the one exception being Rubio's discretion (in the federal statute at issue here) to revoke Khalil's visa if his speech convinces Rubio that his presence in the U.S. causes a problem with a compelling foreign policy interest. This part of the statute might be unconstitutional. Matt thinks it is, I happen to disagree, at least with respect to Khalil.
You’re only part right on your premise. Bunches of SCOTUS decisions have been overturned which indicates that things change, etc. can you imagine that we “ interred” Japanese citizens during WWII? Where was SCOTUS then?
Ok. If the current Court overturns the ruling that the 1st Amendment applies to non-citizens, that'll certainly change the calculus. Maybe FIRE will end up hoisting themselves by their own petard and get just such a result.
But as for now, it's still the applicable interpretation, and one that seems right from my own simple reading of the text of the 1st Amendment, which makes no distinctions regarding citizenship.
That it makes no distinction is prima facie true. The problem is the immigration statute that provides Rubio with an exception. Sec 237(a)(4) of the Immigration Act of 1952, vis-a-vis foreign policy concerns. Rubio has staked his claim on this statute, and Khalil's team is trying to say it's unconstitutional. We shall, eventually, what the SC says. I don't think that they will deny cert when the time comes, no matter who wins on appeal.
FIRE will lose this case. At the time these people were protesting, we had US citizen hostages being held in Gaza. The protests could theoretically embolden Hamas and make it more difficult to get them freed. If, instead, they protested about, for example, the treatment of the Rohingya Muslims in Burma, nobody would care. The Secretary of State has virtually absolute discretion on this issue.
Good point. The reason that Rubio at State is in charge of this issue is because the granting or withholding of a visa can impact the US international relations. AND the courts cannot second guess or issue judgements on foreign policy issues that belong to the Secretary of State and the President.
To be clear, there are many issues on which a foreign student in the US could opine or about which they could protest without incurring any sanctions or doing damage, ie, abortion, legalizing pot, and many environmental issues arel completely safe. Those issues are mostly or completely domestic issues. But once foreign students start to weigh in on foreign policy issues, especially in high-profile situations, those students could actually do damage to the US foreign policy. Off the top of my head, I can imagine a host of scenarios where foreign student activitists could do actual damage to US international interests.
This is not a simple question. I have litigated free speech cases in my career and I belive strongly in free speech. But there have long been limits on speech in the law in certain circumstances and foreign policy/international relations is one of those areas.
What is meant when one says a decision is "political" is that it is a matter of policy. The Executive Branch gets to make the policy for the federal government; the courts and Congress do not.
"To be clear, there are many issues on which a foreign student in the US could opine or about which they could protest without incurring any sanctions or doing damage, ie, abortion, legalizing pot, and many environmental issues arel completely safe. Those issues are mostly or completely domestic issues. But once foreign students start to weigh in on foreign policy issues, especially in high-profile situations, those students could actually do damage to the US foreign policy."
Exactly, and the case I believe the Sec'y of State will make. Also one of the few RELEVANT comments I've read here, given the powers and discretion of the Sec'y of State! It ain't about the 1st Amendment...
Rubio/State are in charge of visa holders. Khalil is a lawful permanent resident, which is why his case is being determined in the immigration courts.
"those students could actually do damage to the US foreign policy." -- LOL. Nevermind that same foreign policy is what is doing the REAL damage to this country.
You can disagree with the foreign policy, but the President gets to decide what the US foreign policy is and the President get to take legal action to protect his foreign policy. If he sees even legal visa holders doing things that interfere with his foreign, of even domestic, policies, he has the legitimate authority to deport them. Khalil did bad things -- leading protesters who attacked innocent janitors at Columbia -- and deserved to be deported. Not to mention the fact that Hamas is a designated terrorist group and Khalil was essentially giving aid and support to Hamas, which should always be good grounds to kick a foreigner out of the US.
Again, Khalil is a lawful permanent resident, not a "legal visa holder."
"Khalil did bad things -- leading protesters who attacked innocent janitors at Columbia" -- Nope. Enough with this false narrative. He didn't LEAD the protesters to do anything. Their actions were their OWN (and no janitors were "attacked"). Khalil was a negotiator on behalf of CUAD's desire for Columbia to divest from the apartheid state of Israel; which in NO WAY warrants deportation.
"Khalil was essentially giving aid and support to Hamas" -- This has yet to be definitively proven (and "essentially" doesn't cut it), and so far NO ONE has been able to; not even your Saint Rubio.
Regardless, it's in the court's hands now, so only time will tell.
Shouting "from the river to the sea", which Khalil and all the protesters did, is calling for the eradication of Jews in Israel -- that is literally what they did. That is also a call for genocide. That is literally incitement to violence against Jews. Inciting violence against a minority group, which Jews are, is NOT protected speech. That is sufficient grounds to deport Khalil.
Moreover, its absurd to say that calling for divestment from Israel is not part of foreign policy. Anything pertaining to relations between the US and Israel is per se foreign policy. That is axiomatic. If you don't understand that, you don't know the first thing about what you are advocating. Please, you are wasting everyone's time when you insert yourself in conversations that are apparently way over your head.
"Shouting 'from the river to the sea' is calling for the eradication of Jews in Israel...That is also a call for genocide. That is literally incitement to violence." -- Oh, so that would mean Israel has been calling for genocide of, and incitement to violence against, the Palestinians, since Netanyahu has said it, and it's in their Likud Charter:
Conversely, and as every HONEST person knows, the slogan when spoken by Palestinians and their supporters, means FREEDOM for the Palestinian people. Hence the rest of it - "Palestinians WILL BE FREE." The zionist hasbara intentionally MISREPRESENTS its TRUE meaning.
"its absurd to say that calling for divestment from Israel is not part of foreign policy." -- Don't strawman me. That is not what I said. Read my comment again.
"Please, you are wasting everyone's time when you insert yourself in conversations that are apparently way over your head." -- Look in the mirror. Pure projection.
In all fairness, Bebe said Israel must control Gaza, and being that's where Hamas and the attacks originated (and the hostages held), it's not a call for genocide. Had Israel "controlled" Gaza, the only area from the river to the sea they don't control, it's unlikely Hamas would have flourished. Control does not infer genocide.
For clarification, if not a call for genocide, what does "from the river to the sea..." actually mean? You got me curious, so I did a little research, realizing my knowledge of the issue is somewhat light.
"Hamas Principles and Policies in May 2017
The Movement
ii. Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit."
So basically ALL of Israel.
"xx. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus."
So it would appear "Palestine" would replace Israel as a political and geographic entity.
I found these interesting also:
"iv. The Palestinians are the Arabs who lived in Palestine until 1947, irrespective of whether they were expelled from it, or stayed in it; and every person that was born to an Arab Palestinian father after that date, whether inside or outside Palestine, is a Palestinian...
xiv. The Zionist project is a racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist project based on seizing the properties of others; it is hostile to the Palestinian people and to their aspiration for freedom, liberation, return and self-determination. The Israeli entity is the plaything of the Zionist project and its base of aggression.
xvi. Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.
xix. There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, Judaization or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.
xxv. Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws. At the heart of these lies armed resistance, which is regarded as the strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people."
"being that's where Hamas and the attacks originated (and the hostages held), it's not a call for genocide." -- I agree. I was using Leslie's argument against her, to point out her double standard.
"what does 'from the river to the sea..." actually mean?' -- Read my earlier comment again. It means Palestinians will be FREE (i.e. having the SAME rights as Israelis, NOT under apartheid rule, and NOT under Israeli occupation).
"So it would appear "Palestine" would replace Israel as a political and geographic entity." -- Nope. That's YOUR interpretation (or rather, the zionist hasbara that you've chosen to believe).
Yes, the other sections you quote are indeed "interesting" aren't they? Hopefully, you can read them with the same benevolence Hamas intended.
Thank you for writing all of that. Just to add, the phrase, "river to the sea" is fairly attributed to Sheik Hassam al-Bamma, who founded the Muslem Brotherhood, and who was talking specifically about driving the Jews into the sea (the Mediterrain Sea), thereby killing all of them. Any notion that the phrase means anything less is dangerously naive. One of the fundental tenants of Islam is that it believes that anyone who is not a Muslem is a lesser human who either should be killed or enslaved or indentured to Muslems (I'm paraphrasing, so don't complain if I'm inexact). Islam is intent on conquering the world and doing so by violence. They are seeking their freedom by eradicating non-Muselm people, not by establishing modern democratic nation states. So, YES, from the river to the sea means that the Isamists want to kill all the Jews in Israel, which is why it is inherently anti-semitic and is a call for inciting violence.
I have to point out that free speech does not mean attacking other people and making them uncomfortable and unsafe.
The First Amendment protects speech, not harassment and violence.
If foreigners are making Jews feel unsafe on campus, they need to be stopped.
Free speech means other people do not have to pay for your speech.
Signs, protests with chants, fine, but when they invade buildings and do not allow Jews access to campus locations and activities, that is not speech. It is bullying and maybe terrorism, or at least support for terrorism. Those individuals at a minimum need to reimburse those they disenfranchise. So maybe not deport - but pay a lot of money, minimum all tuition, to all Jews they harass.
It's not a genocide because they are Arabs and the Israelis are not trying to kill all Arabs, they're just fighting a war Hamas started. Wars historically end when one party surrenders. Why isn't everyone who cares about the people in Gaza demanding Hamas surrender?
Their minds are captured, mainstream media has been using Hamas generated "reports" from the get go making any attempt to use logical arguments useless.
You are so right!! I try to avoid the brain-washed masses, but every one in a while, one slips through and then it takes a minute to realized you've been wrestling with a pig whose happy to be rolling in the sty muck. You just have to pick yourself up asap and wash the stink off.
The Israelis are NOT sending aid; they are either blocking it outright (by Israeli settlers), or not allowing it in.
Aid convoys that are allowed into Gaza have been repeatedly fired on, which was noted by Cindy McCain, who is a huge supporter of Israel. She was there, and she saw it herself.
Your sarcasm is not needed and certainly indicates that you have no idea as to what it is like to be harassed, as well as verbally and physically assaulted. All American citizens have a right to feel safe in their own country. This is why laws exist and this is why lawsuits are fought.
They are Arabs and identify as such. So, Israel is going to eradicate the entire Arabian peninsula?
These Arabs have been kicked out of every other Arab country for fomenting rebellion in those countries. Why is that is the better question.
Case in point - why did Europe take in so many Syrians, Iraqi's, etc. when some of the most wealthy countries on the planet - Arab countries - refused them?
If it wants to it can, it has the most powerful military in that region backed by the most powerful military in the world. Funny how the focus is on the Palestinians or as you say the Arabs.
"The First Amendment protects speech, not harassment and violence."
You're right. At least i think so, but my opinion doesn't count, apparently. We have a couple of cases here at MIT that most definitely crossed the line.
The Viet Nam War would still be going on without civil disobedience ..perhaps we should read Thoreau "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience".. too bad we're an illiterate country...
Civil disobedience inherently involves *willingly* going to jail to show that a law is unjust. These protesters are not willingly going to jail. They are resisting arrest, and they are screaming "how dare you!" about being arrested AT ALL.
They are not engaging in civil disobedience. They are terrorizing people.
Pretty sure the NVA and the Viet Cong, along with the stream of Americans coming home in body bags had more to do with ending US involvement there. But yeah, the demos had a small effect, students getting more active when their student deferments would not protect them as the draft lottery went into effect.
I might feel "uncomfortable" & "unsafe" walking past a BLM protest, but that doesn't mean they lose the right to protest.
Blocking egress or ingress, or physically harassing people are separate issues, but you are wrong that "Free speech means other people do not have to pay for your speech."
I don't know what you mean by "pay," but free speech applies to all speech -- including "hate speech."
Please cite the instance(s) when Khalil attacked or harassed anyone, made them "unsafe," or committed violence. As for causing discomfort, that's not a crime.
"If foreigners are making Jews feel unsafe on campus, they need to be stopped." -- LOL Only those experiencing the feelings are responsible for said feelings. Blaming others for YOUR feelings is playing the victim card.
Terrorism? LOL How does the dictionary define that word?
"Those individuals at a minimum need to reimburse those they disenfranchise...[and] pay a lot of money, minimum all tuition, to all Jews they harass." -- Just Jews, eh? Curious how you feel about the US paying reparations to all black people because "slavery."
Someone refresh my memory. Did FIRE sue Twitter or the Biden administration when they violated the 1A rights of millions of AMERICAN CITIZENS with brazen impunity for years at the behest of the Biden administration and its familiars?
It is a little funny to argue the intricacies of the laws as they pertain to students here on visas, but I don't remember anybody setting up such a case for people telling the truth getting kicked off social media at the behest of government.
It looks like SCOTUS will probably have to decide this very complex issue. I agree with Matt that the first amendment freedom of speech should be sacrosanct while standing in the boundaries of the United States. But: if you can deny entry to a non-citizen for reasons allowed by the immigration statues, than why can’t you remove individuals who slipped through and displayed these disqualifying activities after arrival?
If Rubio & Co. lose in court I will lose no sleep. If the 1st Amendment applies to non-citizens, then it does, and I can live with it.
If FIRE loses in the narrow situation were a recognized constitutional liberty is not considered to apply when it applys to a non-citizen visitor to the US and who has acted in such a way that they have intentionally placed themselves in a situation that is directly contratindicated by a violation of federal law...well, that also seems to me to be small beer. I will not worry too much about a loss of 'sacred constitution liberties' in that case.
The reason this is an edge case is because it IS an edge case. If the principle is absulutely defended...ok. If not...<shrug>. Because I don't really care, one way or the other, I hope FIRE wins. If FIRE loses I will likely move on and never think about it again.
I’m not really up to speed on the case. He’s not being charged with anything, right? Just getting his Visa revoked and sent home. Can’t the government send home whoever they want?
Yes, that’s my understanding. Most are due a hearing. Not a trial, etc. “ due process” has variables to it. For us citizens, due process has a bunch of layers, or options. For example, an illegal alien’s due process is the question “ did you illegally cross the border.” Yes, out here goes. No, ok prove it. Bingo. End of the line for poor, little illegal
Rights go with responsibilities, which non-citizens don't have in the same way citizens do.
I hate to say it because I really detest any constraint on speech, but if you want the rights an American citizen has, you need to be an American citizen who is also subject to the responsibilities that accompany those rights.
Having been an expat, I cannot imagine stirring up political shit while a guest in someone else's country.
No one needs to be a citizen to criticize anything another country does. This isn’t North Korea. If the words of others make you sad, it’s probably because they’re accurate or you are too stupid to refute the speech. Maybe both.
It all comes down to whether non-citizens enjoy First Amendment rights per existing law. I don't see any benefit to the US to bend over backwards to grant that right if it doesn't already exist. Nothing redeeming in allowing non-citizens to trash the place as stated by Rubio. Citizens being allowed to do pretty much as they please is quite enough.
Agreed. Matt mentioned that the 1st amendment is not specific as to applicability to a non-citizen. I wonder, are constitutional rights applicable to non-citizens. In general, of late, it seems like illegal immigrants have more rights than me.
Visas may complicate the answers to these questions, but Rubio had stated, with regard to Khalil, that he would have never been granted a visa if his views had been made known when he applied.
He lied on his visa application. Reason to boot him out.
That should be the answer. Not speech. And Khalil has an interesting background. Since I think he is now a public figure, I will risk a defamation suit. I think he's tied into one or more intelligence services. At the very least, a talent spotter. And he also achieved legal permanent residency in record time. I know he married, but the speed of visa, green card, then legal permanent begs the question. Why and how so fast?
I have sympathy for Ms. Ozturk, not Mr. Khalil.
And how did he pay for an Ivy league education?
I think he is an obvious British spy.
See this comment from the other thread with data and links.
https://open.substack.com/pub/taibbi/p/note-on-the-fire-suit?r=1hi5p8&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=142975198
What exactly was the lie?
Let me Google that for you
So, none then.
The first amendment doesn’t grant you or anyone else any rights it restrains the US government from denying anyone freedom of speech. Period
Anyone? So illegal immigrants can say anything they want, period? With no recourse.
Without recourse is a bit too broad.
Every person in the US is protected by the bill of rights. They can speak, attend Church, get a jury trial, have their Miranda rights read to them, require a warrant to search their private property.
All of those are sacrosanct.
The question is whether the “words” are speech or not. But the same analysis is made for citizens and non citizens.
The beauty of the Constitution is that it governs the government not that it “restricts “ the people.
There is no bigger fan of the Constitution than me.
I'm not particularly versed in the Khalil case or the FIRE case. But Rubio enforces immigration law, apparently including who gets deported. And there are exceptions to the 1A protections. Did Khalil incite?
I think you are hitting on the aspect of this particular case that the writter omitted; that is, are there other potential aspects of this person's behavior (such as terroristic speach, incitement that resulted in an unlawful occupation of private property and extensive property damage, and immigration application fraud) that are permissible reasons to deport someone here on a student visa. Given Rubio's explicit legal powers to deport without having to go through the time-consuming and expensive process of judicial hearings, he opted instead to deport. It will take a SCOTUS ruling to overturn Rubio's actions because he was working within existing law, but even if ultimately overturned, this person will likely be deported after a court hearing, and facts of his actions are presented. The bar for deporting visa holders is lower than the one for finding crinimal guilt.
That is the question. And it is a question of fact so he gets a chance to present his side of it if the basis of the removal is possibly covered by 1A.
Not if the Govt has other grounds which are not pretextual.
The case is for LEGAL aliens. Visas make you legally in this country. None of these people in this case are here illegally
Both illegal aliens and legal immigrants who aren't citizens already have their first amendment rights abridged. They cannot, for example, contribute to a US political campaign. They do not share the same rights as US citizens. The SC has found they can be deported for who they are, such as a Communist. If they go on stage and announce in a loud voice that they are a Communist and are then deported, they are not being deported for their speech and it is permissible to deport them for who they have revealed themselves to be. That has been adjudicated constitutional.
Mahmoud doesn't hide from the fact that his speech was not all First Amendment protected. The second outdoor encampment at Columbia absolutely violated the law given the prohibitions that came after the first one. That’s why it resulted in swift arrests of many involved, criminal charges, and guilty pleas. Mahmoud Khalil stood in front of cameras as an organizer of that. It was illegal to conduct that protest action, without question, which means that his speech organizing it was not protected under the First Amendment. It fails the Brandenburg test, given that it was speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” as evidenced by the fact that it did in fact immediately produce lawless behavior.
Plenty of folks have spoken against Israel's policies and not been deported; the Gov't has specifically focused in their actions and words on those that disrupted life in the US with ILLEGAL protests. That's focusing on illegal non-protected speech, not punishing protected speech.
The gov't has explicitly focused on illegal speech. Rubio was explicit and discerning in his language: “If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student, and you tell us that the reason you are coming to the United States is not just because you want to write op-eds but because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus, we are not going to give you a visa,”
That's different than what David said.
If it's not slander or provocative of imminent lawless action, if it's just speech, why do you care?
Speech only "works" when it convinces someone, and you (presumably) think you have a better argument (or you wouldn't oppose theirs).
I used question marks. They denote a question.
"Illegal" immigrants want to keep their heads low. It's "legal" immigrants who are getting deported for saying bad things about a country that they aren't even in when they're saying it, Israel.
And I don't believe any legal immigrants have been deported for saying bad things about America -- which is just bizarre.
Why must we all bend over backwards to please a tiny country on the other side of the world?
The US Supreme Court has held for 100+ years that the answer is unequivocally yes.
I don't see why not.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. Exceptions include that schools can restrict speech that is considered disruptive, among other exceptions such as for child pornography or inciting violence.
The right to assemble for peaceful dissent is also in the First Amendment, is it not? So demonstrators have to remain “peaceful,” that is, not vandalize property or assault people; but to say that their mere presence or words “make Jewish students feel unsafe” is a twisting beyond the breaking point the concept of assault, in exactly the way the Right mocked that whiny precept when it was part of wokism.
The issues at hand create quite a sticky wicket in this case. First, the comparison of deportation authorities in the US being compared to Gestapo who delivered Jews to death camps in the thirties after deprivation of homes, businesses, money, belongings, teeth, etc. is not an accurate comparison. Secondly, the insistence that everyone agree on genocide of Palestinians needs more information. Genocide by whom and what means?
But the meat of the matter is the understanding of our Constitution, and whom it was written to. “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, promote the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This tells us distinctly that We the People are the beneficiaries of the document, the laws and the civil rights and liberties established. The fact that a SCOTUS case held that the first amendment rights were granted to an alien (proper term) prior to the Immigration and Naturalization Act, specifically determining that the Secretary of State has the authority to determine a foreign national a continued right to hold a Visa alters the precedent of court’s prior ruling. The Secretary’s decision stands.
Having had the liberty of freedom of speech and conscience by the blessing of birth or naturalization of course makes us understand its value, and understand it is a natural right, given by God for all people. My understanding of the reason for the revocation of the Visa is that the trouble he was causing the State went beyond speech to activities, and that his verbiage was inconsiderate towards other students of Semitic origin.
Khalil crossed the line when his "free speech" led to campus disruption. It could be argued that his fervent speeches weren't the cause, but his followers were certainly influenced it seemed. Inflammatory rhetoric is just that, protected rhetoric, until his adoring acolytes (as should be reasonably expected) act out in a disruptive manner that affects others. That would be incitement.
I see. So one speaks freely only if their speech doesn't go as far as to incite anyone to action?
The speech has to directly incite a criminal act. That is a tough argument. As it should be.
One can say in a speech “ I think they all should die” ( perhaps the speech was rhetorical or hyperbole) . If the following week some guy kills one the “them” there is zero chance the speaker is charged.
If he points to them and says “I think they should die” and right them a person listening shoots one of them … different kettle of fish.
Free speech jurisprudence is not a simple headline answer.
Too many reporters and pundits treat it like it is.
But even innocuous speech can incite people (e.g., unstable people) to commit criminal acts, so that can't be the criterion.
It is the intersection of the State Departments authority to determine the rights of visa holder's to stay in country. He has that statutory authority.
That’s correct ☑️
That would depend on the action taken. If their action is only to join in and express their opinions also, fine. If, on the other hand, their actions disrupt, intimidate and infringe on the rights of others, now they have been incited to perform criminal acts.
Did Trump incite people to commit criminal acts on Jan. 6? You're failing to grasp a simple point: that it cannot be people's reactions to speech that determine whether the speech is lawful or not.
I think that's the key argument. The US should, and often does, argue that everyone throughout the world should have free speech rights; it's an inalienable right that humans should possess, not something given to us by the government. Members of the Trump administration are arguing, rightly I should add, the UK and European citizens should have free speech rights and not be banned from social media or thrown in jail for things said online. How can we argue that people throughout the Anglo-sphere should have free speech protections, but not immigrants in our country?
I'd agree that students on visas actively engaging in illegal behavior, like rioting, stopping traffic or building takeovers — things that are often claimed to be part of peaceful protest but aren't — could be charged, and deportations or revocations of visas could be in order. Throwing students and other visa holders out of the country for speeches and articles, which are in no way illegal behavior in the US, goes way too far. Creating an AI-powered database to comb social media posts for "anti-American sentiment" is really going too far, and everyone — no matter their party affiliation — should reject it. How would we feel if the EU/UK used that same platform to throw citizens expressing anti-immigration or gender-critical speech in jail?
We're either for free speech, and think it's a human right for everyone, or we aren't.
Well said
That is exactly my understanding, too.
Excellent reasoning and application of facts. Thanks
“Inconsiderate verbiage” is exactly what 1A protects.
I concluded that this loss of Visa privileges was probably not due to free speech rights.
Same with the woman who wrote an op-ed? The line is intentionally blurry.
It pisses me off every time I go to an airport the amount of security everyone has to put up with, especially on international travel. Meanwhile, millions of people crossed the border without question. It made me wonder if I could get through the lines quicker without an ID and pretending not to speak english.
They have a right to free speech. They do not have a right to be in America.
How is it a right if it can’t be exercised? Is your speech really free if you can’t speak without fear of retaliation? You make no sense
They can get their exercise somewhere else.
Right. Say anything you want, but that doesn't mean we have to allow you to stay.
Next citizens who hang with non citizens will be censored....oh, yeah, that's already happening... Anything the government does to aliens or overseas they will do to you, friend..
Remind me again which president executed an American citizen overseas?
Half-Black Jesus. Fucker bragged about his kill list.
I don’t think the enumerated powers of the President include either judge, jury, or executioner. But there it is.
That orange shithead bragged that he would end the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and release everything on Epstein immediately. Instead that fucker is taking bribes through cryptocurrency and hiding the fact that he was sex trafficking girls through his beauty pageants.
Is that you Barack?
Interesting theory, except Miss Universe has a minimum age of 18. Which may technically be “girls,” but not the way you’re implying.
Also, what does that have to do with Half-Black Jesus (aka, Obama)?
That's what I was wondering.
Bot 👆🏻
Wow. Trump took out the nuclear enrichment facility in Iran, got Iran to stop firing missiles at Israel, brokered peace deals with India & Pakistan, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the Congo. Now he has a meeting with Putin to negotiate peace in Ukraine. All in 200 days. And HE is the orange shithead? Hahahahahahaha.
You are changing the topic....is this my wife?
For a small sum of money, I won’t tell your wife you said that…..
OMG, Chris’s comment and yours made me LOL. I’m a woman btw.
My feeble attempt at humor. Thanks for noticing my unbridled brilliance. In my own mind?
🤣🤣🤣
You're the one talking about what our government does overseas...
Without benefit of trial, if I recall.
This was totally, amazingly ignored. Shocking
What do you base your assumption on? How you “ feel”?
The assumption is that if they torture aliens, they will torture you... That's happened already..
Nonsense
BS on that one, Christopher.
This is total nonsense, disproven by infinite data.
Guilt through association has standing.
Then we deserve it for keeping bad company.
But yet you're still here!
The basic question in the litigation is under what conditions a temporary permission to be in-country can be revoked and the person whose permission was revoked then be deported.
Speech, practiced by non-citizens in the U.S. with permission, might be an activity we want to protect, or should want to protect.
Non-citizens here without permission present a different question.
So if the 300,000plus Chinese national students get out and protest against our govt at the behest of their govt that is okay with you?
Rubio is just a transient figure. Why don't instead you pay attention to the Constitution?
We are talking about interpretation. That’s the reason we have courts.
Like the Supreme Court ruling Taibbi mentioned that stated legal aliens have 1st amendment rights?
Out of curiosity, does your deference to the Constitution extend to "shall not be infringed"?
I think the first amendment applies to all of it. There are a lot of people in this world that you don't agree with, and that I don't agree with. Does that mean they shouldn't have a right to say what you don't like? Of course not. That includes being infringed upon
China has 200,000 plus students in the US. If they are told to get out and protest against our govt is that acceptable?
Highly unlikely scenario. Not really worth considering.
That seems like a legit question to me. Does Sec State have the right to revoke visas if the majority of Chinese students did that?
Also, do foreigners have a right to bear arms that shall not be infringed?
Depends on the nature of the protests. If they are peaceful, then yes. If they incite riots, or are "mostly peaceful" then no
They were infringing on other peoples' rights in many cases who WERE citizens.
There are children starving to death right now in Gaza. The whole world is watching it happen.
I think American citizens can manage to be infringed upon in order to speak out about it.
Ah, yes, reductio ad Gazaeum.
The truth comes out - you're more interested in CERTAIN speech, that which aligns with your beliefs than actual "free" speech and the rights of EVERYONE (if as you say, the Constitution applies to foreigners as well). Got it.
Nobody is being punished for that! TRUMP is speaking out about it. Get real.
To be more specific.... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Are you as much a originalist when it comes to the 2A?
Yes.
You bet. A good musket, and bowie knife and a manual crossbow. Spears and Pikes, maybe cannon, you go for it. That's what the founders had in mind and I will defend that such weapons not be infringed on. Oh wait, are you talking about interpreting 2A to included allllll weapons regardless?
According to the Supreme Court it means "weapons in common use". If more than 1 million citizens own a type of weapon, that is pretty much in common use.
Two examples: 1) more than 40 million citizens carry a pocket knife EVERY DAY. 2) about 82M own 1 or more semi-automatic firearms. For me, both catagories of weapons would qualify as 'in common use'.
I missed the part in the 2nd amendment where it specifies "arms". Sounds like you've seen it somewhere since you're stating that "thats what the founders had in mind" would you care to share that source?
Khalil isn’t a citizen.
Also open borders de facto citizens of the world just ended a few months ago, so the interpretation is context. As in…
… we’re done being sold out. By our own “citizens.”
Pick a country and stick to it, Gaza has some openings…
It’s basic. When speech that we abhor is protected then speech that we adore is secured.
I generally agree....BUT, I've also observed how burning the American flag is categorized as "free speech", but burning a *pride* flag is a hate crime. A bit off-topic analogy, but here the case is relative to people we (citizens, via our government) have ALLOWED to visit; is their right to free speech the same as mine? I don't believe it is.
Not so off topic. “Hate speech” is a terrible concept, just as is deporting someone for what he said publicly. First Amendment infringements that puts the government in the position of regulating speech. I don’t want Democrats doing that; I don’t want Republicans doing that.
Just limiting to speech (ie, not actions) would Khalil have been permitted to come to the US if he'd made those statements overseas? If not, that is government *regulating* speech....
Does freedom of speech mean freedom from consequences? I don't know what the scenario is to compare with someone who is a citizen, but democrats jailed Douglas Mackey for posting a meme. Khalil isn't being threatened with a criminal punishment for what he's said/done, just that he's no longer welcome in this country.
The INA applies here to the authority of the Sec of State, the so called Transient.
Pay attention to both
Glen Greenwald points this out: so would you be okay with a Democrat President deporting Jordan Peterson (Canadian conservative who spends a lot of time in US) because of (insert some nonsense about how he "trashes" trans Americans). Because once the precedent is set..... So if America does not "bend over backwards to grant that right", will you be defending the Democrats when they do this to conservative voices? And don't think bat shit crazy governors like Gavin Newsom won't try to pile on and stretch their power to limit free speech in their states once this precedent is set. How about Green Card/visa holders that go to Pro Life rally ? Gone! Green Card/visa holders advocating against socialist polices? Gone! You going to be consistent and defend the "don't need to bend over backwards" argument then?
True, that
But it does already exist. The U.S. government does not *allow* freedom of speech. The Constitution forbids the government from making laws *restricting* freedom of speech. It's an important distinction.
Yes, "inalienable", not "unalienable", per Jefferson's correction.
According to the 1945 Supreme Court ruling (Bridges v. Wixon), it already came down to it. They decided that legal aliens are entitled to First Amendment rights. So neither Trump, Rubio, or even Congress can change that without SCOTUS overturning the 1945 decision or amending the Constitution. So there is no if or other uncertainty about it.
That doesn't mean their visas can't be revoked and there is often more behavior than "speech." Matt and most liberals seem to define it as holding up a library, keeping Jewish students from class, inciting language that threatens their safety. All fine. If foreigners now have the same rights as we do, that should be changed. Lying on an application and other behavior is reason enough.
Exactly. “Due process” differs based on your immigration status. Illegals have limited “due process “ green card holders, “US Persons” ( not citizens)etc. have various “ due process “ .
Bravo!
Plus, this isn’t a speech issue
Yes, but many of them talk like occupying libraries and stopping students from going to class is "free speech." You are right. It is usually more than that.
This is not a free speech issue.
Perhaps all humans are entitled to human rights, regardless of where they are born.
Just a thought.
Where in the Constitution does it say such people don’t have First Amendment protections? I can’t find it. The use of “citizen” is used specifically for such things as voting or running for office; otherwise “people” seems to be the preferred word.
And this isn’t just any country, I agree.
Finally, this falls under the same misbegotten category with “hate speech.” Once the government gets to determine what “hate speech” is, we’re lost.
This is not a speech issue.
So now that you're letting the government decide what speech by an alien can be punished...
...how long do you think it will take until our rulers grow accustomed to that power, and turn it on citizens? Comfortingly, it will only be used against citizens you disagree with...
...at first, until an election inevitably changes who reigns and holds the reins, and they come after opinions you agree with, and you.
If an alien is committing actual crimes, charge them and deport them.
If they're saying shit you disagree with, well, that's the cost of *your* freedom to also speak your mind.
Are you really willing to tear down America's constitution just so some yahoos can't chant "from the river to the sea"? Are you seriously that naïve or that partisan?
Your slippery slope argument doesn't hold because the government cannot revoke the visa of a US citizen. On top of that, I am not comfortable with allowing people admitted on a visa unlimited latitude to politically agitate. Absolutely people should be able to express their opinions, but when you start organizing mass protests and creating unrest, I think it is fair game to have your visa revoked. What bothers me greatly is the selective revoking of visas to those who criticize the war in Gaza. There needs to be hard pushback on that.
In WW1, V. I. Lenin had been run out of Russia for trying to stir up a revolution. He fled to Switzerland.
Late in the war, to shut down the Eastern Front, the Germans smuggled Lenin back to Russia to give the Czar something different to worry about. The operation succeeded beyond all imagination, gave us Communist Russia, set the stage for WW2, Vietnam, and the CCP.
Imagine V. I. demanding his rights to hang out in Russia and sing The Internationale and you have a good analogy to the FIRE claim.
Enough is enough. Fuck those people.
This is not a free speech issue
You keep repeating that, as if sheer repetition will make it true.
I am not bothered by the disagreement, but I was hoping this would be a more mature forum, where people wouldn't try to "win" arguments by spamming.
Perhaps you're just tired?
If you’re bothered by it, just simply disregard it. As I do your childish comment.
The previous “administration “ used law fare of speech crimes. Going after Catholics, religious school meetings attendees, etc
Yes, and the Biden DOJ tried to charge parents as terrorists forpeacefully protesting at school board meetings. Which was outrageous.
It was terrible when Biden did it, it's terrible when Trump does it.
The Trumpers’ opponents, globally and domestically, have been trampling or double-standardizing freedom of speech. I think it’s important that they not do the same. Khalil is a poncey entitled loudmouth, but making him a hero is a mistake. Overreach on anything FA related makes Trump/Rubio seem hypocritical, even if selective interpretation of the Constitution allows it. Quid pro quo is right in certain areas. Freedom of speech isn’t one of them. Deporting people who are here illegally is one thing. Cases involving activism by legal residents should be approached more surgically. Rubio’s blanket-deportation needs to be limited by clear guidelines.
“Citizens being allowed” means you do not understand what a “right” is or what this country was founded on. Maybe you should learn or self deport. The Government cannot “allow” or remove an inherent right. Get it?
Authoritarian, anti-human balderdash!!
The world is a much healthier place when we don’t empower social collectives to try to punish people merely for saying things we may not like.
Free Speech should be understood as a human right, and we should do everything in our power to protect the individual from the heavy hands of the State.
It’s crazy how much people who support the Rubio position sound like the Woke wankers who so many of them rightfully opposed.
Exactly! It's the height of hypocrisy, but their bigotry has blinded them to that realization.
The “blinders of bigotry”—thanks for helping to put that alliterative poetic meme into my head, and yes, you’re right!
This is why it’s so important to do at least a little bit of shadow work, so we can understand that the very patterns we find distasteful in others can be patterns in our own behavior.
Wanker see, wanker do..
How much of citizens being allowed to criticize is "quite enough?" There's a limit??
Be careful as you approach John Kerry land. Pretty soon you may also be referring to the FA as an obstacle.
Legally yes, but does anyone like the idea that a government official gets to arbitrarily use their own opinion of what is "bad speech" to deport someone?
People might like Trump and Marco Rubio's take on this, but what about the next guy or the next?
I stopped contributing to FIRE when they sued DeSantis for banning teaching critical race theory in FL public schools. Since 95+% of free speech cases in recent years involved conservative getting censored or cancelled I think FIRE has strained to show that it’s non-partisan.
Still better than what the ACLU has become;
That is damning with faint praise.
I never understood why curriculum design is confused with "free speech".
Teaching kids how to have gay sex or how to be white-hating racists isn't speech. It's curriculum -- and taxpayers/parents have every right to say no.
If the kid wants to learn how to have gay sex, he or she can go to Amazon and buy books or watch videos -- after they learn how to read, write and do arithmetic. No censorship there.
And when they get around to reading about gay sex, they'll better understand the lessons! LOL.
This should be an issue that unites cultural conservatives (curriculum design focused on core competence) and the democrat base (better gay sex skills). hahahahaha
Oy Vey. Strange bedfellows there (no pun intended. hahahah)
Precisely
Indeed. Florida is not violating the free speech rights of teachers. Teachers in government schools are agents of the state. As such, they cannot hamper the free speech rights of students.
But like any employer, the government can stipulate what its employees are and are not allowed to say and do on the job. It's preposterous to claim that working for the government should give one more free speech protections than working for a private company.
Wow. It’s surprising some fans of Racket don’t understand freedom of speech.
LOL. Childish.
I think it’s more about the free marketplace of ideas and allowing the people to speak up against those they don’t agree with (or don’t think should be taught in public schools). And while I tend to not want my kids to be told they’re bad (or the oppressor) because they’re white, the problem is often in the vague wording of legislation and bans such as the one in Florida.
FAIR has taken up the mantle. https://www.fairforall.org/about-us/#our-mission
Matt, you are on the wrong side of the issue, and you are conflating free speech with active participation as an organizer in a riot (intimidating other students, seizing a building, locking a janitor in a room, shutting down a campus, other actions verging on a hate crime, etc.) at Columbia. None of this is free speech.
If this had been a peaceful event, there would not be an issue; however, these students crossed the line. Having a visa granted is a privilege. It is not a right. The Secretary of State is empowered to revoke any visa, and wailing free speech is a red herring.
It's impossible to be on the wrong side of the issue when one urges more openness, transparency, and free speech.
Crimes committed while protesting--or not protesting--should be addressed. They have absolutely nothing to do with the right to speech.
I shared your opinion almost verbatim when Khalil was first arrested. The likelihood of his involvement in those activities seemed quite high given his spokesperson role, such that I expected the government would release evidence to that effect. Yet I haven’t seen corroborating evidence since then (would love to see it if it’s out there). Matt’s initial skepticism on Khalil’s arrest was more prescient than I gave him credit for at the time.
You won't find "corroborating evidence" when every authority in the vicinity doesn't want you to.
If I’m State in this scenario I would just “take the L” on Khalil and nail someone for whom I can find such evidence, then. And proceed to turn the screws on the uncooperative jurisdictions (heck, Trump has mightily humbled Columbia this year—and I support it).
It’s just like Rubio said- you’re a guest in our house. If you come in my house and talk smack and pee on the living room rug, I’m gonna have to ask you to leave. (On the other hand, If my kid talks smack and pees on the rug,well, that’s our problem)
Free speech is for citizens, not for everyone on the planet. If you allow non-citizens to come to America and say whatever they want, they can foment rebellion and claim it's free speech. The Constitution was written for and protects US citizens and only US citizens. Non-citizens have basic human rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) but they cannot claim the same rights a citiznes
Your argument is that we cannot throw people out of the country when they are only here because of our good graces to begin with, not because they had the right to come here and not because they have the right to argue for the overthrow or our Constitution. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
It's a stupid argument, and one would hope that the courts have enough sense to see through it.
Caution! Your common sense argument may ruffle some feathers. Lol
So if Joe Biden had deported Jordan Peterson or any other conservative non-citizen for political speech that offended libs you’d have been cool with that, right?
You can't deport a non-citizen who is here visiting because they didn't apply to live here to begin with. in order to be deported, you first have to apply to come to America to live and apply for the proper permits. Then you have to be granted the right to come. Only then can you be deported, and then only under certain specific circumstances.
If Jordan Petersen incited a riot, he could be tried for that, and if convicted, sentenced. Just as anyone who commits a crime can be charged with that crime. Their citizenship is irrelevant.
But there is a vast difference between a Jordan Petersen visiting American and expressing his views and engaging in debates and a student who was granted a visa to study expressing the desire to overthrow the republic. They are here because we granted them the privilege to attend one of our universities, and we have an equal right to rescind the privilege if we find their behavior to be offensive in any way or in no way at all. We could simply decide we don't want them here any more and rescind the privilege. It's a privilege, not a right.
As Marco Rubio has pointed out, if I allow you to enter my home, and then you begin trashing the home, even just verbally, I have an equal right to throw you out of my home. You had no right to enter to begin with. I granted you that privilege, and I have the right to take the privilege away.
Your assertion was that free speech is for citizens. Jordan Peterson is not a citizen. So leaving out the question of deportation, free speech is not for Jordan Peterson, right?
And as for visa-holders, any legal non-citizen resident whom any president (including any future Democrat) determines is "trashing" our country should be subject to deportation at the discretion of that president, right?
You're comparing apples to oranges. The context is students who obtain visas to study here then abuse their privilege by advocating for violence. and disruption of campus life, harassment of Jewish students, etc.. Visas are a privilege.
Think of it this way.Parents give a child a phone. The child misbehaves. The parent takes the phone away. The child had not right to the phone. It was a privilege. Similarly, students here on visas have no rights and can have their visas revoked at any time.
It would be apples and oranges if he were accused of inciting violence or anything else remotely criminal, but he's not. What he's accused of is participating in student demonstrations on campus and making other students "feel unsafe" by expressing political views that the president doesn't like.
So in the future, if a foreign student on a lawful visa participates in nonviolent political demonstrations on campus against biological men participating in women's sports -- and then some campus trans activists say they feel unsafe and that they felt harrassed and disrupted by his protest activities and political views -- you would recognize a lib president's unilateral legal authority to arrest and deport that student, right?
It's apples and apples. If you can live with it in both directions, I still disagree with you, but I can respect that at least you're being consistent in your view.
(Also, since you didn't answer, I'll assume you do agree that by your standards Jordan Peterson, as a non-citizen, has no free speech rights in America.)
The apples and orange refers to comparing legal residents to foreign visitors.
"So in the future, if a foreign student on a lawful visa participates in nonviolent political demonstrations on campus against biological men participating in women's sports -- and then some campus trans activists say they feel unsafe and that they felt harassed and disrupted by his protest activities and political views -- you would recognize a lib president's unilateral legal authority to arrest and deport that student, right?"
Absolutely. We may not like it, but the Executive branch has compete discretion to issue and revoke student visas for cause or without cause. You'd have to get Congress to change that
I personally have no problem with that.
With regard to free speech for non-citizens, I overstated my case. I was responding to Matt's claim that students with visas have free speech rights.
They do not. They are here at the whim of the Executive and can be expelled on that same whim.
"a student who was granted a visa to study expressing the desire to overthrow the republic." -- I've seen no evidence of this. If you have it, please share it.
"we have an equal right to rescind the privilege if we find their behavior to be offensive in any way or in no way at all." -- Please cite the USCIS statute which states that.
Speaking of apples and oranges, this country (with all its founding documents, laws, regulations, policies, etc) is not in any way like a "home."
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1424&num=0&edition=prelim
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1182&num=0&edition=prelim
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1201&num=0&edition=prelim
"After the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation. Notice of such revocation shall be communicated to the Attorney General, and such revocation shall invalidate the visa or other documentation from the date of issuance: Provided, That carriers or transportation companies, and masters, commanding officers, agents, owners, charterers, or consignees, shall not be penalized under section 1323(b) of this title for action taken in reliance on such visas or other documentation, unless they received due notice of such revocation prior to the alien's embarkation. There shall be no means of judicial review (including review pursuant to section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title) of a revocation under this subsection, except in the context of a removal proceeding if such revocation provides the sole ground for removal under section 1227(a)(1)(B) of this title."
You are correct. A common tactic for Islamist radicals has been to use free speech as a subversion. They know that they can dance around our free speech .
This is why it is mainly understood our country is doomed from within because no one can protect it from subversives meaning to take it down.
Also a shame that it is mainly American citizens that are doing it on behalf of the globalist.
Our founders came here and fomented rebellion.
And then they wrote a Constitution.
They came when? And fomented a rebellion when? (While they were here on temporary visas?)
They also wrote a Declaration explaining under what (general) circumstances rebellion, or abolishing one government and forming another, is justified, and listing specific offenses by the British government of the time.
You must have missed the part about a 1945 Supreme Court decision regarding the 1st Amendment.
"The Constitution was written for and protects US citizens and only US citizens." -- A Constitutional scholar you clearly are not. The rights of ANYONE on US soil are PROTECTED by the Constitution. Period. Full stop.
Wrong. SCOTUS has ruled that people here on student visas can be deported at the will of the Executive. Foreign visitors have some protections but not all of the protections that citizens have. Again, SCOTUS has ruled on that.
Please cite the SCOTUS ruling(s) which set those precedents.
Happy to. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-583_onjq.pdf
https://www.gtlaw-insidebusinessimmigration.com/supreme-court/us-supreme-court-holds-that-federal-courts-do-not-have-jurisdiction-to-review-petition-revocations-by-uscis/
It's not a "Gestapo tactic" to choose the tenor of discussion by immigrants to decide if they are good additions to the country.
Oh, let me guess. You should get to decide?
I think Matt's point is that it's free speech, regardless. That's one of the greatest things about this country. You're missing the entire point of the article.
Speech is speech, not taking over buildings and harassing Jews.
Once you go to threats and violence, it is no longer protected speech.
It's documented that he did none of those things, but keep sharing the talking points of the administration.
He was spokesthug for an organization that did. If he did not agree, why did he cover for them?
Okay Steve, since you believe this, how about some actual documentation about it? Show us him saying, writing etc any of what you claim.
I've actually listened to an interview with him. I'll bet $50 you have not.
CUAD, the organization for which he is the spokesperson, has a Substack. Here is a sample:
https://open.substack.com/pub/cuapartheiddivest/p/the-meaning-of-martyrdom-hinds-house?r=oyco8&utm_medium=ios
When it comes to government-granted privileges, ultimately the government gets to decide.
The government did decide. It's called the first amendment.
You don't seem to understand what the government decided -- the visas are revoked and the students are no longer welcome here.
That's what the case is about.
I understand exactly what the case is about. I understand that a very conservative administration thinks that someone standing up for the rights of Palestinians shouldn't be in the country.
You know what, whether or not I agree with him is not the issue, the issue is this is the first amendment. Both of them should be allowed to speak their mind regardless of what you think about his opinion
That first amendment belongs to me. Not every asshole on the planet that can swim the Rio Grande
Dude…our whole country is based on the idea that things like freedom of speech are rights not privileges and government should not have the power to take away these rights. Jesus Christ no wonder we’re sliding toward authoritarianism, nobody even believes in this stuff anymore
I've always thought of free speech as a right, not a privilege.
The visa is the privilege.
The entire body of 1st amendment jurisprudence is based on the idea that government cannot “retaliate” for speech. This comes in many forms, including, yes revoking privileges such as grant, contracts, employment, tax benefit etc. visas are no different
There is a difference between speech and preventing other people from doing their business.
If the only activities were posters and demonstrations, I would not have a problem
But preventing Jews from attending class and campus activities, and occupying buildings is not just speech.
I agree with you 100% that you would think that a case could be made against him and others using either anti-discrimination laws and/ or exciting riots, but I am not a lawyer, and not sure how difficult that would be to prosecute. If found guilty of a crime,then he could legally have his Visa revoked. (There were definite abuses of Jewish student’s civil liberties on campuses.)
I don't think the criteria for allowing someone on a temporary visa to stay here should be that s/he didn't break any laws. We shouldn't have to even waste resources to prosecute them if they do. Why do we need any more legal justification to boot them out? No non-citizen has a fundamental right to stay in the US. We are being taken advantage of, and the country is the worse off for it. As others have pointed out, we should be taking care of our own citizens and sending home people who are not peaceful and respectful during their time visiting the US. It is irrelevant that this criteria doesn't apply to US citizens.
How could it be determined that someone broke the law without prosecuting and convicting them?
Please understand, Khalil is a legal permanent resident. I don't know exactly when he earned that status, but before that he was a Green Card holder. I don't know Ozturk's status - student visa or green card.
Rubio will have to revoke much to get rid of Khalil. Ozturk probably just her student visa.
The First Amendment is a right, and the controlling case says visitors have the same rights as citizens. But that case was decided before the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was enacted in 1952, since amended numerous times. I cannot see how a Secretary of State can deny the right to speech using the INA when the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". The courts need to resolve this.
Trump effectively ran on freedom of speech, and now his administration is trying to limit it when it is speech they don't favor. I didn't like it when Biden did it, and I don't like it now. And I voted for Trump five times, two primaries and three general elections.
Agreed. The INA is unconstitutional. There are currently groups petitioning Congress to revoke it, but we all know those AIPAC lackeys never will, and so it will need to be brought before SCOTUS.
You don't have to have a conviction to have your visa revoked. I once experienced a visa holder being rude at an airport which resulted in his arrest for disturbing the peace, revocation of his visa, and immediately being put on the next plane back out of the country. A judge never got involved.
I elected a president to decide just such matters.
"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"
"The people" are the people of the US. not every one everywhere.
I'm very proud to live in a country where EVERYONE, including people I do not agree with and non-citizens can speak out.
It's nationalistic and short sighted of you to think otherwise.
Bless your heart. I welcome being described as nationalistic– a synonym for patriotic.
Under the Constitution, "people" means EVERYONE on US soil. Period.
The key word is “ people”, as defined by sec. State
He's not qualified to define that.
You miss the entire point of the Constitution- the president is not a king, and does not get to decide unilaterally what “government-granted privileges” are. The Constitution does. By getting up to the same shenanigans of the Biden administration, and curbing the free speech of someone who is here with a legal Visa, they are perpetuating this behavior. I agree with you 100% that Mahmoud Khalil is an asshole, antisemite, and I find his actions at Columbia absolutely abhorrent, but I also find it abhorrent that an administration would usurp the powers of the first amendment of our Constitution. I can hold both things in my mind at once, as is the point of this article. It’s easy to uphold the Constitution when it protects those ideas that we favor, it is a true test of American patriotism to do so when it is those that we do not.
That's a very reasoned and courteous response. Thank you.
I guess my posture is that after 4 years of opening the floodgates to millions of unvetted assholes, the pendulum needs to swing pretty hard the other way. Making a constitutional issue on behalf of those millions is not going to solve the problem we so irresponsibly created.
🎯🎯🎯
There were no laws enforced when they crash the border and entered illegally. But trying to deport them, now all of a sudden laws are being enforced. That’s totally fucked up. Khalil has big money backing and will continue to use our laws against us, Trojan Horse style. If we keep this up, the US will look like the U.K. very quickly.
This matter falls under the executive branch, so he (or his underlings) DO get to decide.
Have you met Mahmoud? Actually listened to him speak? I think if you did, you'd recant your comment about him.
I agree with what you said, b/c I have to listen actual assholes in the political landscape all the time.
https://open.substack.com/pub/cuapartheiddivest/p/the-meaning-of-martyrdom-hinds-house?r=oyco8&utm_medium=ios
As others have pointed out to you, Khalil did not write that. Nor can it be proven he agrees with every word of it.
I'll defer to the Constitution over the United States over what any any president thinks.
It's more complicated than that. Even Jefferson didn't oppose the Alien Enemies Act. He and Madison were against the Federalists and promoted nullification of federal laws - the Alien and Sedition Act--that states deemed unconstitutional. Most states didn't agree with nullification, viewed the bills themselves as unconstitutional, and overrode them. Congress ultimately overturned the Act. Ironically, when Jefferson became president, he threw a couple of federalist newspaper editors in the slammer.
There are different types of war, undeclared war, cold war, the lead up to war, and there are different types of enemies. There is propaganda. For instance, a region or faction that calls the United States "The Great Satan" and engages in terrorism against us and our allies isn't especially friendly. Yet for ideological and financial reasons, colleges admit and even prioritize students from regions hostile to the United States. China. The Middle East. Odd, isn't it? Schools hire professors antagonistic toward our own country, and its people, to the West. Edward Said is one example. Foreign money pours in, some acknowledged, much not, for "studies" and centers that undermine the United States and the West. It's serious. We're seeing the results in the upcoming election in New York City, the young vote.
Singleminded,mysteriously funded "student" organizations propagandize and disrupt campus life. They are busy bees. They denigrate U.S policy, and the country itself - "Death to America," engage in mobbery, break- ins, occupations and threats, push people around figuratively and literally, fly foreign flags, burn ours, and possess, distribute, and wear scarves telegraphing much more than pro- Palestine leanings. They behave like, what's the word,oh, enemies. Mamdani's "revolutionary," Marxist, anti- colonialist father is but one example. He's teaching kids at Columbia. Imagine what. Fascinatingly, an acknowledged anti- Western, Islamist teaches American studies at Yale, teaches kids about the US, which she hates.
Foreign Enemies Act? Hell yes. To quote Dodsworth: love, or speech, has to stop somewhere short of suicide.
Flag burning is protected, just ask Anthony Scalia.
I look forward to Mamdani winning, just for you!
I bet you do.
He's going to win because New Yorkers are bad ass and smart.
It's going to be great fun to watch people like lose their minds over it.
"Smart," like "bad- ass" Cuba. They have it all, dont they? The revolution worked like a charm. It took real smarts to get there, but they did it. Or thriving LA- and how about that mayor and fire department? First rate, high performance. And let's not forget Chicago. Safety first. And SF, and what's left of Portland? It takes real smarts to run a city, or a country, into the ground.
Night all.
No, he'll win, if he does, because enough New Yorkers today are the spoiled, stupid children of a system that gave them everything and taught them nothing.
Mamdani is only convincing to them because he's one of them.
The Gov’t is supposed to vet every visa applicant prior to issuing one. The vetting process is, by its very nature, subjective, and already includes review of opinions and comments made by the individual. That’s nothing new.
It’s completely legal for the United States to deny someone a visa for exposing viewpoints that are not aligned with our values and interests. That is enshrined in the law and happens every day.
But who gets to decided what’s in our values and interests? Well, the Gov’t that got elected and holds power. What happens if they abuse that authority? We have elections and can throw them out if it’s egregious enough.
Is that a perfect solution? No, but there are no perfect solutions.
Admittedly I think some of these cases are bumping up against the line I personally hold for what should be tolerated and what should not, but I also don’t believe that we have any constitutional or moral obligation to harbor rabble rousers indefinitely just because they were issued a visa at some point.
What about lawful permanent residents like Khalil?
Who gets to decide is the central issue of course ... We should have a conlaw game show..
I get the point Matt is struggling to make. It sounds good, but I also like the way steven koenig says what he says. Why can't we just get along the way the WASPS of the 1950s had it? Me and my 15 year old girl friend had it so good. It's been all down hill, after.
Defintely a troll.
Defintely (sic) a Democrat, no sense of humor.
Definitely NOT a Democrat.
Yup, proof of trolling behaviour.
Hardly, don’t assume everything operates in a vacuum. More than two opposing ideas can be right.
“Choose the tenor of discussion by immigrants.” Amazing. Who gets to choose? Who decides the accepted tenor? Consider that yet? Maybe someone in government will decide the “tenor” of your post (speech) isn’t correct. See how the works?
Sounds pretty Gestapo-like to me.
Who are you to dictate what others discuss?
Not dictating anything. Just pointing out that if a visitor to our country wants to rail against its customs, we have the right to have him not be here.
Khalil is not a visitor. He's a lawful permanent resident.
Khalil and Ozturk are very different cases. Khalil's activity at Columbia went way way beyond what is protected by the first amendment. Ozturk apparently did nothing more than write it editorial.
For my two cents, Khalil should be subjected to deportation without any constitutional defense. Ozturk has a much much better case, and I believe Rubio is misguided with respect to her.
That's right. Khalil was a leader in the anti-semitic, anti-Israel protests, which means he organized groups to protest and, in his leadership position, met with Columbia administrators. It was at Columbia that the protesters organized by Khalil assaulted Columbia janitors, which is entirely unacceptable and unrelated to speech. And yes, as a leader of the group of protesters, Khalil is responsible for theie actions.
And, he acted as a negotiator for the illegal sit in and various other illegal activities. Automatic boot out of the country
He did not "lead" the protesters, nor "incite" them. Their actions were their own. Khalil simply acted as a representative of CUAD in negotiations with Columbia admins.
Kick 'em both out and make them take a dozen Mexicans (each) with them
Bro, why don't you just go put the white hood on. It'll all be easier of us to see who you are
He has the right to speak his mind, as do you.
No shit. The ACLU defended the Klan. Doesn't mean that racists shouldn't be called out
I agree. Khalil negotiated with Columbia leadership to divest from Israel. That is clearly against US foreign policy.
He negotiated on behalf of an illegal action.
He didn’t represent anyone other than a group of individuals at that school. Who cares if he “negotiated” against US foreign policy.
That is exactly the point. Rubio has responsibility for foreign policy. Why would he allow a someone working inside the US against US foreign policy interests when he can deport the guy ? This is a political matter, not a free speech matter. As such. Jurisdiction lies in the Executive Branch. Not the Judicial Branch.
Nope. Because he's a lawful permanent resident, it lies with the judicial; which is why it's being handled in the courts.
No it's not. All sorts of college advocacy groups call on administrations to boycott, divest or sanction all sorts of policies. But somehow, it's not "allowed" when it comes to only one foreign country. Hmmm, what's wrong with that picture?
Nobody does "nothing more than write [an] editorial." You don't get selected to write an editorial on behalf of a group if you aren't a leader of the group.
Oh jeez what a dumb statement. Your Post here is an “editorial,” or don’t you get that? Who do you represent? If you’re leading your household or self or neighborhood militia it’s your “Right” to express your opinion. You may recall people with more to lose than you fought for this 250 years ago.
"Oh jeez what a dumb statement," you say in the first of a series of incredibly dumb statements.
My comment here is not analogous to an editorial formally published in a newspaper and claiming to speak on behalf of an organization, not that that would make any difference to my point if it were. And no, the revolutionaries who fought and died 250 years ago didn't do so because they wanted a bunch of hateful and ungrateful foreign students to break laws and campus rules with impunity while trying to hide behind the principles they hate. I'm quite certain revolutionary soldiers anticipated no such scenario, much less fought and died for it.
You have no sense of the depth and intimacy of history, so this is my advice to you: Go read books whose mission isn't to tell you what you want to hear; and in the meantime, stop making a fool of yourself on the internet.
"Go read books whose mission isn't to tell you what you want to hear; and in the meantime, stop making a fool of yourself on the internet."
Sadly, I believe NEITHER of those will happen!
That's just a series of non sequiturs, beginning with the notion that you have to be elected to write an op-ed. Do be serious.
Amazing: You just committed a non sequitur by calling a non-non sequitur a non sequitur.
There's nothing strange about the idea that an activist's participation in a protest movement didn't likely begin and by writing a formal op-ed "demanding that the University acknowledge the Palestinian genocide." What's strange is your conclusion otherwise.
Never mind that, by its own admission, the op-ed was: published on behalf of "Graduate Students for Palestine"; published in solidarity with "Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine, the Tufts Faculty and Staff Coalition for Ceasefire and Fletcher Students for Palestine"; and "endorsed by 32 other Tufts School of Engineering and Arts and Sciences Graduate Students."
Repeating the first error. Being in solidarity with a group doesn't mean she was the nominee as a spokesman.
That is, a non sequitur
*The fact of having written the op-ed* means she was selected to write the op-ed, which, again, identifies its authors as members of Graduate Students for Palestine.
Stop trying and failing to point out others' errors, and start trying and succeeding in finding your own. At least once you're able to do that, you won't be such a waste of other people's time.
Writing an op-ed in no way implies that anyone selected her. Hence the characterization non-sequitur - "it does not follow" - which I don't think you understood in the posts above.
Pray tell, what "activity" exactly did Khalil himself (a lawful permanent resident, protected by ALL of the Bill of Rights) engage in that violates said lawful permanent resident status?
I love these comments that begin ‘pray tell’. What ineffable condescension.
Khalil’s role as chief negotiator for the Columbia resistance, which involved vandalism, harassment, false imprisonment, etc., is sufficient to confer accessorial and conspiratorial liability for all the illicit activity of that dubious movement.
And what, pray tell, gave a dilettante like yourself some hazy notion that his responsibility for these acts had to be proven as an individual and beyond a reasonable doubt? His role as head of the movement, and the natural inference that he is responsible for all the activities of the movement, either directly or by support, is a sufficient showing to justify Rubio’s determination. I’d give Khalil an opportunity to rebut, but I doubt he’d even tr,
These are not criminal proceedings, or even formal litigation. To repeat, what, pray tell, gave you the notion that they are?
"I love these comments that begin ‘pray tell’. What ineffable condescension." -- And then you hypocritically go on to use it twice in your response. LOL
"Columbia resistance?" "dubious movement?" -- LOL
"False imprisonment?" - How so?
"is sufficient to confer accessorial and conspiratorial liability for all the illicit activity" -- According to which law/statute/rule/policy?
"his responsibility for these acts" -- Nope. Only those committing the acts are responsible for their own actions.
"His role as head of the movement" -- Nope. He was a representative who negotiated on behalf of CUAD, NOT a "leader" of it.
"is a sufficient showing to justify Rubio’s determination." -- Nope. Not for legal permanent residents.
And yet, in all of that word salad, you never answered my original question. Shocker.
Tone deaf as well. Do you think my use of the phrase was random?
As for the rest, better learn some actual common law. I don’t give lessons.
More deflection. Shocker.
There’s nothing to deflect. You don’t know enough law to make a cogent point.
What makes you think editorial is only an editorial if it’s “formally published in a newspaper?” That even dumber than your first post.
They should kick his anti-American, anti-Semitic ass out anyway. Who needs this douche.
It should be that simple
Sorry, but that's not up to you or to the government either, for that matter, unless crimes are committed.
Who is it up to?
It's up to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, which established that the First Amendment applies to non-citizens.
Rubio's claim is that he is being deported for his actions and for fraudulently filing his visa paperwork.
The counter-claim is that this is a cover for deportation for his free speech.
These conflicting cliams will be decided in court.
Reminds me of Roberts using the imperative of "Why" in not allowing Trump 45 to include a citizen question on the census. Since when is a judge allowed to use its own set of ‘reasons’ to determine the merits of an action? You can’t do that because of you are doing it for the ‘wrong’ reason.
Bingo! There's really nothing more to say at this point. Everything else is tribal mental masturbation.
Yeah, you do seem to legitimately misunderstand all of this. It'll be up to a further ruling by federal courts, it is not decided, nor is your factoid dispositive.
There have been SCOTUS constitutional interpretation whoppers since SCOTUS declared it and only it is allowed interpretations.
At least 'It', in some of the whopper cases, have overturn a few of those interpretations.
You may not like him or what he says, but that doesn't give you or the government the right to deport him. He has the same right to speak his mind as you do.
Yes. That’s why it’s called a “Right.” Not many in Taibbi’s orbit seem to get it.
"Speak[ing]" his extremely addled mind is not what he's being deported for.
Yet many NOT "in Taibbi’s orbit" don't seem to reach that point in the discussion, regardless of how often it's noted. It's like they're colorblind and simply are not able to see that particular color. Strange...
And you should be commenting over at The Free Zionist Press.
I tried. They kicked me out.
Until “they” decide you’re a douche and they kick you out. Right? See why they’re called “Rights?”
I think ultimately the court is going to decide that somebody in the government has the power to make a final determination on visas, and right now that person in Marco Rubio. That said, I'm happy the issue is going to court and will therefore be discussed.
Blocking aid to disaster states that boycott Israel is (IMO) much less defendable. Glad to see they turned it around, but that they were even thinking it raises all sorts of questions about who's running what.
https://www.aol.com/news/trump-administration-walks-back-plan-144531049.html
"Immigration law says they can be thrown out at any time, for any reason, but can speech rights exist at all if they vary according to visa status?"
---
They already do exist according to visa status, because you can be refused a visa for purely speech-based reasons. This is why I think Rubio will ultimately win.
And sadly, Khalil gets to parade around in Congress drumming up sympathy for something the UN decided back in 1947, and that is to recognize Israel.
Since when is Khalil drumming up sympathy for Israel?
The rather arbitrary ability by the Secretary of State to cancel an immigrant's visa reminds me of the Rodney Dangerfield joke:
"My psychiatrist told me I'm going crazy. I said, 'If you don't mind, I'd like a second opinion.' He said, 'All right. You're ugly, too.'"
Whether FIRE wins or loses the case, Mahmoud Khalil is going to be deported from the US, because the Secretary of State can just find different grounds to deport him.
Until, of course, the Democrats get another occupant of the White House, in which case Khalil will be granted permanent resident status again and treated like a returning hero (assuming they even remember who he is by then - he may simply be overtaken by the newest shiny thing of the moment).
That is why there must be a vetting process in place. Obama let some Islamist in and many people died. Biden's folks, if they did vet anyone, it was for reasons a sane Admin would have said no way.
Exactly!
I am becoming increasingly disturbed at all the pro-Israel stances being taken by the Trump Admin. Who is really running our country?
“Much less defendable “?!? It’s batshit crazy. I can’t believe that this issue hasn’t brought out the torch pitchfork people. The comment section reaffirms my belief that the population is irredeemable.
FWIW, it was shot down before I could even finish my article about how stupid it was.
Stunning to see how many of Matt's readers take the standard "I'm for free speech when it's my speech" stance on this issue.
I'm with 90% of folks here that Khalil is a POS and I won't lose a wink of sleep if he's deported. And if he's been charged with incitement, harassment, assault, rioting, etc., get his ass on a plane.
But the First Amendment makes no distinction regarding citizens. And as Matt notes, there's SCOTUS precedent that it applies to non-citizens.
Yet, the majority of readers here seem willing to toss out the protections of the Constitutional provision that has distinguished us from the barbarian hordes for 236 years.
Ask yourselves why you're taking that position? Why so willing to take an absolutist stance that diminishes free speech rights? Seems kinda perverse for this readership.
The government can already stop people from getting visas for purely speech-based reasons. It stands to reason they can also revoke visas for the same reasons.
What I think about the law doesn't matter.
"The government can already stop people from getting visas for purely speech-based reasons"
Yes. Because they're not yet in the country. They're seeking to enter.
"stands to reason they can also revoke visas for the same reasons"
No. Because now they're here. Legally. And are therefore afforded the protections of the First Amendment, which says Congress shall pass no law abridging the right to speak freely. And which makes no distinction for non-citizens. As affirmed by the SCOTUS.
Again, they CAN revoke the Visa for breaking the law. But not for exercising a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
I understand there may be a legal difference (we're going to find out), but I don't see any underlying reason we shouldn't treat the situations the same. We shouldn't be stuck with these people forever they they simply keep their 'visa-denying' speech under wraps until after they're here.
But if we ARE stuck with those people, the reaction will probably be to simply mass deny such visas in the first place.
Fine. You'll get no argument from me. Who needs 'em here?
But SC, you obviously don't need me to tell you, that one needs to take a pretty absolutist stance regarding free speech in order adequately to protect it.
And once they're here, and ostensibly subject to the protections of the 1st Amendment, it's bad for ALL of our free speech to allow for unilateral interpretations (by Marco fucking Rubio!!) to decide what speech constitutes a deportable opinion.
We gave the power to the government to decide the rules, ultimately somebody in government is going to decide the rules. Right now that's Marco Rubio.
If congress doesn't like this, they can take that power back. I wrote a whole article about it!
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/the-imperial-presidency-free-speech
And yet, that is precisely what Sec 237(a)(4) does - it gives Rubio the sole discretion to determine whether Khalil's otherwise free speech causes his further presence in the U.S. as compellingly damaging to U.S. foreign policy interests. It is black letter law. I'm not saying that it's constitutional, but I am saying that the SC hasn't yet ruled on this issue (despite what Matt and others have asserted). This is why Khalil recently lost at the lower court level. The judge sided with Rubio's discretion under the Act.
Thanks for your analysis throughout this portion of the comment thread.
I, too, am a lawyer, and to be honest, I hate 95% of lawyers 95% of the time. But . . .
. . . there are times when it's such a pleasure to do a deep dive alongside another asshole-esquire who understands, and is facile in, the practice of stepping from law-to-facts-to-application, as we're trained to do.
I still hate most lawyers, myself included, but thanks for the thoughtful and well-reasoned back-and-forth.
Almost correct, except for the final sentence. Section 237(a)(4) of the 1952 Immigration Act grants Rubio an exception to the free speech clase contained in the same Act, if he in his sole discretion declares that Khalil's presence in the U.S. is in a compelling way detrimental to U.S. foreign policy. It's black letter law, and no, the SC has not yet ruled on its constitutionality. But it may yet do so in the Khalil case; we're just not there yet. A lower court judge sided with Rubio already on this point, but that decision can be overturned on appeal, and if not, I think the SC will grant cert and hear the case. I think it's a coin flip as to how the 9 Justices will rule on this.
If they misrepresent themselves on a visa application, they can be booted out
If they lie on their visa application, that's grounds for deportation. I think there's a question that's something like do you consort with terrorists -- I know that's not exactly it, but something in that ball park. I'm believe that Khalil did write or say in his visa application something to the effect he would not consort or has not consorted with terrorists, which, if he is supporting Hamas, would mean he lied on the application. I haven't looked at that issue for a while, so my details may not be completely accurate, but its something like that.
Aren't you now arguing that the first amendment doesn't apply to non-citizens?
If you don't get first amendment privileges until you are a citizen then it must be true.
No. I'm arguing that the First Amendment doesn't apply to people who are not in the US, and therefore not subject to, or protected by, the jurisdiction of its courts and laws.
If you go to China and hold up a sign saying "Free the Uigars," the First Amendment won't protect you from being jailed by the Chinese government.
Nor does the First Amendment allow the US government to go to China and tell them to free Chinese citizens who were jailed for holding up the same sign.
But if a Chinese national comes to the US and loudly protests that China should free the Uigars, that right is protected. Hell, it would (and should) protect him or her from repercussions of protesting US policy towards China! So long as it stays at the level of speech, and not harassment, incitement, etc.
I get this argument, but above you said:
[replying to this statement]
"The government can already stop people from getting visas for purely speech-based reasons"
[you said]
"Yes. Because they're not yet in the country. They're seeking to enter."
But it's not a foreign government in this case--it's the US government.
If I go visit Mexico, I am subject to the laws of Mexico, but my free speech rights in the US aren't revoked while I am in Mexico. If I post US constitutionally protected speech on the internet while in Mexico, Mexico may arrest me but the US can't because of the first amendment.
So obviously non-citizens are different in this respect.
In other words, a US citizen can't be denied entry at the border because of constitutionally protected speech, but a non-citizen can.
So at least in this context non-citizens don't have first amendment protections.
The idea that we can't kick non-citizens out for the same "infraction" we can use to deny them entry to begin with is just extra silly.
Punish people who follow the law and reward people who don't. And somehow, the constitution requires it.
The idea that if something is a huge burden on the United States and requires mass sacrifice, that it therefore must be good and a constitutional right--really needs to put out to pasture.
It's like Christianity meets self-flagellation.
There's a lot in there, and you make some interesting points.
But I think this quotation of yours gets to the heart of something we're disagreeing about: "The idea that we can't kick non-citizens out for the same "infraction" we can use to deny them entry to begin with is just extra silly. Punish people who follow the law and reward people who don't."
What is the "infraction" you're alluding to? What "law" isn't being followed?
Speaking out against Israel or in favor of Palestinians isn't an "infraction." It's not a violation of the "law."
What you wrote makes no sense at all, especially since you’re replying to the Post that tells you straight out that the Supreme Court already ruled on this.
Except that the assertion that the "Supreme Court already ruled on this," is false.
According to McCarthy, that's a closer call, however sound the logic. He said in his podcast on the Khalil case that if he were the lawyer arguing for the government with the facts you just stated, he better have more than just a summary of unpleasant opinions about our own government or about Israel. But he agreed with your logic that the statutes that allow the government to turn down a visa application are linked to the statutes that provide reasons the government can revoke a previously issued visa.
You've just straw-manned a whole bunch of people.
The same basic logic you apply in your support of Khalil's removal applies to Ozturk's. Her visa wasn't revoked because she wrote an op-ed, as Rubio has explicitly stated. Her visa was revoked because she's a participant in a group that has engaged in sufficiently unacceptable behavior: harassment, vandalism, trespassing, etc. Far from suggesting that she was at arm's length from the group's activities, the fact that she was trusted to write an op-ed officially speaking for the group tells us how intimately she was involved with it.
Talk about straw-manning! I don't support Khalil's removal based on the facts I know. I said that if he's charged with a crime, he can and should be deported. But as far as I've read, he's never been charged with anything except holding the wrong opinions (opinions with which I strongly disagree, fwiw).
And the same would go for Ozturk. If she "participated" in activities that violate the law, she can have her Visa revoked. But far as I've read, that's not the case.
Perhaps you know facts that I don't, in which case we may agree. But I ain't seen 'em.
FWIW, I dug into the Ozturk case when it first hit the news, and the only thing I found was that she attended a protest with a group that was at the time banned from campus activities. The protest was not on campus and I could find no evidence it got out of control and turned into an illegal gathering.
But she’s in a group in college! Don’t you see? When someone in a college group does something, they should all be held accountable (especially if it’s something I personally despise). That’s why when a fraternity brother gets a DUI, the whole chapter has to go to jail! They’re in a group, that’s how it works.
You don't seem to understand what straw-manning is. Even if I had omitted some minor technical distinction from my reference to your argument—which I didn't, since I simply referenced the logic you stated would lead you to support deportation—I wouldn't have committed a straw man. On the other hand, you distorting others' arguments into a form so weak it may as well be made of straw is, of course, a textbook straw man.
And now you're carelessly shifting your logic from a standard of "charged" in Khalil's case to "participated" in Ozturk's. So maybe you should spend a little more time thinking and a little less time typing.
More importantly, none of us has absolute access to facts. But it sure seems like you haven't bothered to seek out, whether through a priori or a posteriori analysis, any of the insights you say would be determinant of your conclusions here.
Is it possible Ozturk dropped in from the ether to write an op-ed for a group she was otherwise totally divorced from? Sure. Is it remotely plausible? Nope.
Organizing and negotiating for an illegal activity as he did, can be enough to revoke his visa. His due process rights may be much less than a citizen
This is the difference between Walter fans and Constitutional understanding. I struggle with the same questions you pose to others. They can't see past the alleged clear and present danger, to a future that not so subtly takes their rights in someone else fear based crusade to save our countries values. I wish those people could tell me what values they speak of.
*else's
*country's
(Sorry for such poor grammar)
* I dont typically respond to meaningless jabs on socials, but for the first amendment, I guess I will break my rule.
@glitterpuppy
-yes, I know your comment was rhetorical. But, I'm referring to all presidents and their adminstrations that wish to curtail freedom. We can use the same mantra that gets us into war: if not us then who. We must protect protected speech.
How many times have we all read about regimes in other areas of the world that imprison, torture, and kill for saying the wrong thing against their "own" country? Hell, what about when an American in another country breaks a law that we don't have in our country? There laws just to them. Why would you want to open that door here?
Mr. Tabbi is a 1A purest. I respect it because I can see past the present.
Matt's argument is about how making one law in one context leads to the means to make the same law in its opposite.
Let's say the SC decides in favor of the current administration; legal foreigners do not have free speech protection. Would we want a Democrat in office that still cant define what a foreigner is, or that believes we are all legal foreigners, that "no one is illegal, or we're all illegal?" Under this presumption, you or I could be kicked out to our ancestral country. If you support this move by party alone, you ultimately do not value your own right to speech. That's a shallow belief to have in a political party: get the bad guys out. All that defined bad would be who appointed whom to a position.
I dont want this Rubio/Trump interpretation of the law any more than I wanted Biden's surveillance for protection from so called domestic terrorists on social media. Bidens inflammatory speech towards people that held conservative views about J6 led to people losing their jobs, family, friends and their freedom. This current move is the next step in censorship.
If you choose to look at our rights as binary, or even singularly applicable, then when a democrat gets into office again, you better hope Substack protects your right to freespeech...oh wait...
you dont have free speech protections on a private platform (because well twitter files) according to democrats if it encourages treason, incitement of violence, blocks someone from viewing my comments, hurts my feelings you will get canceled, then you and I get sent back to our home country.
Even if the SC upholds the government's position here, it would be to affirm Sec 237(a)(4) such that only speech that causes the Secretary to become compellingly concerned that your speech makes your continued presence in the U.S. untenable vis-a-vis the U.S.'s legitimate foreign policy concerns. They cannot put you in jail for that, but they can deport you
Oh, you must be referring to the previous regime?
It seems to me that this is a political issue, reserved for the Executive Branch.
I've been pretty clear that I'm not doing that. Free speech, per se, does apply to non-citizen visa holders like Khalil, with the one exception being Rubio's discretion (in the federal statute at issue here) to revoke Khalil's visa if his speech convinces Rubio that his presence in the U.S. causes a problem with a compelling foreign policy interest. This part of the statute might be unconstitutional. Matt thinks it is, I happen to disagree, at least with respect to Khalil.
Well said.
You’re only part right on your premise. Bunches of SCOTUS decisions have been overturned which indicates that things change, etc. can you imagine that we “ interred” Japanese citizens during WWII? Where was SCOTUS then?
Ok. If the current Court overturns the ruling that the 1st Amendment applies to non-citizens, that'll certainly change the calculus. Maybe FIRE will end up hoisting themselves by their own petard and get just such a result.
But as for now, it's still the applicable interpretation, and one that seems right from my own simple reading of the text of the 1st Amendment, which makes no distinctions regarding citizenship.
That it makes no distinction is prima facie true. The problem is the immigration statute that provides Rubio with an exception. Sec 237(a)(4) of the Immigration Act of 1952, vis-a-vis foreign policy concerns. Rubio has staked his claim on this statute, and Khalil's team is trying to say it's unconstitutional. We shall, eventually, what the SC says. I don't think that they will deny cert when the time comes, no matter who wins on appeal.
Well, it mentions “ the people” exactly who were they referring to ? Citizens, or all of the above….
FIRE will lose this case. At the time these people were protesting, we had US citizen hostages being held in Gaza. The protests could theoretically embolden Hamas and make it more difficult to get them freed. If, instead, they protested about, for example, the treatment of the Rohingya Muslims in Burma, nobody would care. The Secretary of State has virtually absolute discretion on this issue.
Good point. The reason that Rubio at State is in charge of this issue is because the granting or withholding of a visa can impact the US international relations. AND the courts cannot second guess or issue judgements on foreign policy issues that belong to the Secretary of State and the President.
To be clear, there are many issues on which a foreign student in the US could opine or about which they could protest without incurring any sanctions or doing damage, ie, abortion, legalizing pot, and many environmental issues arel completely safe. Those issues are mostly or completely domestic issues. But once foreign students start to weigh in on foreign policy issues, especially in high-profile situations, those students could actually do damage to the US foreign policy. Off the top of my head, I can imagine a host of scenarios where foreign student activitists could do actual damage to US international interests.
This is not a simple question. I have litigated free speech cases in my career and I belive strongly in free speech. But there have long been limits on speech in the law in certain circumstances and foreign policy/international relations is one of those areas.
This is a political matter.
As such, it should be decided by the Executive Branch.
Wait. What? What does that even mean? As if the Courts and Congress (You know the other two co-equal branches of government) are not “political?”
What is meant when one says a decision is "political" is that it is a matter of policy. The Executive Branch gets to make the policy for the federal government; the courts and Congress do not.
"To be clear, there are many issues on which a foreign student in the US could opine or about which they could protest without incurring any sanctions or doing damage, ie, abortion, legalizing pot, and many environmental issues arel completely safe. Those issues are mostly or completely domestic issues. But once foreign students start to weigh in on foreign policy issues, especially in high-profile situations, those students could actually do damage to the US foreign policy."
Exactly, and the case I believe the Sec'y of State will make. Also one of the few RELEVANT comments I've read here, given the powers and discretion of the Sec'y of State! It ain't about the 1st Amendment...
Rubio/State are in charge of visa holders. Khalil is a lawful permanent resident, which is why his case is being determined in the immigration courts.
"those students could actually do damage to the US foreign policy." -- LOL. Nevermind that same foreign policy is what is doing the REAL damage to this country.
You can disagree with the foreign policy, but the President gets to decide what the US foreign policy is and the President get to take legal action to protect his foreign policy. If he sees even legal visa holders doing things that interfere with his foreign, of even domestic, policies, he has the legitimate authority to deport them. Khalil did bad things -- leading protesters who attacked innocent janitors at Columbia -- and deserved to be deported. Not to mention the fact that Hamas is a designated terrorist group and Khalil was essentially giving aid and support to Hamas, which should always be good grounds to kick a foreigner out of the US.
Again, Khalil is a lawful permanent resident, not a "legal visa holder."
"Khalil did bad things -- leading protesters who attacked innocent janitors at Columbia" -- Nope. Enough with this false narrative. He didn't LEAD the protesters to do anything. Their actions were their OWN (and no janitors were "attacked"). Khalil was a negotiator on behalf of CUAD's desire for Columbia to divest from the apartheid state of Israel; which in NO WAY warrants deportation.
"Khalil was essentially giving aid and support to Hamas" -- This has yet to be definitively proven (and "essentially" doesn't cut it), and so far NO ONE has been able to; not even your Saint Rubio.
Regardless, it's in the court's hands now, so only time will tell.
You mean dual citizens perhaps?
Yup, clearly a US national security issue under Rubio.
Nope. Advocating that a US university divest from an apartheid state is NOT a matter of "national security" no matter how much you may wish it is.
Shouting "from the river to the sea", which Khalil and all the protesters did, is calling for the eradication of Jews in Israel -- that is literally what they did. That is also a call for genocide. That is literally incitement to violence against Jews. Inciting violence against a minority group, which Jews are, is NOT protected speech. That is sufficient grounds to deport Khalil.
Moreover, its absurd to say that calling for divestment from Israel is not part of foreign policy. Anything pertaining to relations between the US and Israel is per se foreign policy. That is axiomatic. If you don't understand that, you don't know the first thing about what you are advocating. Please, you are wasting everyone's time when you insert yourself in conversations that are apparently way over your head.
"Shouting 'from the river to the sea' is calling for the eradication of Jews in Israel...That is also a call for genocide. That is literally incitement to violence." -- Oh, so that would mean Israel has been calling for genocide of, and incitement to violence against, the Palestinians, since Netanyahu has said it, and it's in their Likud Charter:
https://x.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1748080171171619192
https://newrepublic.com/post/178243/benjamin-netanyahu-literally-says-from-the-river-to-the-sea
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party
https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid
Conversely, and as every HONEST person knows, the slogan when spoken by Palestinians and their supporters, means FREEDOM for the Palestinian people. Hence the rest of it - "Palestinians WILL BE FREE." The zionist hasbara intentionally MISREPRESENTS its TRUE meaning.
"its absurd to say that calling for divestment from Israel is not part of foreign policy." -- Don't strawman me. That is not what I said. Read my comment again.
"Please, you are wasting everyone's time when you insert yourself in conversations that are apparently way over your head." -- Look in the mirror. Pure projection.
In all fairness, Bebe said Israel must control Gaza, and being that's where Hamas and the attacks originated (and the hostages held), it's not a call for genocide. Had Israel "controlled" Gaza, the only area from the river to the sea they don't control, it's unlikely Hamas would have flourished. Control does not infer genocide.
For clarification, if not a call for genocide, what does "from the river to the sea..." actually mean? You got me curious, so I did a little research, realizing my knowledge of the issue is somewhat light.
"Hamas Principles and Policies in May 2017
The Movement
ii. Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit."
So basically ALL of Israel.
"xx. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus."
So it would appear "Palestine" would replace Israel as a political and geographic entity.
I found these interesting also:
"iv. The Palestinians are the Arabs who lived in Palestine until 1947, irrespective of whether they were expelled from it, or stayed in it; and every person that was born to an Arab Palestinian father after that date, whether inside or outside Palestine, is a Palestinian...
xiv. The Zionist project is a racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist project based on seizing the properties of others; it is hostile to the Palestinian people and to their aspiration for freedom, liberation, return and self-determination. The Israeli entity is the plaything of the Zionist project and its base of aggression.
xvi. Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.
xix. There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, Judaization or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.
xxv. Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws. At the heart of these lies armed resistance, which is regarded as the strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people."
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/doctrine-hamas
"being that's where Hamas and the attacks originated (and the hostages held), it's not a call for genocide." -- I agree. I was using Leslie's argument against her, to point out her double standard.
"what does 'from the river to the sea..." actually mean?' -- Read my earlier comment again. It means Palestinians will be FREE (i.e. having the SAME rights as Israelis, NOT under apartheid rule, and NOT under Israeli occupation).
"So it would appear "Palestine" would replace Israel as a political and geographic entity." -- Nope. That's YOUR interpretation (or rather, the zionist hasbara that you've chosen to believe).
Yes, the other sections you quote are indeed "interesting" aren't they? Hopefully, you can read them with the same benevolence Hamas intended.
Thank you for writing all of that. Just to add, the phrase, "river to the sea" is fairly attributed to Sheik Hassam al-Bamma, who founded the Muslem Brotherhood, and who was talking specifically about driving the Jews into the sea (the Mediterrain Sea), thereby killing all of them. Any notion that the phrase means anything less is dangerously naive. One of the fundental tenants of Islam is that it believes that anyone who is not a Muslem is a lesser human who either should be killed or enslaved or indentured to Muslems (I'm paraphrasing, so don't complain if I'm inexact). Islam is intent on conquering the world and doing so by violence. They are seeking their freedom by eradicating non-Muselm people, not by establishing modern democratic nation states. So, YES, from the river to the sea means that the Isamists want to kill all the Jews in Israel, which is why it is inherently anti-semitic and is a call for inciting violence.
I have to point out that free speech does not mean attacking other people and making them uncomfortable and unsafe.
The First Amendment protects speech, not harassment and violence.
If foreigners are making Jews feel unsafe on campus, they need to be stopped.
Free speech means other people do not have to pay for your speech.
Signs, protests with chants, fine, but when they invade buildings and do not allow Jews access to campus locations and activities, that is not speech. It is bullying and maybe terrorism, or at least support for terrorism. Those individuals at a minimum need to reimburse those they disenfranchise. So maybe not deport - but pay a lot of money, minimum all tuition, to all Jews they harass.
And they need to be suspended until they pay up.
Yes, poor Jews, we wouldn’t want them to feel unsafe and uncomfortable while the state of Israel commits genocide against the Palestinian people.
I'm finding it difficult to blame random American Jews for Israel's behavior.
I guess we should feel the same toward all Rwandans as well. eh? /s
SyberPhule - What are you trying to say? your sarcasm is too abstruse.
How exactly is "genocide" being committed against the Palestinians if the population of the Palestinians increased approx 90k from 2024 to 2025?
It's not a genocide because they are Arabs and the Israelis are not trying to kill all Arabs, they're just fighting a war Hamas started. Wars historically end when one party surrenders. Why isn't everyone who cares about the people in Gaza demanding Hamas surrender?
The question of the year.
*Someone* *is* trying to kill all of the other side, I think, though I might be mistaken.
This is not a "war." This is wholesale regional destruction and ethnic cleansing of a people.
If Israel wanted to commit genocide on the "Palestinians", none would be left.
The war would have been over maybe not Oct 8, but by Oct 30.
And they would not allow aid in; NO other country has been forced to send aid to their enemies.
Their minds are captured, mainstream media has been using Hamas generated "reports" from the get go making any attempt to use logical arguments useless.
You are so right!! I try to avoid the brain-washed masses, but every one in a while, one slips through and then it takes a minute to realized you've been wrestling with a pig whose happy to be rolling in the sty muck. You just have to pick yourself up asap and wash the stink off.
The Israelis are NOT sending aid; they are either blocking it outright (by Israeli settlers), or not allowing it in.
Aid convoys that are allowed into Gaza have been repeatedly fired on, which was noted by Cindy McCain, who is a huge supporter of Israel. She was there, and she saw it herself.
You are attempting to add apples and oranges. Surely you don’t hold individual Jewish citizens responsible for what you see as a genocide?
My gut feeling tells me that's exactly what's being said.
I don’t, just like I don’t think speaking out against the actions of the state of Israel makes it automatically antisemitic.
It does not, but supporting Hamas IS Jew-hatred
But opposing the starvation of Gazans is NOT "supporting Hamas."
Your sarcasm is not needed and certainly indicates that you have no idea as to what it is like to be harassed, as well as verbally and physically assaulted. All American citizens have a right to feel safe in their own country. This is why laws exist and this is why lawsuits are fought.
They are Arabs and identify as such. So, Israel is going to eradicate the entire Arabian peninsula?
These Arabs have been kicked out of every other Arab country for fomenting rebellion in those countries. Why is that is the better question.
Case in point - why did Europe take in so many Syrians, Iraqi's, etc. when some of the most wealthy countries on the planet - Arab countries - refused them?
If it wants to it can, it has the most powerful military in that region backed by the most powerful military in the world. Funny how the focus is on the Palestinians or as you say the Arabs.
You sure you want to talk about who has been thrown out of how many countries?
I usually hear that argument used against Jews.
AARON would feel just as unsafe and uncomfortable if bloodthirsty human vermin infested his campus (and elsewhere) calling for his death.
Perhaps those Jewish students are Americans and not from Israel. I sometimes wonder . . .
I don't think Lenin contributed very much to Western civilization. But the phrase and the concept, "useful idiot", is incredibly useful.
It fully applies to you.
Thanks Frank
90% of Matt's subscriber base are Zionists. You're not gonna be able to talk sense to them.
"The First Amendment protects speech, not harassment and violence."
You're right. At least i think so, but my opinion doesn't count, apparently. We have a couple of cases here at MIT that most definitely crossed the line.
SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that HATE SPEECH = FREE SPEECH. There is no reason to protect any other speech.
The Viet Nam War would still be going on without civil disobedience ..perhaps we should read Thoreau "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience".. too bad we're an illiterate country...
Civil disobedience inherently involves *willingly* going to jail to show that a law is unjust. These protesters are not willingly going to jail. They are resisting arrest, and they are screaming "how dare you!" about being arrested AT ALL.
They are not engaging in civil disobedience. They are terrorizing people.
Pretty sure the NVA and the Viet Cong, along with the stream of Americans coming home in body bags had more to do with ending US involvement there. But yeah, the demos had a small effect, students getting more active when their student deferments would not protect them as the draft lottery went into effect.
Nobody is attacking civil disobedience.
“Signs, protests with chants, fine….” Jeez, listen to yourself. You’re suddenly the arbiter of what constitutes “protected speech.”
BS.
I might feel "uncomfortable" & "unsafe" walking past a BLM protest, but that doesn't mean they lose the right to protest.
Blocking egress or ingress, or physically harassing people are separate issues, but you are wrong that "Free speech means other people do not have to pay for your speech."
I don't know what you mean by "pay," but free speech applies to all speech -- including "hate speech."
Can’t agree on making people feel uncomfortable or unsafe. Takes more than feelings.
Why don’t you get up from your IDF propaganda desk job and ask your commander to pay up?
Please cite the instance(s) when Khalil attacked or harassed anyone, made them "unsafe," or committed violence. As for causing discomfort, that's not a crime.
"If foreigners are making Jews feel unsafe on campus, they need to be stopped." -- LOL Only those experiencing the feelings are responsible for said feelings. Blaming others for YOUR feelings is playing the victim card.
Terrorism? LOL How does the dictionary define that word?
"Those individuals at a minimum need to reimburse those they disenfranchise...[and] pay a lot of money, minimum all tuition, to all Jews they harass." -- Just Jews, eh? Curious how you feel about the US paying reparations to all black people because "slavery."
Someone refresh my memory. Did FIRE sue Twitter or the Biden administration when they violated the 1A rights of millions of AMERICAN CITIZENS with brazen impunity for years at the behest of the Biden administration and its familiars?
It is a little funny to argue the intricacies of the laws as they pertain to students here on visas, but I don't remember anybody setting up such a case for people telling the truth getting kicked off social media at the behest of government.
You know that answer….
Yes. Several times.
https://www.thefire.org/cases?_page=3&keywords=&_limit=6&case_type=1546
It looks like SCOTUS will probably have to decide this very complex issue. I agree with Matt that the first amendment freedom of speech should be sacrosanct while standing in the boundaries of the United States. But: if you can deny entry to a non-citizen for reasons allowed by the immigration statues, than why can’t you remove individuals who slipped through and displayed these disqualifying activities after arrival?
If Rubio & Co. lose in court I will lose no sleep. If the 1st Amendment applies to non-citizens, then it does, and I can live with it.
If FIRE loses in the narrow situation were a recognized constitutional liberty is not considered to apply when it applys to a non-citizen visitor to the US and who has acted in such a way that they have intentionally placed themselves in a situation that is directly contratindicated by a violation of federal law...well, that also seems to me to be small beer. I will not worry too much about a loss of 'sacred constitution liberties' in that case.
The reason this is an edge case is because it IS an edge case. If the principle is absulutely defended...ok. If not...<shrug>. Because I don't really care, one way or the other, I hope FIRE wins. If FIRE loses I will likely move on and never think about it again.
I’m not really up to speed on the case. He’s not being charged with anything, right? Just getting his Visa revoked and sent home. Can’t the government send home whoever they want?
Yes, that’s my understanding. Most are due a hearing. Not a trial, etc. “ due process” has variables to it. For us citizens, due process has a bunch of layers, or options. For example, an illegal alien’s due process is the question “ did you illegally cross the border.” Yes, out here goes. No, ok prove it. Bingo. End of the line for poor, little illegal
Rights go with responsibilities, which non-citizens don't have in the same way citizens do.
I hate to say it because I really detest any constraint on speech, but if you want the rights an American citizen has, you need to be an American citizen who is also subject to the responsibilities that accompany those rights.
Having been an expat, I cannot imagine stirring up political shit while a guest in someone else's country.
" I cannot imagine stirring up political shit while a guest in someone else's country."
What? That's the very essence of being an American! Have you not heard of the CIA? Color Revolutions? Coups and "military adventures"?
It's always basic Human Rights vs US "National Security" (which is usually secret).
Your sarcasm is appreciated
Another fan of sarcasm. :-)
No one needs to be a citizen to criticize anything another country does. This isn’t North Korea. If the words of others make you sad, it’s probably because they’re accurate or you are too stupid to refute the speech. Maybe both.
And it's only criticism of ONE tiny country on the other side of the planet, that will result in anyone being deported.
Go back to one's own country and have at it!
Watch what happens if I, an American, go to France and start mouthing off about Macron ...
... but I would not act in such a stupid way so never mind.