Thanks Matt. That clarification covers an important point. Freedom of speech is the foundation for all our other freedoms. Countries like the UK, Canada, and Ireland are sliding towards totalitarianism with their recent “hate speech” laws. Let’s make damn sure we don’t take the tiniest step toward following suit.
Isn’t the key words ‘lawfully entered the country’ for this persons that are befit Constitutional rights? What if a person enters illegally? What if a person enters legally and overstays their visa? I think SCOTUS will say ‘no rights’ to those groups.
The point is that government cannot abridge anyone's right to speech as it is inalienable, i.e., inseparable from one's personhood. If someone overstays a visa or enters illegally, they still have the right to free speech, but can be arrested and deported. So, free speech rights and unlawful behavior are separate and distinct.
if an alien is a lawful permanent resident of the United States ... Nobody is arguing about "lawful permanent residents". The argument is about people who "invaded" the country "illegally"! They have NO constitutional rights. Period!
As Matt has stated twice now, the constitution makes no distinction between legal residents and illegal residents. It simply says "persons". So free speech is an inalienable right for anyone in the USA. Of course, if someone is here illegally, they can still be deported, arrested for crimes, etc. So it doesn't mean they get to stay here no matter what, it simply means they have first amendment rights.
Is the 1st Amendment speech still protected if a non citizen uses said speech in support of a government-defined terrorist group? Today that terror group is Hamas. But could the tables ever be turned where different US government designates IDF as a ‘terror group’ and its former/current soldiers in US who voice support for Israel are kicked out of the country?
if you think about it, why do we need the new law?
The only thing that matters is being in the country illegally.
All the rest of it seems like smoke screen. I actually don’t know for sure but it looks suspicious to me. We gotta think for ourselves, and have zero loyalty whatsoever for any of these people.
Looking at the Supreme Court case of the Communist union organizer: would the Court really have ruled the same way if the case had been about protecting the free speech rights of a Nazi sympathizer or anti-war activist? During World War II?
The First Amendment was originally ratified only because everybody knew it applied only to the Federal government. (Thus, works could be “banned in Boston.”). This continued to be the case until the Supreme Court in effect rewrote the Amendment in the 1920’s.
They didn’t “rewrite” anything. They applied the 14th in the way that the Radical Republicans of the Reconstruction era intended the 14th to be used in applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the states.
Exactly! I think the Trump Supreme Court will rule this way. Deporting someone isn’t solid seeing them. It does not diminish their freedom of speech. It just changes the location where they can exercise at speech, anywhere but here if the speech is anti-American, dangerous, or inciting violence racism, or the destruction of our nation.
This SCOTUS might well treat legal and illegal immigrants differently. But it hasn't yet, and until it does, Trump is legally bound to not hunt down illegals solely for the things they say.
Get a clue. Trump is hunting them down because they are criminals, having ILLEGALLY entered our country. They broke the law. If you don't enforce the laws you don't have a country. Who gives a damn what they are saying.
I don't. But your cult leader clearly does, since his and Noem's ICE have grabbed up many legal aliens--not illegal, but here legally--and hustled them into ICE lockups for saying something they didn't like.
ICE agents? I agree, they wouldn't have a clue. Political managers of ICE, the ones who select the targets? You bet your ass they update the snatch list when they see a "mouthy" immigrant on social media, and the agents just follow up on the names they're provided from "headquarters."
I don't believe the question is whether illegal aliens have any rights or no rights. It's clear that they have certain rights, that among others, guarantees them legal protecttions, etc. But neither do they have full rights of citizens or lawful non-citizen residents. That has never been the case, and the question that has been at issue is what due process rights do they have regarding deportation. In this area, their rights, through legislation and judicial precedence, are not on par with citizens, but some recent district court rulings are essentially saying they enjoy full citizenship rights. Thus far, these rulings, that are plowing new legal ground, have been met with virtually no success in appellate courts and SCOTUS.
While a separate issue, birthright citizenship is related. Where is the line between full rights of persons (if they are here legally), and those persons here illegally? While the history is pretty clear on the first issue (deportations), it is an entirely open legal question regarding the second.
SCOTUS might, but the Constitution makes no such distinction as far as speech goes. Being here illegally is against the law, and there are enforceable laws to deal with that.
I disagree. One can violate immigration law and get deported. But if the only violation is clearly based on 1A grounds One cant comply with immigration law and say some
This is the key issue that wasn't addressed in the article. And we don't know which way an honest court would rule (don't think we have much of those anymore).
The issue here is that if visitors, legal or not have no rights, then anyone can be stopped and treated as not having rights until proven they are a citizen. This is the intentional predicament created by the Biden administration for Trump to use to ignore the constitution for 'safety' and 'the good of the people'. It is the reason they can ask any citizen 'papers please' and abuse them until they prove they are a citizen. I tend to think we should be better than that and treat everyone with the same rights as citizens. Would you like to visit Europe, Mexico or Turkey and get thrown in jail just because you lost your passport?
The US Constitution is not reciprocal with other nation states in the world. It is a unique document affording rights to persons here. They who are elsewhere very likely WILL throw us in jail if we lose our "papers" and can't get to the American embassy before they grab us. Which really begs the question why someone would badmouth this country which gives them rights that their own country will not.
I think if they badmouthed an ally of the country that hosts them, the host country could have cause to deport them (if they are non-citizens and their stay is conditional). And this, even if the ally is worthy of the badmouthing! It's because foreign actors shouldn't be given a place to impact another country's affairs and shouldn't be in a position to negatively impact existing relations between allies. The host country has to consider how it appears to the rest of the world. The host country can't do anything to the citizen who is critical of its ally, but it can to the non-citizen by deporting them for undermining their relationships.
Exactly. We should be fighting creeping censorship throughout the EU/UK/Canada/Oceania, and not claiming that "only citizens" of the US have free speech rights. We're supposed to see free expression as an inalienable right for everyone, not a privilege given to us by our government. If our government gives us a privilege, they can take it away, and that's not how inalienable rights work.
Yes, the first amendment is a requirement on the government not to overstep. I don’t know how the Trump administration got this so wrong. So wrong that I sometimes think they did it on purpose… but for reasons I can’t fathom.
Trump administration got it correct. They have made clear they respect the first amendment but they do not tolerate unlawful behavior.
You and Matt are conflating free speech with unlawful behavior. He participated 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 don’t disagree that there were numerous other grounds, such as the ones you cited, which the Trump administration could have used to arrest. A basic one is demonstrating without a permit. But the fact that they veered into criticizing and relying on opinions and political viewpoints, when they didn’t have to go there, just strikes me as odd or just stupid. Why didn’t they just rely on the illegal conduct?
I have no sympathy. I was a registered alien in England in 1982. The nice English guy behind the desk made it very clear what things would get me an express ticket out of the country. I am confident that writing an op-ed in favor of the IRA (who were at war with Mrs Thatcher) would have bought me that ticket.
The revocation of the visa is NOT for the op-ed. This is a red herring by the left. They want to make this the issue.
The reason is that he became an organizer for the protest that became a riot, leading to the shutdown of the school, the building being seized, the janitor being locked in a room, and Jewish students being intimidated, among other things.
If he had just done the op-ed, I suspect everything would have been okay. He decided that wasn't enough, and he would get involved, and that was a bridge too far. Now he violates his visa application.
I’m talking about a HER. Rümeysa Öztürk. She wrote an op-ed. She never rioted, protested, she doesn’t even go to Columbia. She got put on a list for literally writing a letter, and that got sent to Rubio.
So, I think you raise an interesting case. It seems to me that a government can have a cause against a foreigner coming into the country and publicly criticizing an ally of the host country. Even if the ally deserves it, the criticism can be thought of as foreign influence or courting an enemy (to our allies), and so in some instances the government cannot tolerate speech from a foreigner that looks to undermine its relationship with its allies. Again, even if what the foreigner is saying is true. It makes the host country look weak and incompetent because the person doing the criticizing is here only via government permission.
What unlawful behavior has Ozturk or Khalil committed, and why have they not been charged with anything unlawful? If that's really the issue, rather than their speech, then shouldn't that be the proper course of action?
Well, it's very comforting to know that we can place our trust in Marco Rubio knowing that this is just routine stuff that happens all the time and has nothing whatsoever to do with the forbidden opinions of this particular person. Because deporting people for their opinions would seriously weaken our international stance in favor of free speech and generally make us look like we don't really have any standards beyond simple power.
Rubio is being milder than any other country would be, even our most civilized European allies. (Don’t mess with the Dutch, for instance). In any case, his discretionary powers are the same as Anthony Blinken’s or Hillary Clinton’s were. If you don’t like his judgment, try winning the election next time.
The authorities have not yet charged him. The path of least resistance is to revoke the visa and send him back to his home country. He should have stayed out of the political protest, and he would have been okay.
So no unlawful behavior then, just something we say to make it seem ok to deport him? And I could care less about this Khalil jackass, but I do care about what kind of country we have.
No one said there wasn't unlawful behavior. Many people commit crimes and are not prosecuted for the offense.
The reason for the visa cancellation is that he violated the terms of the application. It's that simple.
All he had to do was stay out of the protest. This is something most foreigners here as guests would do as a matter of course. Instead, he chose to be a visible participant and organizer in a political protest that led to many bad things.
The left is wailing that this is a violation of freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This is a red herring. If they tried arguing the real reason for the predicament, they would lose. Who wants to champion a losing argument so they make up an argument they think they can win?
He should have spoken to a lawyer before making that assertion. This makes his actions look premeditated. If he wanted to stay here, then, in my opinion, he shot himself in the foot with that remark.
And participating in a situation where the people you are with commit another crime, makes you liable for that crime. I know someone who was committing an armed robbery. The victim of the armed robbery killed his accomplice, and this person was charged with murder (not the guy who was defending himself).
What a terrible thing to say! Maybe we need to look into your legal status, not for what you say of course, but for all the possible crimes you might have committed.
Free speech is the foundation for all other freedoms. That’s why it’s important to have a very clear concept of what is free speech, and not allow it to be misused.
We all know the Miranda warning. Anything you say can and will be used as evidence in a court of law. Nobody can stand on a street corner shouting about the fraud he committed, then cry “free speech” to exclude his words as evidence.
Foreign students who violate the terms of their visas cannot use free speech to prevent any deportation action. They chose to advertise that they fraudulently obtained a student visa.
The danger to free speech is allowing its meaning to be distorted for nefarious purposes.
you bring up an interesting point? In context of the constitution and criminal law, everyone knows you have a right to remain silent that everything you say can will be used against you (40 year trial, lawyer, criminal state and federal) you seem to imply that ICE can’t use an illegal alien speech as the pretext for arresting him, but you can use a defendant speech freely given to send him or her to prison or two the gurney for lethal injection. A confession is defined as free speech:
No one has a positive right to a visa. It’s conditional on many factors, including one’s temperament and viewpoint as determined by the government.
If we granted a visa to a German who turned out to be a neo-nazi advocating for the extermination of all blacks, Jews and homosexuals would we be “awww, shucks, guess we got that one wrong, but nothing we can do now”? Or would we deport them?
A visa is not a constitutional right once granted. Revoking a visa is not a criminal (or even civil) penalty. It’s simply a sovereign exercising its discretion regarding the foreigners it allows in. It’s presumably a bummer to the person being deported, but being deported is not depriving someone of their life, liberty or property. It’s just returning them to their country of origin.
We deny visas every day to people found to have made statements that, in the determination of the administration in power, do not align with our values and interests. The granting of a visa is not a permanent award. Context that would deny a visa being granted can also be taken into consideration when determining if a visa should be revoked.
I’m not sure I understood you, and I’m not a lawyer.
It just seems to me that what is being argued is that using foreign students’ words as evidence against them in a deportation case is an infringement of free speech rights.
But we use defendants’ words as evidence against them in cases every day. No one considers that an infringement of free speech. Until now, when the cases involve student visas.
What you say is “evidence” if it is relevant. There is no 1A issue. You are being charged with some other crime … not for your speech.
If the sole basis of an revocation of a visa us “speech” then the pretext of the immigration violation is an infringement on a Constitutional right. In such case the Govt loses because the 1A cannot be overridden by a statute.
There has to be another act or conduct to revoke the visa. Not just the words spoken.
Otherwise Congress could pass laws banning all kinds of speech. They cant.
The revocation of a visa would be based on violating the terms of the visa. Speech would be evidence of violating those terms. You are right, it’s not a crime. They are not being charged with a crime. They are being deported. And speech is certainly evidence as a basis for deportation.
I think something is getting lost here. Say a defendant admits to a crime by telling someone they committed it. Well, the first hurdles include the various prohibitions on hearsay evidence. You can overcome those, but you can’t just argue Bob heard from Suzie that Joe did X—to use a painfully obvious example. But say the defendant was arrested and mirandized and told a detective they committed a crime. You might still look at coercion. But ok, barring that or a technicality, that’s pretty damning. And of course defendants can be convicted of serious crimes based on testimony alone. Plenty of instances where a child old enough to give credible testimony is enough to convict an adult of assault, sexual or otherwise despite no other evidence it occurred.
But we’re then jumping to non-crimes. So, person A is here on a visa and criticizes the U.S. Government. As MT has referenced, the courts are very wary of ever allowing non-crime speech to be a basis for the revocation of a visa and expulsion from the United States—and they’re very explicit about why. That chills speech. So while, yeah, you could deport someone on another pretext, you can’t base it on speech alone. “Hi, I’m here illegally,” is not a statement that is just speech. You’re admitted to violating the law, even if that’s in a civil and not criminal capacity.
“I don’t like America. It sucks,” is not an admission of anything. It’s a viewpoint.
If an ICE agent overhears an undocumented person saying that, and arrests, them and deports them, the statement is irrelevant. They might as well have said, “I don’t like Skittles. They suck.” They don’t need another reason than the obvious—the speaker is violating the law even if they’re silent. This is a totally separate issue from a non citizen legally in the U.S.
There are definitely some fuzzy areas around denying entry into the U.S., not renewing visas, etc, but the courts are wary of chilling speech for good reason: you don’t want to make non-crimes, particular those related to speech punishable.
So at the risk of repetitious analogy, an ICE agent discovering an undocumented person sitting court-side at a NBA game cannot rightly argue the basis for the arrest was sitting court-side at an NBA game. It was sitting or standing or lying down or otherwise existing anywhere inside the United States. Sitting court-side is just a fact relating to the location where they were apprehended.
No one is killing anyone. Where did that random allegation come from?
The social contract between citizens and the government is that the government enforces laws and maintains order, among other things. Individuals here on visas need to abide by the terms of their visa applications. It's that simple.
just saying. right to life supercedes speech. speech is very important, but life is the most important. but now that you mention it, the government does kill people on occasion, too. ruby ridge and waco come to mind.
100 percent salute this comment, JimInNashville. The speech laws in the UK, Canada, and Ireland would make Orwell seethe with envy that he didn't go that far in 1984.
This whole discussion reminds me of whether or not it’s a good idea to cut off your nose to spite your face. It might be lawful, but dollars to donuts you'd be legally committed as just plain nuts.
Biden made infringing on free speech for people who come here legally inevitable. OMG, I don't like Biden. I voted for Trump. But you have got to stop making excuses and understand that some things are greater than petty uniparty politics.
Lila, I have seen your comments and respect your informed, intelligent input. I tend to communicate in shorthand. The longer version: uncontrolled illegal immigration, woke university policies, perceived lack of respect on all sides - inevitably led to the tough choices being made today. I don't like today's confrontational tactics, but I sure didn't start the fight.
Because our nation had become infected by the woke agenda the only way to stop the slide was an immediate frontal attack on these policies. Yes, there have been missteps, overreach by the T administration. And as Matt points out, these must be called out. At the same time, it's important to not let these take our focus off the goal of bringing America back to its center where we can all feel respected and safe. Forces that would see America fail have been manipulating us for decades now. Some of them are pure evil; others have become captives of proven unworkable utopian schemes,e.g., Neo-Marxism, the products of unbalanced leftwing education and political party opportunism.
I think what became inevitable, because of four years of open boarders, is a coming decade or two of problems sorting out who is here legally and who isn't. That is not a partisan issue. It is the inevitable long-term result of reprehensible policy decisions by the last administration. Good people are going to be hurt but unknown numbers of bodies laying in the wilderness south of our boarders are mute testiment to the fact that the purveyers of this horror never gave a damn about any of them from day one.
As an aside, I will add that, somewhere in my upbringing I was told that the morality of a spirit can be guaged by the expected fruits of the course of action it is calling for. The fruits of the open boarders policy turn out to be misery, broken dreams, enslavement and/or death for whole a lot of people.
Several posters have pointed to the inevitability of consequence. We are living the INEVITABLE result of leadership's thoughtless, careless, dare I say STUPID?, acts of commission and omission over decades.
The most maddening thing about the current conversation is the inability of a majority to grasp the simple difference between legal and illegal entry.
FIRE is right to challenge Rubio’s reliance on the unconstitutional statute that lets him revoke visas on the basis of his attitude toward a legal resident’s speech.
The administration is on the other hand upholding the Constitution when they drag illegal aliens out by the feet with no due process.
Why is this so hard for so many to understand?
If you are legally resident in the USA, you are covered by the Bill of Rights, and all its implied but not enumerated protections are also yours.
If you are here illegally, you can, should, and must be removed. If called upon, I will assist in your removal, while ignoring the cries of your citizen children. You created the situation, not me, not us.
That said, the whole imbroglio is a damned playact. If they had a single serious cell in the game, they’d be jailing the employers.
Every person or corporation who employs an undocumented worker is a human trafficker.
Employers traffic undocumented migrants because they prefer workers who are scared to complain and have no rights. There are a few minor ongoing prosecutions here and there, but if they dragged Tyson’s CEO out his door in handcuffs, American employers might suddenly rediscover the joys of employing legal workers.
Trump is either not serious about this, or else he’s really as stupid as he acts, and taking bad advice to boot.
Secretary of State revoked the Visa based on unlawful actions. As an organizer of the riot at Columbia University, he misrepresented the purpose of his Visa.
His Visa was NOT revoked for any opinion supporting the terrorist group, Hamas. That support may however put him on a security watch list.
Most countries around the world do not permit noncitizens to participate in political demonstrations. They certainly do not tolerate criminal activities.
Which unlawful actions did he commit exactly, and why has he not been charged? And how exactly did he "misrepresent the purpose of his visa"? I'm dying to know.
"Most countries around the world do not permit noncitizens to participate in political demonstrations. They certainly do not tolerate criminal activities."
Except UK, Germany, France most other EU countries.
Glad not to be most countries, especially in that case. If Kahlil has done something wrong, let us bring a charge and prove it. There’s a special legal term for what we are sure we know, but cannot prove: gossip.
I think there should be limits on what is tolerated by foreign agitators. Let's say hypothetically that hundreds of Chinese students decided to organize and occupy the famed economics building at ImaginaryU over Trump's tariff policy, and as a result lots of classes were cancelled. Would that be okay?
My only problem with the current administration is that this is obviously a case of selective enforcement. Set a consistent policy and kick out all agitators or tolerate them all.
IMHO, the administration is pursuing the lowest cost remedy, which is to revoke the visa and return Kahlil to his home country. Why risk prosecution with so many members of the judiciary a part of the resistance versus being impartial?
This is the highest cost "remedy" (to what exactly?), imo, to our nation. Doing nothing would be the lowest cost "remedy". Charging him for any crimes he may have committed seems appropriate also.
Maybe we can be the country that imports revolutionaries to stir up our wayward yout's. Especially cute ones... According to the law, the wrong person is the Secretary of State.
I’ve heard this excuse a lot. You can’t “misrepresent” yourself on a visa unless you lie about your name or where you come from. And if you say you’re coming here to study, then you’re here to engage in campus life, and campus life includes protesting and expressing your opinion. So there is no misrepresentation.
Pretty sure you don't want to bring up sex trafficking with who's in the WH right now. Talk about a dangerous slope. Also, at least 4 Republican men in politics in the last week have been arrested for this.
ICE enforces the law. But as noted we are talking of those aliens legally in this country so ICE is not involved so no need to take yet another opportunity to attack a US government agency doing its job.
You know you're crushing it when you have to wear a ski mask to work. You can bow down to "law enforcement" and US government agencies if you like. I'll pass on the bootlicking. 'Freedom Lover." LOLOLOL
Open borders, campus riots, homeless chaos, all parts of the same dysfunctional mess. I got punched in the face a couple years ago when I had a grocery bag in each hand. I'm not as sympathetic since that happened.
Consider yourself lucky if that hasn't happened to you, it might change your sympathy level too.
Except: see my analysis in the first piece you posted on the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (enacted after Bridges). The issue is NOT that free speech rights cannot be "parsed" between citizens and green card holders, per se, but there is an exception to the exception in the statute from 1952, Section 237(a)(4), which says that free speech rights of folks like Khalil are to be respected "“unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s [presence] would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.” This exception to the exception was not, to my understanding, found to be unconstitutional in the Kwong case.
But those points you raise have to do with the fact that they tried to deport him without a hearing under regulations - not the statutory exception that I am referring to. And, the point of the "holding" of any case is important, especially if you are going to cite it as precedent. In Kwong, I see no reference to the Secretary of State, in a hearing, having made a declaration that Kwong's presence in the U.S. "would compromise a compelling foreign policy interest." They hadn't gotten that far in Kwong, because he hadn't actually been given a hearing where that point was adjudicated. Still happy to be proven wrong on this. But I think I'm on firm ground saying that the statutory power given to the Sec of State has not yet been ruled unconstitutional by the S.C.
I'm in agreement with your reasoning. The State Dept. is the only authority that can grant and revoke a visa. If the visitor overstays the visa, they are no longer here legally and thus, no longer subject to First Amendment rights as Matt has pointed out. The visitor must leave and apply for a new visa. This is standard everywhere. If the SoS revokes a visa for cause, the foreign national may be entitled to a hearing to re-instate an active visa, but there is no court that has the authority to require the SoS to renew the visa when it expires.
Exactly. A hearing before an immigration official. Plus, participants involved with illegal acts ( school invasion) can be booted by SOS . He negotiated with school administrators
Yes, he was the CUAD rep "negotiating" - really extorting - concessions from Columbia in exchange for an agreement to stop illegally occupying a university building and in exchange for no punishments to be meted out for injuring and illegally holding a security guard captive for a while.
What about this case? (I’m no lawyer , but Chat GPT is ok with legal searches).
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471 (1999)
Issue: First Amendment retaliation claims by legal noncitizens subject to deportation.
Holding:
The Court held that noncitizens generally cannot challenge deportation decisions on the basis of selective enforcement or retaliation for protected speech.
Significance:
It limited the ability of lawful noncitizens to bring First Amendment challenges in the context of immigration enforcement.
I don’t understand why you and others are so scared of a guy saying his opinion about a country other than the US.
Instead of quoting case law, try arguing against the protester’s ideas on the merits.
Now, I am not pointing at you when I say that a lot of those who want him deported couldn’t even begin to debate Israel-Gaza on the merits. Remember, present company excepted.
It's fine to dialogue about the protester's ideas, but these are not what is at issue here. We are a nation of laws. What is at issue is the executive powers of the SoS to cancel/deny a visa to anyone he/she deems a threat to US interests. Conflating these two separate issues reflects the schism in our current Supreme Court where the liberal trio consistently overlooks or subjugates existing law to evaluation of things like the "protester's ideas".
Here's the problem with that: we all know it's bullshit that he's a threat to US interests. He's criticizing a different country. Though I suspect he has a critique or two for us now, after the goon squad arrest and detainment.
Why is it worse in this nation to criticize a different country than it is to criticize our own?
Precisely. The central issue is whether or not the statutory power of the Sec of State to declare a "lawful permanent resident" (i.e. a "green card holder") is or is not unconstitutional. Remember, always, please, that it is in a federal statute - it is "black letter law," and stated specifically as an "exception to the exception," where the first exception protects green card holders first amendment rights in all cases - "UNLESS" the secretary of state makes his declaration vis-a-vis foreign policy concerns. Rubio has now made that declaration in Khalil's case in a hearing and the judge ruled in Rubio's favor. Khalil and his attorneys are appealing it. We'll see if it gets upheld on appeal and if so, if Khalil appeals again to the supreme court, which will be interesting. If that happens, it will be interesting to see if the SC even grants cert. But assuming that the do agree to hear the case, I'll be happy enough if they hold that the statute indeed unconstitutional. I don't have a dog in this constitutional hunt, despite my clear bias that the law should be followed. To date, the law has been followed. And this fact is why so many on the left find the situation irksome. They're looking for a "gotchya" moment that only exists in their heads.
Merits?? Let's be honest. None of this has anything to do with merits. It's simply an available, high profile media darling suing for the political theater points and an AIPAC supported Sec. of State playing to the other crowd.
Fair enough. But that still leaves a whole bunch of people afraid of other folks' opinions. And in the comments of a piece on free speech, no less. People are self-identifying as protectors of the First Amendment as long as you agree with them.
I think you are correct Matt. If the alien’s presence would compromise a compelling US foreign policy interest then that would be a reason other than his speech to deport him.
To put a finer point on it, it's not open to discussion whether the alien's presence would compromise a compelling US foreign policy interest; the law states that the SoS has executive powers to determine this. Just as the Attorney General has executive powers to determine what may or may not shared with Congress,e.g., in the case of the fired pardon attorney Oley. Prior to her testifying, the DOJ sent her a note stating some. limitations on her testimony. What Oley described as a "threat" was actually a reminder of her professional obligation per Tuohy ruling.
Yeah like John Lennon’s support of the anti-Vietnam war in 1971 got him in hot water with the Nixon administration. Luckily he had the money and fame to beat it, but they finally got their man. The foreign policy for that war divided the country and was finally determined a sham. Eighteen year olds were allowed to vote and the establishment was afraid of Lennon’s influence on young folks, the ones being drafted. Yep, foreign policy matters….
I was referring to Matt's subscriber/reader population. He has been on multiple platforms, written many books, etc. (On the books--I love that there are readers here who accuse Matt of being a MAGA disciple. Apparently they've not read Matt's book Insane Clown President.)
The Twitter Files, which reflected negatively on both the Democrats and the Security State in general, attracted many Democrat-haters, who assumed Matt was one of them. Certainly has added a bit of flair to the comments!
Matt gets it from both tribes. D's call him a MAGA retard, and R's accuse him of not loving Israel enough. Which tells me he's doing something right, since we all know both tribes are thoroughly fucked.
Oh, I get it. First time was actually old eXile newspapers in Moscow. And then books, including the Clown President one. And Rolling Stone articles. Always reminded me of Hunter Thompson, which turned out to be no accident. I first heard Thompson on KCBS in the Bay Area, talking about the Hells Angels. Gonzo journalism is the label hung on that style.
In other words, according to the law, the Secy of State has executive powers to deem an alien's presence contrary to a compelling US foreign policy interest. Seems to me that this is what Khalil's case and others like it should turn on. all other details should be extraneous. Hopefully, the case will not be heard by yet another insufferable partisan judge. Will overruled petitioners have the right to appeal? If this went to the Supreme Court, would it be referred back to the legislative branch as only Congress has the authority to write laws?
That exception to the exception is WAY too subjective. It holds no weight - Rubio's slick metaphors and "examples" notwithstanding - and I'm sure the courts will point to that -in the FIRE LAWSUIT - even if it ends up going to a Conservative Supreme Court.
You could be right, but the point remains that this power has not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court yet. We'll see if it gets there. The statute's language is clear. Clearly you don't like it. I'm sure Khalil's attorneys are arguing that the power cannot be constitutional on the theory that the power can be wielded in an arbitrary and capricious way. That argument might work, but then, will that mean that Khalil has the burden of proof that the decision rendered in his particular case was arbitrary and capricious? If so, it could be a much higher hurdle than you might assume.
At the very beginning of this Khalil matter, Andrew McCarthy was in favor of the power granted to Rubio as Secretary of State, over the first amendment. I’ll find the podcast and link it below.
An alien has the right to free speech inasmuch as government may not infringe an inalienable right , a right that cannot be separated from one's personhood. However, as the law stands one may not depend on this right to defend against a decision by the SoS to cancel/deny their visa when the SoS has determined that one's speech/behavior constitutes a threat to American foreign policy interests. So, it's not that SoS has "power over the first amendment", but that he/she has executive powers to determine whether what is spoken constitutes a threat to American foreign policy interests. As I understand it, until this is no longer the law, discussing whether or not Khalil's speech and behavior are contrary to US foreign policy interests is important, but is currently beyond judicial reach. I believe that it's sufficient grounds to deport Khalil as he crossed the line beyond free speech when his speech and behavior incited threats to others and damage to property.
There is also the fact that what’s at stake is simply being sent back to his country. That is not a punishment. Non-resident aliens have a right to not be jailed for speech, but they don’t have the right to be here if they violate the terms of their visas.
Thanks for the link but I don't even listen to all of the ATW podcasts. I have little respect for McCarthy, and was being snarky (is that even a word?). A broken analog clock is right twice a day, so McCarthy's agreement on this issue is meaningless to me.
Of course it’s punishment. It would force everyone to have to watch what they say or be forcibly removed, which is totally against the spirit of the First Amendment. Kind of shocked by this response.
Foreigners can be removed for scads of legal/constitutional reasons. Why would we want to make speech one of them?
The truth is that legally in most countries deportation proceedings are done administratively as opposed to in a criminal court, because violating the fundamental statutes of the nation vis a vie immigration precedes full legal protection by the constitution. This isn’t really a semantic issue at all, but really fundamentally about whether the constitution of the country is always applied to everyone on the planet regardless of national status, or only applies to citizens and residents of the country whose constitution is in question.
This is an incredibly dumb thing to say. If I am offended enough by what you just said, I might punch you in the head. That would be a 'consequence' of your speech, but my doing so would be a punishment. The distinction here is that a punishment is designed to make you regret doing something, while a consequence is a natural and inevitable outcome of an action. Deportation is not inevitable, obviously
So you're a non-English speaker, then? Consequences are always natural: they are the next sequential thing caused by the previous thing. I drop my coffee mug; consequently, it hits the floor and breaks.
You appear to mean 'punishments' which are natural (because people are part of nature) but are not inevitable.
Mr. Patterson, the only correct thing about your statement is that consequence and punishment are different. But, so are connotation and denotation. However, kicking someone out because of something they say is punishment.
Is having someone that espouseds vaccine hesitency, covid denial, lab leak stories deplatformed, frozen, etc, a punishment or consequence?
It's both but for different reasons. It's a punishment for crossing the people with the power to deplatform; it is a consequence of empowering people to deplatform in the first place.
You could win a Pulitzer for all I know. Consequences are not always negative. To that point, if I was asked to leave China because my views on not taking a vaccine were against the government, I’d be thanking them. That is the crux of the issue. Your opinion and its consequences are truly in the eye of the beholder.
If the non-citizen is using speech to incite riot, violence, or other illegal activity, they, like a citizen, are not protected by the First Amendment.
They can still have the right to free speech while they are subject to the penalties for the consequences of their speech. if they are found guilty of causing harm to another, they can speak freely on their way back to their home country or prison.
Show of hands here: who is in favor of the free speech argument who is not also in favor of the Palestinian cause and opposed to the Israeli cause in this fight?
Just a question: are you a supporter of the content of Khalil’s speech? Be honest, would you say the same thing if he was advocating for the massacre of Palestinians? On principle? I have never met or heard of anyone who makes the free speech argument who was not openly hostile to the Israeli cause in this fight. So where am I going to put my money with you?
I don't know the answer to that question. I believe that Rubio has claimed that he obtained a student visa for the purpose of raising hell on a college campus and promoting a foreign terrorist organization, not to study and obtain a degree in a field of study.
Thats the difference. The citizen cannot be deported, only charged with a crime. The alien can have his status revoked and be deported whether or not a local DA decides to charge him with a crime.
Not yet. If they make the case stick in court (especially if they can show how he was funded), Khalili will wish he had been deported, because the alternative will be a long term in an uncomfortable Federal prison.
Wrong. You absolutely have the right to incite illegal activity. For example: I encourage you to go purchase some cocaine and snort it. I'll think you are really cool if you do. Please go take cocaine. - report me to the cops for this, i dare you
That's not really even the question as to whether or not it's punishment. The question is does the Sec of State have the authority to interpret what is and what is not a threat to security. Of course it will be abused and debated. But this lawsuit is going nowhere with its "first amendment " grounds.
the authority to determine what is and is not a threat to security has to rest somewhere; otherwise, we have chaos. where it resides is for our elected representatives to discuss, debate and decide. As it stands now, that authority resides with the SoS. So, judicially, this is not a free speech issue.
I believe Khalil's speech and behavior crossed the line when his speech incited behavior in others that infringed on the rights of others not to be threatened or have their property damaged. If there is evidence to support my belief that he was actively inciting illegal activities on the Columbia campus, this should be sufficient basis for deportation. A case comes to mind that may be relevant: a few years ago, a woman was found guilty and imprisoned when her speech to her suicidal boyfriend was declared by the court to have incited his subsequent suicide. We also have penalties for libel and slander when these cause harm or loss. I'm wondering if we may be in danger of losing sight of the truth that in civil society all rights come with responsibilities.
The government’s case is based on advocacy of terrorism and the discretion of the executive, not incitement. There could be multiple reasons for this. First, they may just want to get rid of him fast for the headlines and they are using this shortcut. Alternatively, a trial on advocacy has to be public and this might present diplomatic or national security issues. Specifically, if Qatari money is involved (where does a sad little marginalized person get $100K a year to desultorily study at Columbia?). Khalil is still at both immigration and legal jeopardy. All that has been ruled is that he is released from immigration detention.
On this you are correct. It would constitute a "chilling effect" on free expression which is illegal under the first amendment. But as I note in my longer comment these cases are not an attempt to chill speech but rather to remove those who are advocating and leading illegal conduct as well as activity clearly detrimental to the security of the United States. Students (which is what is largely involved) are supposed to come here to study not to lead anti-Western anti-Semitic organizations. They can do that in their home countries.
We have lost too many of the boundaries that protect civil society. While the dialogue continues about where these should be set, we nonetheless have to set them in real time. Otherwise, there is chaos. Parenting is a great example!
I will likely vote against any Republican that supports restricting the free speech rights of permanent residents, which the administration has alluded may be next.
I know people that are permanent residents and now don’t feel safe sharing what they believe on social media, or in public in general.
It is a chilling effect. Many of these folks have been here for decades.
Awful that both Trump and Rubio — who are both intimately tied to immigration — are creating this anxiety.
A future left-wing President could, for example, remove the visas from members of the pro-Cuban community.
Turning visas into tit-for-tat politics is one of the dumbest strategies I’ve ever seen.
Phooey. I was born here and I don’t feel safe anywhere expressing ANY opinion. Because any of my fellow residents can just haul off and shoot me where I stand.
I think they intend to take it further and threaten to target naturalized citizens. This sounds insane. To me, the main reason for this stupidity is that Trump again, as in his first term, didn’t select high quality advisers. His cabinet is not comprised of solid experienced, knowledgeable and reasonable administrators. They undermine everything we voted for. His personal qualities are well known, so the only hope was that his appointees would create a functional government. False hopes. Their methodology from DOGE to ICE, is faulty and has turned fighting for noble goals, eliminating fraud and abuse and removing illegal criminals, into clown shows. Clown shows resulting in legal mishaps. And incessant outrage on the left gleefully celebrating every failure of the administration is sure to affect brains of our impressionable public jeopardizing future GOP victories.
I don't think that's the issue. His advisors are fine - in Trump's case, loyalty trumps competence because you at least need people rowing in the right direction.
Tone comes from the top. Anti-illegal immigration is morphing into anti-immigration, and it is Trumps duty to keep that focus. This is more on Rubio than ICE, and Rubio hasn't been a radical on this issue before, but odds are is trying to please Trump -- likely because he is competing for his support when he runs for the presidential nomination in 2028 against Vance.
What naturalized citizens do you think they want to “target?” Fears are not credibility or evidence. People are peeing down their legs all over the place, mostly, I think, because they can’t accept that other Americans are in charge now through democratic means, and their values are very different. They don’t get to have it their way as they have become accustomed to.
> I will likely vote against any Republican that supports restricting the free
> speech rights of permanent residents, which the administration has alluded
> may be next.
perhaps you can contemplate the VICIOUS WAR the administrationS have waged on the medical speech, on political speech, on religious speech of CITIZENS oh these past oh 5-8 years? Seems our gov't murdered MLK because the gov't decided it didn't like HIS free speech and he was even a full citizen, and not just 5/8ths of one. Funny how that happens.
Free Speech is an aspirational goal of those who believe mankind is capable of good. Here's a tip. Mankind and Gov't in particular is EVIL to its core., It is not the least bit concerned with it's supposed handcuffs.
This case is nothing more than trying to shield bad actors (who committed fraud no less) by wrapping them in the Apple Pie of American "free speech" ideals. It is an utterly dishonest campaign and transparently so.
Sure, if this was a polite society and gov't stayed in its lane, could we be magnanimous to agitators trying to stir up trouble? To a point, sure. But even good men can have their patience tested to the point where enough is simply enough.
Heck, here's a very simple example. Crying baby in a room/church/airplane. How annoyed, even angry do you get with the parent for not removing their child promptly or shutting it up? Is the airline within its rights to move the offender to the back of the plane so the 130 other people are bothered less? Damn right they are.
Free speech and tolerating counter views that are presented in a courteous or polite manner is one thing. Agitators disrupting society and being obnoxious to the extreme is NOT protected by free speech. Cross the line and it's high time to take out the trash.
Even ignoring the visa fraud, the gov't action is simply taking out the trash.. He should be glad we don't just shoot, shovel and shut up.
If there are non-citizens who are dissuaded from stating their (presumably legal) views, that's just because they are scaredy cats. If their statement is legit and not designed to incite unrest, you have nothing to fear. Even the endless power of the USG doesn't have time to go after every gnat on the elephant's ass.
"Agitators disrupting society and being obnoxious to the extreme is NOT protected by free speech"
If there's a crime, that's a different story. But agitation is part of persuasive speech. The only speech that needs protection is that which bothers people.
Had Biden used this, he would have been rounding up any visa holders that posted support for the J6ers, or for Russia.
This is a game we shouldn't play. Plus it undermines free speech as a valued concept once we start issuing caveats.
This is wrong. Free speech is, and has always been, limited in its relationship to other rights and separation of powers. We see today what your position comes to: a get-out-of-jail-free card. We need that like a hole in the head. Most Americans understand that. Have you forgotten the large-scale abuses the Biden Administration committed on this score? I’d rather rely on Trump voters to defend my free-speech rights than a bunch of self-appointed experts who have just now shown up at the party to defend miscreants who have brought a foreign conflict to our shores and harmed American citizens.
If he is charged with a crime, he can be punished and must have a trial. He does not need to be charged with a crime to be deported for immigration reasons. Completely separate jurisdiction. In his case, he is being charged with lying on his residency application, which is a deportable offense. Your idiosyncratic beliefs about agitation and persuasive speech are irrelevant in this case, and also have nothing to do with the law.
"perhaps you can contemplate the VICIOUS WAR the administrations have waged on the medical speech, on political speech, on religious speech of CITIZENS oh these past oh 5-8 years?"
BTW, I don't intend on voting for anyone that supports curtailing that speech either.
Because you ARE supposed to watch what you say. Have you been in an immigration hearing? The one I went through with my wife (before she later got her Green Card pulled for, arguably, a speech issue) was tense precisely because the guy could just reject us for any reason he wanted. He claimed our marriage is fake. Could we just say "f*** you"? Of course not, because that would have been the end of things right there, freedom of speech or not.
because it is OUR country and they are GUESTS. Today it's whining about "speech". Tomorrow it's "I stubbed my toe, or I gave birth so I can't be thrown out". Yes, you CAN and we WILL. Get the F out of our country. Don't like something and want to mouth off, do it from your own damn country.
When and IF we allow you to become a citizen, THEN and ONLY then can you enjoy 1st Amendment privilege of mouthing off and not incur "punishment".
Arguing with that nonsense is below you Mr. Taibbi. Allow your minions to explain to the wall, if that's possible, why this matters. Or, just the commenters have at them. You can't argue with water about being wet. It just is. And it just does. You are the 1A purest we all desperately need.
You won't win this argument. I've had it with people repeatedly. They can't see the obvious. Just like the Patriot Act, every little thing like this that is purported to be aimed at outsiders is turned inward. You are right that we have a vested interest in protecting the speech of resident aliens in order to protect our own speech. Even if there is a loophole, exercising it should be condemned.
This is merely an assertion. It is tall talk. The Trump supporters have been far more vigilant and far more effective addressing concrete free speech problems (media management, engineered cancellations) than those who are trying to apply culturally idiosyncratic opinions about free speech to what is concretely a question of advocacy for a registered terrorist organization.
You do not want to give the government any loopholes to infringe on speech. Period. Have you all learned nothing from the Patriot Act and terrorism laws and how every damn thing they say "oh, it's foreigners, and they don't have rights here" ends up being turned on citizens.
This is not a loophole on speech. It is a law enforcement action on a specific person’s behavior. Did you raise a peep when the last(non-Trump) administration pressured and managed the media against “misinformation” , drove dissenters out of their careers, and incited and permitted local government to punish people for their opinions of Covid vaccination, gender issues, and other protected speech? If you didn’t, your opinion is just wind.
Yes, actually I did do all that, every stinking bit of it. And if you did all that but can’t find it in yourself to condemn this and see it as a dangerous infringement, as you so eloquently said, your opinion is just wind.
Citizens have rights that non-resident foreigners do not. The government is not permitted to jail foreigners for speech, to protect citizens. But the government can deport them by any process that Congress chooses to specify. This is not punishment, because those said foreigners, unlike citizens, have no fundamental right to be here, and are simply being returned to the place of jurisdiction that they always belonged to. If this confuses you, I would say that you don’t understand the meaning of citizenship.
I completely disagree, having one set of rules for citizens and a different set of rules for noncitizens is not a “slippery slope”. If you want the wide protections and individual rights of a citizen then go thru the rigorous process of becoming a citizen. If not, then stay where you are a citizen or accept the more limited rights afforded to you as a guest.
I’d like to add to Jayhawk, if we fully extend First Amendment protections to all non-citizens without limitation, what safeguards remain against foreign adversaries like China or Iran deliberately sending operatives into the U.S. to orchestrate mass protests, manipulate public discourse, and sow domestic unrest? Are we truly prepared to interpret the Constitution in a way that could enable hostile regimes to exploit our freedoms as a weapon against us when the solution is merely sending them back to their home country.
This is EXACTLY the game they are playing. We will be destroyed by our own short-signed virtue signaling about egalitarian niceties. This country is in such a mess BECAUSE we refuse to make very clear distinctions between citizen and non. Other countries don't have this "liberal" myopia. I lived 20 years in Japan. Went to Japanese public school K-9. Do you know how long I'd be allowed to stay in the country if I started a ruckus? 90 seconds. Eviction is a NECESSARY counter-balance to lawlessness. Without eviction, without penalties, there are no "rights" to protect. If you don't jail/kill murderers, then life has no value by definition no matter how much bleating in the media about the sanctity of life or being secure in one's home.
We are losing sight of the truth that all rights, whether inalienable or granted, come with responsibilities. So, the issue is, When exercising your right to free speech, did you cause harm to anyone? Isn't this the basis for libel and slander laws?
You are right. The slippery slope works the exact opposite way. Now you have an entire political party essentially insisting that there is no legal right to determine who can and cant be in this country. Many in that party want non citizens to be able to vote. That's a long way from where we used to be not that long ago. There must always be a distinction between citizens and aliens legal or otherwise. And immigration policy should and must be geared towards the best interests of the United States.
Is there still a "united" States? Or have our enemies, within and without, so divided us that there is no nation to speak of; only allegiances to one of two political parties. As there is no longer a sense of commonality, nationhood, there can be no appeal to common sense, to shared values. Just endless sparring among the serfs while the powerful view the spectacle and eggs us on.
That was my initial thought, but then thought about other 1A protections…could the gov prohibit the free exercise of religion for non-citizens? What about foreign journalists in the press? The rights of immigrants to assemble?
The first amendment applies to anyone here legally. But the facts in this case aren't really about the first amendment. That's just what the plaintiffs are trying to prove. As Matt notes, there are other reasons to deport these people and that is what the government is actually doing.
Yes, we can restrict the rights of those who choose to be our guests in any way we wish, if we think it serves our national interest. If a person does not like the rights/benefits afforded to them as a guest, then they can stay where they are.
Does the free exercise of religion include female circumcision? Then yes, it absolutely can be regulated. The same way I have to do a background check to purchase a gun. The Bill of Rights isn't a blank check.
Let's not overlook the salient point: the issue is about the consequences of one's speech, not free speech per se. we have many laws about penalties, consequences when one's speech has harmed another. someone once said, Your free speech ends where my nose begins.
Khalil should have been prosecuted for the kidnapping of the janitor perhaps as a conspiracy and/or violating the civil rights of jewish students at Columbia. He has been consistently undercharged and the University and the Manhattan DA have allowed him to break laws without consequence at all.
He committed numerous crimes but what is being missed is that he doesn't have to be charged for his acts to be grounds for his deportation. It is a lie that he is being deported because of his speech.
I appreciate the clarification and let me just say that I support any amendment or legislation that seeks to change the law so that the Constitution applies only to those with American citizenship.
Study Roman history. Citizenship was diluted there as well. Turned out kinda shitty as I recall.
Not disputing your statement - it’s not one of the issues plaguing the Roman Empire that left a lasting effect on me…
They were also imperialistic - and maintaining armies ain’t cheap. They also resorted to currency depreciation (inflation) to prolong economic inevitability. But there’s a reason every educated human being has been exposed to Roman History… they were absolutely remarkable. I went to Rome as a young adult and I think the aqueducts may be the most impressive engineering feat in human history - certainly the most valuable to the general populace - and Power to The People.
In my view, America’s enduring legacy will be that this was the first nation-state to be established where Power comes from the consent of the governed (allegedly, but still codified). It’s why Thomas Paine’s introduction to “Common Sense” is so powerful to me today - the cause of America is the cause of all mankind - if we don’t keep our government in check and maintain an America where Power is derived from the consent of the governed humanity loses…
Orwell says, “if you want a vision of the future imagine a boot stomping a human face, forever.” We cannot fail, humanity depends upon us. Also, there’s nowhere left to run. Only places to hide…
Indeed- and to your point, imperialism is what incentivized them to allow more people from further away obtain citizenship and the benefits of citizenship. More citizens = bigger armies = more conquest etc. Roman citizenship came with a significantly reduced financial burden to the state, and offered more benefits. Dilution of the rights of citizens in order to afford them to non citizens has implications for longevity from a fiscal perspective.
"They were also imperialistic - and maintaining armies ain’t cheap. They also resorted to currency depreciation (inflation) to prolong economic inevitability"
We could still honor the first amendment for everyone on the planet as long as we had clear penalties for the consequences of that speech, e.g., libel and slander, and inciting to riot. the plaintiffs are inserting IA as a distraction from settled law and custom.
The constitution applies to actions of the government, not to the individual. The US government can’t act to deprive anyone of a constitutional right. This protects citizens above all because the government can’t build a repressive apparatus and claim it’s legal because it’s just for foreigners.
You may be conflating aliens and illegal aliens. Although he had both a green card and a visa there are issues. First the green card while nice is totally dependent upon the validity of the visa. The visa is a student visa. He studied at Columbia but graduated and studied no more. The visa fails making him an illegal.
I appreciate that this is a difficult question, and difficult questions typically don't have clean answers. That whichever side of them you end up on, you should understand that there are also valid arguments for the other side, and that on balance you have decided to go one way or the other, but that that doesn't make it clear cut. I feel that Matt makes very valid points on this issue, but also that he has blind spots, which make him too comfortable in his position.
In particular, I feel that one aspect of this that Matt isn't able to fully appreciate is that the behavior in question is not only speech. The individuals involved have (as far as I can tell, but I could be wrong) all been organizers of violent (to greater or lesser degrees) demonstrations that have resulted in assaults on other students, and infringements on the rights of those students. If you were Jewish, you weren't allowed to go to certain areas of campus, including sometimes the library. And you could be beaten up at any time. And classes in general were suspended in some places. This wasn't just objecting to someone speaking, or writing editorials in a student newspaper. There was action too.
Even with citizens, while we are extremely permissive when it comes to speech, even inciteful speech, we have also distinguished that from activity that infringes on other people's rights. We have no problem saying that people are free to picket some location, be it an abortion clinic or a factory, but they are not free to prevent others from crossing the picket line. With the abortion demonstrators we go even further, and don't even allow the protest to take place in the immediate vicinity of clinics, even if the protesters in no way impede access. We similarly don't allow demonstrations outside of abortionists' private homes, as that is considered harassment. My point here is that even with seemingly absolute rights, those rights can be curbed if they are mixed with illegal behavior of some sort. Engaging in the speech does not somehow magically sanctify the problematic behavior.
While I too am somewhat uncomfortable with our actions here, I also think that the fundamental question that Trump is asking is quite valid: why are we letting a bunch of foreigners shut down our universities and harass Americans, especially when they're here on student visas, and shutting down universities would seem contrary to the point of those? I strongly suspect that if these people had confined themselves to just making speeches and writing newspaper articles, then no-one would have bothered them.
And secondarily, I think it's perfectly proper to explore how the rights of aliens differ from the rights of citizens. This isn't a slippery slope. It's just lazy to say that there are no differences. Yes, aliens enjoy the same basic rights as citizens, but when push comes to shove, they're a separate class that has inferior rights, even if it isn't clear what the distinction is. And importantly, no alien, even a lawful permanent resident, has an unqualified right to be in a country. Guests can always be asked to leave. I did most of my growing up outside of the US, and was acutely aware of being in someone else's country, and that certain things were off limits for me, even though I was a permanent resident. I knew that I was a guest there. I suspect that Matt felt similarly during his time in Russia.
Excellent, Emmanuel. thank you. Holding one responsibile for the consequences of their speech is not a limitation of their free speech. As an inalienable right, it cannot be separated from our personhood. Nor can it be relieved of the responsibility required for a civil society to endure.
The issue with Mahmoud K is I think that’s in order for him to come here in the first place on a student visa, he had to swear that he was not a member of a terrorist group, nor would he enounce support for a U.S.- government designated terrorist group, or encourage others to do so. Mahmoud K clearly did both.
His organization CUAD celebrated Oct 7 and Hamas terrorism both originally in October 2023 and again at the one-year anniversary in October 2024, and in the seizure of the Barnard College building that he led in March 2025, which distributed a pamphlet praising Yahyah Sinwar and Sinwar’s slaughtering of Jews.
FIRE's IA argument is a red herring. Khalil lied on his visa application, overstayed as no longer a student, and incited others to harm others. We have penalties for speaking in a way that harms others: libel, slander, incitement to riot.
Correct, 09dale. And the Constitution ascribes to the legislature to create the laws that protect those rights. Important to remember that it's to protect the rights for all persons. As someone once said,"Your rights end where my nose begins." so, you could still bring your IA rights with you to prison ...or to the hospital, or back to your home country.
The Declaration correctly observes that natural rights are held by humans because they are humans; they are not granted by states.
Islamists in Arabia, for instance, or anarchists in Latin America, have the natural right to speak freely, and no legitimate government can infringe that right and remain legitimate. Not the government of the United States, nor of Saudi Arabia, nor of Venezuela.
But states do have the power, and rightly so, to allow or forbid humans outside its territory to enter that territory. To deny that is to deny statehood.
States also have the right and the responsibility to provide penalties for the consequences of speech that causes harm to others. It all comes down to setting boundaries. This is where we have been on the slippery slope for decades.
The justification for the First Amendment is that government, inherently, has no authority over speech. People can and will think and speak freely. If we change that up and say the state suddenly has authority over the speech of legal residents, we’re putting government in the speech business. Instantly our system devolves to a British or Canadian or French concept. Do you want that, or do you want the absolute rights we’ve always had?
You are not distinguishing free speech from hate speech. Each has a legal definition and consequences result from hate. It doesn’t mean the 1st amendment is perfect or sacrosanct. It wasn’t written by God or stress tested in various situations, like it is being tested right now. The Supreme Court can add clarity, like free speech turns into hate speech when it is systemic, aligns with illegal entities (terrorist organizations) that use the same language, and incitement that results in violating another citizens civil rights.
I don’t recall saying anything about limiting free speech, so you’re clearly misinterpreting what I’m writing. The Supreme Court does make a clear “legal” distinction what constitutes free speech and what constitutes hate speech with intent to aid a foreign terrorist organization and to cause harm to a protected minority group of U.S. citizens. Under that legal definition, I am arguing that what Khalil engaged in was not free speech.
You wish to decide what is hate speech (not allowed!!) and what is OK. That's limiting free speech, with a capital L.
Lots of people in the EU who would welcome a brother in arms who also wishes to censor, based on some nebulous definition of what you think hate speech is. Rosie and DeGeneres say Ireland and UK are great!
That's expressly not true. The government exercises speech control in many instances. Just try saying something deemed detrimental to national security and watch how fast you're detained.
Hell I was 10 years old and got harassed by a postal inspector for writing the words 'nuclear proliferation' on the outside of an envelope. This being during the Carter administration.
The National Security Act of 1947 pretty much put paid to 1A protections.
Who's the We you are talking about...??? Does this apply to all the other rights or just the first amendment because it's special? I get the nostalgic throwback zealotry for freedom of speech but you're twisting yourself into knots and making comparisons that don't seem logical... Maybe I'm just not smart enough...
you didn't go to college. There they use 20 dollar words to teach you to stand on your head and tell the rest of the world its they whom are upside down.
Jefferson originally described our rights as "unalienable", but later changed this to "inalienable". Important distinction. the briliance of the American Constitution is that it elevated man as never before in history, per our birth-rights, the inalienable rights that attend personhood. As someone once said, "You could die with your rights on". Without agreement about the responsibilities that accompany every right, we would have chaos, the opposite of civil society. Here is where we are beginning to fail as a civil society.
Thanks Matt. That clarification covers an important point. Freedom of speech is the foundation for all our other freedoms. Countries like the UK, Canada, and Ireland are sliding towards totalitarianism with their recent “hate speech” laws. Let’s make damn sure we don’t take the tiniest step toward following suit.
Isn’t the key words ‘lawfully entered the country’ for this persons that are befit Constitutional rights? What if a person enters illegally? What if a person enters legally and overstays their visa? I think SCOTUS will say ‘no rights’ to those groups.
The point is that government cannot abridge anyone's right to speech as it is inalienable, i.e., inseparable from one's personhood. If someone overstays a visa or enters illegally, they still have the right to free speech, but can be arrested and deported. So, free speech rights and unlawful behavior are separate and distinct.
if an alien is a lawful permanent resident of the United States ... Nobody is arguing about "lawful permanent residents". The argument is about people who "invaded" the country "illegally"! They have NO constitutional rights. Period!
As Matt has stated twice now, the constitution makes no distinction between legal residents and illegal residents. It simply says "persons". So free speech is an inalienable right for anyone in the USA. Of course, if someone is here illegally, they can still be deported, arrested for crimes, etc. So it doesn't mean they get to stay here no matter what, it simply means they have first amendment rights.
Is the 1st Amendment speech still protected if a non citizen uses said speech in support of a government-defined terrorist group? Today that terror group is Hamas. But could the tables ever be turned where different US government designates IDF as a ‘terror group’ and its former/current soldiers in US who voice support for Israel are kicked out of the country?
We should kick THEM out of the country.
The government is absolutely not trustworthy in defining who are enemies are.
It’s so arbitrary that it might as well be them .
I think that they shouldn’t have been caught lying even once let alone thousands of times.
We screwed up.
Maybe that antiquated law ought to be revised to deal with today's realities of unprecedented deleterious immigration.
if you think about it, why do we need the new law?
The only thing that matters is being in the country illegally.
All the rest of it seems like smoke screen. I actually don’t know for sure but it looks suspicious to me. We gotta think for ourselves, and have zero loyalty whatsoever for any of these people.
Can we shoot them on site? Obviously they have rights. But they also can be deported. Their illegal status means they can be deported.
OK with me. You wouldn't have to shoot many and they would quit invading. Kind of like the "Castle Doctrine" on a grander scale!
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
Yes, they do have Constitutional rights. But they can also be deported without much fanfare. Both things are true.
Looking at the Supreme Court case of the Communist union organizer: would the Court really have ruled the same way if the case had been about protecting the free speech rights of a Nazi sympathizer or anti-war activist? During World War II?
The First Amendment was originally ratified only because everybody knew it applied only to the Federal government. (Thus, works could be “banned in Boston.”). This continued to be the case until the Supreme Court in effect rewrote the Amendment in the 1920’s.
They didn’t “rewrite” anything. They applied the 14th in the way that the Radical Republicans of the Reconstruction era intended the 14th to be used in applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the states.
Exactly! I think the Trump Supreme Court will rule this way. Deporting someone isn’t solid seeing them. It does not diminish their freedom of speech. It just changes the location where they can exercise at speech, anywhere but here if the speech is anti-American, dangerous, or inciting violence racism, or the destruction of our nation.
This SCOTUS might well treat legal and illegal immigrants differently. But it hasn't yet, and until it does, Trump is legally bound to not hunt down illegals solely for the things they say.
Get a clue. Trump is hunting them down because they are criminals, having ILLEGALLY entered our country. They broke the law. If you don't enforce the laws you don't have a country. Who gives a damn what they are saying.
"Who gives a damn what they are saying."
I don't. But your cult leader clearly does, since his and Noem's ICE have grabbed up many legal aliens--not illegal, but here legally--and hustled them into ICE lockups for saying something they didn't like.
I got plenty of clue, thanks.
Illegal aliens can be deported simply for being here.
Their speech is irrelevant.
Correct. Legal aliens cannot. They are deporting both, the first legally, the second illegally.
I seriously doubt there are any ice agents currently employed that have any idea about the political views of their targets?
ICE agents? I agree, they wouldn't have a clue. Political managers of ICE, the ones who select the targets? You bet your ass they update the snatch list when they see a "mouthy" immigrant on social media, and the agents just follow up on the names they're provided from "headquarters."
I don't believe the question is whether illegal aliens have any rights or no rights. It's clear that they have certain rights, that among others, guarantees them legal protecttions, etc. But neither do they have full rights of citizens or lawful non-citizen residents. That has never been the case, and the question that has been at issue is what due process rights do they have regarding deportation. In this area, their rights, through legislation and judicial precedence, are not on par with citizens, but some recent district court rulings are essentially saying they enjoy full citizenship rights. Thus far, these rulings, that are plowing new legal ground, have been met with virtually no success in appellate courts and SCOTUS.
While a separate issue, birthright citizenship is related. Where is the line between full rights of persons (if they are here legally), and those persons here illegally? While the history is pretty clear on the first issue (deportations), it is an entirely open legal question regarding the second.
I thought they made a ruling on that, or were in the process of considering one?
SCOTUS might, but the Constitution makes no such distinction as far as speech goes. Being here illegally is against the law, and there are enforceable laws to deal with that.
No chance. That person if charged with a crime or civil violation for example, gets a jury trial under the 6th and 7th Amendments.
The cops still need a warrant. They can still pray or go to church.
Those are all in the same document you suggest the Court will not apply the first half of the 1st Amendment to.
That wont happen.
Maybe, maybe not. Immigration is different.
I disagree. One can violate immigration law and get deported. But if the only violation is clearly based on 1A grounds One cant comply with immigration law and say some
That's not before the Court, the Court can only decide cases and controversies that litigants/people/folk bring to it.
You don't have to thank me...
This is the key issue that wasn't addressed in the article. And we don't know which way an honest court would rule (don't think we have much of those anymore).
The issue here is that if visitors, legal or not have no rights, then anyone can be stopped and treated as not having rights until proven they are a citizen. This is the intentional predicament created by the Biden administration for Trump to use to ignore the constitution for 'safety' and 'the good of the people'. It is the reason they can ask any citizen 'papers please' and abuse them until they prove they are a citizen. I tend to think we should be better than that and treat everyone with the same rights as citizens. Would you like to visit Europe, Mexico or Turkey and get thrown in jail just because you lost your passport?
The US Constitution is not reciprocal with other nation states in the world. It is a unique document affording rights to persons here. They who are elsewhere very likely WILL throw us in jail if we lose our "papers" and can't get to the American embassy before they grab us. Which really begs the question why someone would badmouth this country which gives them rights that their own country will not.
Except that those being deported didn't badmouth America; they badmouthed a tiny country on the other side of the planet.
I think if they badmouthed an ally of the country that hosts them, the host country could have cause to deport them (if they are non-citizens and their stay is conditional). And this, even if the ally is worthy of the badmouthing! It's because foreign actors shouldn't be given a place to impact another country's affairs and shouldn't be in a position to negatively impact existing relations between allies. The host country has to consider how it appears to the rest of the world. The host country can't do anything to the citizen who is critical of its ally, but it can to the non-citizen by deporting them for undermining their relationships.
What do you think? Is that crazy or stupid?
I appreciate your post. Thanks for that clarification.
Spot on!
Exactly. We should be fighting creeping censorship throughout the EU/UK/Canada/Oceania, and not claiming that "only citizens" of the US have free speech rights. We're supposed to see free expression as an inalienable right for everyone, not a privilege given to us by our government. If our government gives us a privilege, they can take it away, and that's not how inalienable rights work.
You’re right! This is just what JD Vance said!
Yes, the first amendment is a requirement on the government not to overstep. I don’t know how the Trump administration got this so wrong. So wrong that I sometimes think they did it on purpose… but for reasons I can’t fathom.
Trump administration got it correct. They have made clear they respect the first amendment but they do not tolerate unlawful behavior.
You and Matt are conflating free speech with unlawful behavior. He participated 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 don’t disagree that there were numerous other grounds, such as the ones you cited, which the Trump administration could have used to arrest. A basic one is demonstrating without a permit. But the fact that they veered into criticizing and relying on opinions and political viewpoints, when they didn’t have to go there, just strikes me as odd or just stupid. Why didn’t they just rely on the illegal conduct?
Because they like big talk. Nevertheless, deportable is deportable.
Tell me how writing an op-ed is unlawful
I have no sympathy. I was a registered alien in England in 1982. The nice English guy behind the desk made it very clear what things would get me an express ticket out of the country. I am confident that writing an op-ed in favor of the IRA (who were at war with Mrs Thatcher) would have bought me that ticket.
I’m glad you’re looking towards England as a beacon of free speech and how our laws should be written. Fuck 1776
Back then, it was. I’m just pointing out that it’s foolish to imagine you can behave how you please in a foreign country. Read the fine print.
The revocation of the visa is NOT for the op-ed. This is a red herring by the left. They want to make this the issue.
The reason is that he became an organizer for the protest that became a riot, leading to the shutdown of the school, the building being seized, the janitor being locked in a room, and Jewish students being intimidated, among other things.
If he had just done the op-ed, I suspect everything would have been okay. He decided that wasn't enough, and he would get involved, and that was a bridge too far. Now he violates his visa application.
I’m talking about a HER. Rümeysa Öztürk. She wrote an op-ed. She never rioted, protested, she doesn’t even go to Columbia. She got put on a list for literally writing a letter, and that got sent to Rubio.
So, I think you raise an interesting case. It seems to me that a government can have a cause against a foreigner coming into the country and publicly criticizing an ally of the host country. Even if the ally deserves it, the criticism can be thought of as foreign influence or courting an enemy (to our allies), and so in some instances the government cannot tolerate speech from a foreigner that looks to undermine its relationship with its allies. Again, even if what the foreigner is saying is true. It makes the host country look weak and incompetent because the person doing the criticizing is here only via government permission.
What unlawful behavior has Ozturk or Khalil committed, and why have they not been charged with anything unlawful? If that's really the issue, rather than their speech, then shouldn't that be the proper course of action?
It’s not unlawful, but may well be a visa infraction for which Congress has made Secretary Rubio the sole judge.
Well, it's very comforting to know that we can place our trust in Marco Rubio knowing that this is just routine stuff that happens all the time and has nothing whatsoever to do with the forbidden opinions of this particular person. Because deporting people for their opinions would seriously weaken our international stance in favor of free speech and generally make us look like we don't really have any standards beyond simple power.
Rubio is being milder than any other country would be, even our most civilized European allies. (Don’t mess with the Dutch, for instance). In any case, his discretionary powers are the same as Anthony Blinken’s or Hillary Clinton’s were. If you don’t like his judgment, try winning the election next time.
The authorities have not yet charged him. The path of least resistance is to revoke the visa and send him back to his home country. He should have stayed out of the political protest, and he would have been okay.
So no unlawful behavior then, just something we say to make it seem ok to deport him? And I could care less about this Khalil jackass, but I do care about what kind of country we have.
No one said there wasn't unlawful behavior. Many people commit crimes and are not prosecuted for the offense.
The reason for the visa cancellation is that he violated the terms of the application. It's that simple.
All he had to do was stay out of the protest. This is something most foreigners here as guests would do as a matter of course. Instead, he chose to be a visible participant and organizer in a political protest that led to many bad things.
The left is wailing that this is a violation of freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This is a red herring. If they tried arguing the real reason for the predicament, they would lose. Who wants to champion a losing argument so they make up an argument they think they can win?
If they do charge and convict him, he will wish he had been deported.
He has admitted that he came specifically for the purpose of political protest.
He should have spoken to a lawyer before making that assertion. This makes his actions look premeditated. If he wanted to stay here, then, in my opinion, he shot himself in the foot with that remark.
And participating in a situation where the people you are with commit another crime, makes you liable for that crime. I know someone who was committing an armed robbery. The victim of the armed robbery killed his accomplice, and this person was charged with murder (not the guy who was defending himself).
Just like the Democrats, they have a totalitarian outlook.
The reason is that Israel owns our government.
There’s another one. Two points to zero so far!
What a terrible thing to say! Maybe we need to look into your legal status, not for what you say of course, but for all the possible crimes you might have committed.
Free speech is the foundation for all other freedoms. That’s why it’s important to have a very clear concept of what is free speech, and not allow it to be misused.
We all know the Miranda warning. Anything you say can and will be used as evidence in a court of law. Nobody can stand on a street corner shouting about the fraud he committed, then cry “free speech” to exclude his words as evidence.
Foreign students who violate the terms of their visas cannot use free speech to prevent any deportation action. They chose to advertise that they fraudulently obtained a student visa.
The danger to free speech is allowing its meaning to be distorted for nefarious purposes.
you bring up an interesting point? In context of the constitution and criminal law, everyone knows you have a right to remain silent that everything you say can will be used against you (40 year trial, lawyer, criminal state and federal) you seem to imply that ICE can’t use an illegal alien speech as the pretext for arresting him, but you can use a defendant speech freely given to send him or her to prison or two the gurney for lethal injection. A confession is defined as free speech:
No one has a positive right to a visa. It’s conditional on many factors, including one’s temperament and viewpoint as determined by the government.
If we granted a visa to a German who turned out to be a neo-nazi advocating for the extermination of all blacks, Jews and homosexuals would we be “awww, shucks, guess we got that one wrong, but nothing we can do now”? Or would we deport them?
A visa is not a constitutional right once granted. Revoking a visa is not a criminal (or even civil) penalty. It’s simply a sovereign exercising its discretion regarding the foreigners it allows in. It’s presumably a bummer to the person being deported, but being deported is not depriving someone of their life, liberty or property. It’s just returning them to their country of origin.
We deny visas every day to people found to have made statements that, in the determination of the administration in power, do not align with our values and interests. The granting of a visa is not a permanent award. Context that would deny a visa being granted can also be taken into consideration when determining if a visa should be revoked.
I’m not sure I understood you, and I’m not a lawyer.
It just seems to me that what is being argued is that using foreign students’ words as evidence against them in a deportation case is an infringement of free speech rights.
But we use defendants’ words as evidence against them in cases every day. No one considers that an infringement of free speech. Until now, when the cases involve student visas.
This is apples and oranges.
What you say is “evidence” if it is relevant. There is no 1A issue. You are being charged with some other crime … not for your speech.
If the sole basis of an revocation of a visa us “speech” then the pretext of the immigration violation is an infringement on a Constitutional right. In such case the Govt loses because the 1A cannot be overridden by a statute.
There has to be another act or conduct to revoke the visa. Not just the words spoken.
Otherwise Congress could pass laws banning all kinds of speech. They cant.
The revocation of a visa would be based on violating the terms of the visa. Speech would be evidence of violating those terms. You are right, it’s not a crime. They are not being charged with a crime. They are being deported. And speech is certainly evidence as a basis for deportation.
I think something is getting lost here. Say a defendant admits to a crime by telling someone they committed it. Well, the first hurdles include the various prohibitions on hearsay evidence. You can overcome those, but you can’t just argue Bob heard from Suzie that Joe did X—to use a painfully obvious example. But say the defendant was arrested and mirandized and told a detective they committed a crime. You might still look at coercion. But ok, barring that or a technicality, that’s pretty damning. And of course defendants can be convicted of serious crimes based on testimony alone. Plenty of instances where a child old enough to give credible testimony is enough to convict an adult of assault, sexual or otherwise despite no other evidence it occurred.
But we’re then jumping to non-crimes. So, person A is here on a visa and criticizes the U.S. Government. As MT has referenced, the courts are very wary of ever allowing non-crime speech to be a basis for the revocation of a visa and expulsion from the United States—and they’re very explicit about why. That chills speech. So while, yeah, you could deport someone on another pretext, you can’t base it on speech alone. “Hi, I’m here illegally,” is not a statement that is just speech. You’re admitted to violating the law, even if that’s in a civil and not criminal capacity.
“I don’t like America. It sucks,” is not an admission of anything. It’s a viewpoint.
If an ICE agent overhears an undocumented person saying that, and arrests, them and deports them, the statement is irrelevant. They might as well have said, “I don’t like Skittles. They suck.” They don’t need another reason than the obvious—the speaker is violating the law even if they’re silent. This is a totally separate issue from a non citizen legally in the U.S.
There are definitely some fuzzy areas around denying entry into the U.S., not renewing visas, etc, but the courts are wary of chilling speech for good reason: you don’t want to make non-crimes, particular those related to speech punishable.
So at the risk of repetitious analogy, an ICE agent discovering an undocumented person sitting court-side at a NBA game cannot rightly argue the basis for the arrest was sitting court-side at an NBA game. It was sitting or standing or lying down or otherwise existing anywhere inside the United States. Sitting court-side is just a fact relating to the location where they were apprehended.
the right to life is the predicate to all other liberties. what good is your speech if the govt kills you?
No one is killing anyone. Where did that random allegation come from?
The social contract between citizens and the government is that the government enforces laws and maintains order, among other things. Individuals here on visas need to abide by the terms of their visa applications. It's that simple.
just saying. right to life supercedes speech. speech is very important, but life is the most important. but now that you mention it, the government does kill people on occasion, too. ruby ridge and waco come to mind.
A nation that has free speech but won’t protect itself from illdoers who exploit that freedom of speech, will soon have no free speech.
100 percent salute this comment, JimInNashville. The speech laws in the UK, Canada, and Ireland would make Orwell seethe with envy that he didn't go that far in 1984.
This whole discussion reminds me of whether or not it’s a good idea to cut off your nose to spite your face. It might be lawful, but dollars to donuts you'd be legally committed as just plain nuts.
Sad to say, Ann, but from recent purchases of donuts (generally > $2), I think you mean "donuts to dollars." Think we need to reverse the old saying.
Yes, I'm old enough to remember that the donut shop across from my JHS sold day old donuts for a nicklel.
I remember a baker’s dozen fresh for 5. There are days I wake up to what feels like a different planet.
There will always be hard cases, but Biden's border dereliction made this inevitable.
Biden made infringing on free speech for people who come here legally inevitable. OMG, I don't like Biden. I voted for Trump. But you have got to stop making excuses and understand that some things are greater than petty uniparty politics.
Lila, I have seen your comments and respect your informed, intelligent input. I tend to communicate in shorthand. The longer version: uncontrolled illegal immigration, woke university policies, perceived lack of respect on all sides - inevitably led to the tough choices being made today. I don't like today's confrontational tactics, but I sure didn't start the fight.
Because our nation had become infected by the woke agenda the only way to stop the slide was an immediate frontal attack on these policies. Yes, there have been missteps, overreach by the T administration. And as Matt points out, these must be called out. At the same time, it's important to not let these take our focus off the goal of bringing America back to its center where we can all feel respected and safe. Forces that would see America fail have been manipulating us for decades now. Some of them are pure evil; others have become captives of proven unworkable utopian schemes,e.g., Neo-Marxism, the products of unbalanced leftwing education and political party opportunism.
I think what became inevitable, because of four years of open boarders, is a coming decade or two of problems sorting out who is here legally and who isn't. That is not a partisan issue. It is the inevitable long-term result of reprehensible policy decisions by the last administration. Good people are going to be hurt but unknown numbers of bodies laying in the wilderness south of our boarders are mute testiment to the fact that the purveyers of this horror never gave a damn about any of them from day one.
As an aside, I will add that, somewhere in my upbringing I was told that the morality of a spirit can be guaged by the expected fruits of the course of action it is calling for. The fruits of the open boarders policy turn out to be misery, broken dreams, enslavement and/or death for whole a lot of people.
Several posters have pointed to the inevitability of consequence. We are living the INEVITABLE result of leadership's thoughtless, careless, dare I say STUPID?, acts of commission and omission over decades.
Well, there may be a difference between legal residents on visas and illegal immigrants
Lillia, sorry I misspelled your name.
The most maddening thing about the current conversation is the inability of a majority to grasp the simple difference between legal and illegal entry.
FIRE is right to challenge Rubio’s reliance on the unconstitutional statute that lets him revoke visas on the basis of his attitude toward a legal resident’s speech.
The administration is on the other hand upholding the Constitution when they drag illegal aliens out by the feet with no due process.
Why is this so hard for so many to understand?
If you are legally resident in the USA, you are covered by the Bill of Rights, and all its implied but not enumerated protections are also yours.
If you are here illegally, you can, should, and must be removed. If called upon, I will assist in your removal, while ignoring the cries of your citizen children. You created the situation, not me, not us.
That said, the whole imbroglio is a damned playact. If they had a single serious cell in the game, they’d be jailing the employers.
Every person or corporation who employs an undocumented worker is a human trafficker.
Employers traffic undocumented migrants because they prefer workers who are scared to complain and have no rights. There are a few minor ongoing prosecutions here and there, but if they dragged Tyson’s CEO out his door in handcuffs, American employers might suddenly rediscover the joys of employing legal workers.
Trump is either not serious about this, or else he’s really as stupid as he acts, and taking bad advice to boot.
Secretary of State revoked the Visa based on unlawful actions. As an organizer of the riot at Columbia University, he misrepresented the purpose of his Visa.
His Visa was NOT revoked for any opinion supporting the terrorist group, Hamas. That support may however put him on a security watch list.
Most countries around the world do not permit noncitizens to participate in political demonstrations. They certainly do not tolerate criminal activities.
Which unlawful actions did he commit exactly, and why has he not been charged? And how exactly did he "misrepresent the purpose of his visa"? I'm dying to know.
"Most countries around the world do not permit noncitizens to participate in political demonstrations. They certainly do not tolerate criminal activities."
Except UK, Germany, France most other EU countries.
Glad not to be most countries, especially in that case. If Kahlil has done something wrong, let us bring a charge and prove it. There’s a special legal term for what we are sure we know, but cannot prove: gossip.
I think there should be limits on what is tolerated by foreign agitators. Let's say hypothetically that hundreds of Chinese students decided to organize and occupy the famed economics building at ImaginaryU over Trump's tariff policy, and as a result lots of classes were cancelled. Would that be okay?
My only problem with the current administration is that this is obviously a case of selective enforcement. Set a consistent policy and kick out all agitators or tolerate them all.
What other agitators do you have in mind?
IMHO, the administration is pursuing the lowest cost remedy, which is to revoke the visa and return Kahlil to his home country. Why risk prosecution with so many members of the judiciary a part of the resistance versus being impartial?
This is the highest cost "remedy" (to what exactly?), imo, to our nation. Doing nothing would be the lowest cost "remedy". Charging him for any crimes he may have committed seems appropriate also.
Heres the comment i was looking for , khalil FAFO mahmoud kick him and his crying baby outta here
This suit is not about Kahlil, these folks may be different.
Anyone granted a visa is here conditionally. The visa can be revoked.
Yes, let's be the kind of bitch country that just yanks visas of anyone who upsets the wrong people.
Maybe we can be the country that imports revolutionaries to stir up our wayward yout's. Especially cute ones... According to the law, the wrong person is the Secretary of State.
That’s also true, which imo makes the FIRE suit a welcome opportunity to settle and rank the merits of the issues under discussion.
I think Matt's point is that there are constitutional differences with that regulation that need to be clarified.
“… or else he’s really as stupid as he acts, and taking bad advice to boot.”
Sounds about right. If it’s any consolation, this is probably better than Kamala, but still not good.
Yes, let's blame the former POTUS over what just happened.
Trump blames him for everything, not a leap to expect the same from his supporters.
In the case of rampant illegal immigration, we can blame Biden. Trump proved that there is something we can do about it.
This has nothing to do with illegal immigration. All these people are here legally.
Are they here on a student visa or do they have legal residency?
Those here on student visas have legal residency. Possibly you mean permanent residency otherwise known as the green card.
Either way they’re here legally, and as Matt pointed out, it says “person,” so it doesn’t matter.
That’s questionable. If they misrepresent themselves on their visa applications, illegal
Could Khalil be deported for lying on his visa application?
I’ve heard this excuse a lot. You can’t “misrepresent” yourself on a visa unless you lie about your name or where you come from. And if you say you’re coming here to study, then you’re here to engage in campus life, and campus life includes protesting and expressing your opinion. So there is no misrepresentation.
Aww, look at you defending ICE. it's so cute.
🙄
Aww, look at you defending a 300% increase in migrant child sex trafficking due to Biden's border policy. It's not cute, it's villainous.
Pretty sure you don't want to bring up sex trafficking with who's in the WH right now. Talk about a dangerous slope. Also, at least 4 Republican men in politics in the last week have been arrested for this.
ICE enforces the law. But as noted we are talking of those aliens legally in this country so ICE is not involved so no need to take yet another opportunity to attack a US government agency doing its job.
Nah, I'll do it as often as I like. Free speech!
You know you're crushing it when you have to wear a ski mask to work. You can bow down to "law enforcement" and US government agencies if you like. I'll pass on the bootlicking. 'Freedom Lover." LOLOLOL
Your open border got Laken Riley killed.
My open border? Wow, you figured out that I am the POTUS. You seem so smart.
We have an abundance of smart asses on here. Try not to be another one
Well, now that that you've said that, I will make sure not to!
Loser troll. Don’t feed it.
You're doing little now to retain your rapidly diminishing credibility. Reasonable people can disagree.
Of course they can. It's why free speech is so critical. But I'm not going to be quiet when people are propping up ICE or the starvation of children.
If you don't like my comments, just keep going. It's what the Internet is all about.
You’re right. I do blame the previous regime for lots of our current issues
You've got it backwards. Democrats and the Left blame Trump for everything. I blame Biden for the open borders, not everything.
That's the Democrat playbook, hoss
Blame is weak, regardless of which party does it.
Ok
Bingo
Only because it was whipped up into a media frenzy by profiteers. Remember, politicians are bought puppets.
Nonsense.
Open borders have nothing to do with free speech infringements.
Open borders, campus riots, homeless chaos, all parts of the same dysfunctional mess. I got punched in the face a couple years ago when I had a grocery bag in each hand. I'm not as sympathetic since that happened.
Consider yourself lucky if that hasn't happened to you, it might change your sympathy level too.
Except: see my analysis in the first piece you posted on the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (enacted after Bridges). The issue is NOT that free speech rights cannot be "parsed" between citizens and green card holders, per se, but there is an exception to the exception in the statute from 1952, Section 237(a)(4), which says that free speech rights of folks like Khalil are to be respected "“unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s [presence] would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.” This exception to the exception was not, to my understanding, found to be unconstitutional in the Kwong case.
And, I just read the Kwong case. It's a due process case, as they tried to deport him without a hearing. Not the same thing at all.
Except that its justification for upholding 5A rights cites Wixon and the concept of no “distinction” under 1A, 5A, and 14A
But those points you raise have to do with the fact that they tried to deport him without a hearing under regulations - not the statutory exception that I am referring to. And, the point of the "holding" of any case is important, especially if you are going to cite it as precedent. In Kwong, I see no reference to the Secretary of State, in a hearing, having made a declaration that Kwong's presence in the U.S. "would compromise a compelling foreign policy interest." They hadn't gotten that far in Kwong, because he hadn't actually been given a hearing where that point was adjudicated. Still happy to be proven wrong on this. But I think I'm on firm ground saying that the statutory power given to the Sec of State has not yet been ruled unconstitutional by the S.C.
I'm in agreement with your reasoning. The State Dept. is the only authority that can grant and revoke a visa. If the visitor overstays the visa, they are no longer here legally and thus, no longer subject to First Amendment rights as Matt has pointed out. The visitor must leave and apply for a new visa. This is standard everywhere. If the SoS revokes a visa for cause, the foreign national may be entitled to a hearing to re-instate an active visa, but there is no court that has the authority to require the SoS to renew the visa when it expires.
Exactly. A hearing before an immigration official. Plus, participants involved with illegal acts ( school invasion) can be booted by SOS . He negotiated with school administrators
Yes, he was the CUAD rep "negotiating" - really extorting - concessions from Columbia in exchange for an agreement to stop illegally occupying a university building and in exchange for no punishments to be meted out for injuring and illegally holding a security guard captive for a while.
What about this case? (I’m no lawyer , but Chat GPT is ok with legal searches).
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471 (1999)
Issue: First Amendment retaliation claims by legal noncitizens subject to deportation.
Holding:
The Court held that noncitizens generally cannot challenge deportation decisions on the basis of selective enforcement or retaliation for protected speech.
Significance:
It limited the ability of lawful noncitizens to bring First Amendment challenges in the context of immigration enforcement.
Hmmm. Interesting. Gotta dig into that one.
I don’t understand why you and others are so scared of a guy saying his opinion about a country other than the US.
Instead of quoting case law, try arguing against the protester’s ideas on the merits.
Now, I am not pointing at you when I say that a lot of those who want him deported couldn’t even begin to debate Israel-Gaza on the merits. Remember, present company excepted.
It's fine to dialogue about the protester's ideas, but these are not what is at issue here. We are a nation of laws. What is at issue is the executive powers of the SoS to cancel/deny a visa to anyone he/she deems a threat to US interests. Conflating these two separate issues reflects the schism in our current Supreme Court where the liberal trio consistently overlooks or subjugates existing law to evaluation of things like the "protester's ideas".
Here's the problem with that: we all know it's bullshit that he's a threat to US interests. He's criticizing a different country. Though I suspect he has a critique or two for us now, after the goon squad arrest and detainment.
Why is it worse in this nation to criticize a different country than it is to criticize our own?
Precisely. The central issue is whether or not the statutory power of the Sec of State to declare a "lawful permanent resident" (i.e. a "green card holder") is or is not unconstitutional. Remember, always, please, that it is in a federal statute - it is "black letter law," and stated specifically as an "exception to the exception," where the first exception protects green card holders first amendment rights in all cases - "UNLESS" the secretary of state makes his declaration vis-a-vis foreign policy concerns. Rubio has now made that declaration in Khalil's case in a hearing and the judge ruled in Rubio's favor. Khalil and his attorneys are appealing it. We'll see if it gets upheld on appeal and if so, if Khalil appeals again to the supreme court, which will be interesting. If that happens, it will be interesting to see if the SC even grants cert. But assuming that the do agree to hear the case, I'll be happy enough if they hold that the statute indeed unconstitutional. I don't have a dog in this constitutional hunt, despite my clear bias that the law should be followed. To date, the law has been followed. And this fact is why so many on the left find the situation irksome. They're looking for a "gotchya" moment that only exists in their heads.
Well it goes without saying that none of the Jew haters involved in the "Free Palestine" bullshit can even begin to discuss Israel-Gaza on the merits.
Sure, there are dipshits in both tribes.
Merits?? Let's be honest. None of this has anything to do with merits. It's simply an available, high profile media darling suing for the political theater points and an AIPAC supported Sec. of State playing to the other crowd.
Fair enough. But that still leaves a whole bunch of people afraid of other folks' opinions. And in the comments of a piece on free speech, no less. People are self-identifying as protectors of the First Amendment as long as you agree with them.
I think you are correct Matt. If the alien’s presence would compromise a compelling US foreign policy interest then that would be a reason other than his speech to deport him.
To put a finer point on it, it's not open to discussion whether the alien's presence would compromise a compelling US foreign policy interest; the law states that the SoS has executive powers to determine this. Just as the Attorney General has executive powers to determine what may or may not shared with Congress,e.g., in the case of the fired pardon attorney Oley. Prior to her testifying, the DOJ sent her a note stating some. limitations on her testimony. What Oley described as a "threat" was actually a reminder of her professional obligation per Tuohy ruling.
That is what the government is claiming.
Yeah like John Lennon’s support of the anti-Vietnam war in 1971 got him in hot water with the Nixon administration. Luckily he had the money and fame to beat it, but they finally got their man. The foreign policy for that war divided the country and was finally determined a sham. Eighteen year olds were allowed to vote and the establishment was afraid of Lennon’s influence on young folks, the ones being drafted. Yep, foreign policy matters….
A fun game is reading comments and making the quick call: were they attracted by the Twitter Files, or have they been here the whole time?
Was there Substack before the Twitter files? Hadn’t thought of that before.
I was referring to Matt's subscriber/reader population. He has been on multiple platforms, written many books, etc. (On the books--I love that there are readers here who accuse Matt of being a MAGA disciple. Apparently they've not read Matt's book Insane Clown President.)
The Twitter Files, which reflected negatively on both the Democrats and the Security State in general, attracted many Democrat-haters, who assumed Matt was one of them. Certainly has added a bit of flair to the comments!
Matt gets it from both tribes. D's call him a MAGA retard, and R's accuse him of not loving Israel enough. Which tells me he's doing something right, since we all know both tribes are thoroughly fucked.
Oh, I get it. First time was actually old eXile newspapers in Moscow. And then books, including the Clown President one. And Rolling Stone articles. Always reminded me of Hunter Thompson, which turned out to be no accident. I first heard Thompson on KCBS in the Bay Area, talking about the Hells Angels. Gonzo journalism is the label hung on that style.
The Govt by regulation cannot abridge a Constitutional right. That why its in the Constitution… to stop that very process.
In other words, according to the law, the Secy of State has executive powers to deem an alien's presence contrary to a compelling US foreign policy interest. Seems to me that this is what Khalil's case and others like it should turn on. all other details should be extraneous. Hopefully, the case will not be heard by yet another insufferable partisan judge. Will overruled petitioners have the right to appeal? If this went to the Supreme Court, would it be referred back to the legislative branch as only Congress has the authority to write laws?
That exception to the exception is WAY too subjective. It holds no weight - Rubio's slick metaphors and "examples" notwithstanding - and I'm sure the courts will point to that -in the FIRE LAWSUIT - even if it ends up going to a Conservative Supreme Court.
You could be right, but the point remains that this power has not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court yet. We'll see if it gets there. The statute's language is clear. Clearly you don't like it. I'm sure Khalil's attorneys are arguing that the power cannot be constitutional on the theory that the power can be wielded in an arbitrary and capricious way. That argument might work, but then, will that mean that Khalil has the burden of proof that the decision rendered in his particular case was arbitrary and capricious? If so, it could be a much higher hurdle than you might assume.
At the very beginning of this Khalil matter, Andrew McCarthy was in favor of the power granted to Rubio as Secretary of State, over the first amendment. I’ll find the podcast and link it below.
An alien has the right to free speech inasmuch as government may not infringe an inalienable right , a right that cannot be separated from one's personhood. However, as the law stands one may not depend on this right to defend against a decision by the SoS to cancel/deny their visa when the SoS has determined that one's speech/behavior constitutes a threat to American foreign policy interests. So, it's not that SoS has "power over the first amendment", but that he/she has executive powers to determine whether what is spoken constitutes a threat to American foreign policy interests. As I understand it, until this is no longer the law, discussing whether or not Khalil's speech and behavior are contrary to US foreign policy interests is important, but is currently beyond judicial reach. I believe that it's sufficient grounds to deport Khalil as he crossed the line beyond free speech when his speech and behavior incited threats to others and damage to property.
There is also the fact that what’s at stake is simply being sent back to his country. That is not a punishment. Non-resident aliens have a right to not be jailed for speech, but they don’t have the right to be here if they violate the terms of their visas.
Totally fair point, but I imagine this will be central to the legal arguments on appeal.
I agree.
Mostly anything Andrew McCarthy is for, I'm against. He's a never Trump Republican in sheep's clothing.
That might be true, but on the below podcast, McCarthy clearly supports deporting Khalil. He agrees with Trump. Listen to the podcast.
Thanks for the link but I don't even listen to all of the ATW podcasts. I have little respect for McCarthy, and was being snarky (is that even a word?). A broken analog clock is right twice a day, so McCarthy's agreement on this issue is meaningless to me.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-mccarthy-report/id1396508525?i=1000698940332
Oops, I just went to the link, but there are lots of episodes. Which one discusses the Khalil issue?
March 12th.
Number 292
Bummer, they only list the last 10 episodes and don't provide a way to go back farther. Just checked on spotify and the same thing happened.
Got it with this link: https://www.nationalreview.com/podcasts/the-mccarthy-report/the-khalil-controversy/
Thank you for the link!
Deporting someone is NOT infringement of their rights to anything. It’s not punishment. They don’t get to live here. Period.
Of course it’s punishment. It would force everyone to have to watch what they say or be forcibly removed, which is totally against the spirit of the First Amendment. Kind of shocked by this response.
Foreigners can be removed for scads of legal/constitutional reasons. Why would we want to make speech one of them?
Deporting someone is a consequence. Not a punishment. Lots of consequences for free speech out there.
The truth is that legally in most countries deportation proceedings are done administratively as opposed to in a criminal court, because violating the fundamental statutes of the nation vis a vie immigration precedes full legal protection by the constitution. This isn’t really a semantic issue at all, but really fundamentally about whether the constitution of the country is always applied to everyone on the planet regardless of national status, or only applies to citizens and residents of the country whose constitution is in question.
Thank you, Professor Semantics.
There is a discernible difference between the two.
There is, but you've blown the distinction quite badly.
The distinction is the meaning of citizenship itself. It is not “semantics”.
The meaning of citizenship itself is the distinction between consequence and punishment?
Interesting way to view citizenship. Hadn't thought of it that way before. I have no idea what it means, but it's new.
This is an incredibly dumb thing to say. If I am offended enough by what you just said, I might punch you in the head. That would be a 'consequence' of your speech, but my doing so would be a punishment. The distinction here is that a punishment is designed to make you regret doing something, while a consequence is a natural and inevitable outcome of an action. Deportation is not inevitable, obviously
Consequences are never natural nor inevitable. Most of the time there is none.
So you're a non-English speaker, then? Consequences are always natural: they are the next sequential thing caused by the previous thing. I drop my coffee mug; consequently, it hits the floor and breaks.
You appear to mean 'punishments' which are natural (because people are part of nature) but are not inevitable.
A result or effect of an action or condition. Consequences. Nothing natural about it.
Mr. Patterson, the only correct thing about your statement is that consequence and punishment are different. But, so are connotation and denotation. However, kicking someone out because of something they say is punishment.
Is having someone that espouseds vaccine hesitency, covid denial, lab leak stories deplatformed, frozen, etc, a punishment or consequence?
It's both but for different reasons. It's a punishment for crossing the people with the power to deplatform; it is a consequence of empowering people to deplatform in the first place.
You could win a Pulitzer for all I know. Consequences are not always negative. To that point, if I was asked to leave China because my views on not taking a vaccine were against the government, I’d be thanking them. That is the crux of the issue. Your opinion and its consequences are truly in the eye of the beholder.
If the non-citizen is using speech to incite riot, violence, or other illegal activity, they, like a citizen, are not protected by the First Amendment.
They can still have the right to free speech while they are subject to the penalties for the consequences of their speech. if they are found guilty of causing harm to another, they can speak freely on their way back to their home country or prison.
Show of hands here: who is in favor of the free speech argument who is not also in favor of the Palestinian cause and opposed to the Israeli cause in this fight?
Has the guy been charged with any of those crimes?
Don't need to be charged with a crime to revoke a visa. Just have to violate the terms of the visa.
Especially when the government is filled with pussies afraid of free speech for those with different views.
Khalil's views weren't just different. They incited behavior that threatened or harmed others.
Just a question: are you a supporter of the content of Khalil’s speech? Be honest, would you say the same thing if he was advocating for the massacre of Palestinians? On principle? I have never met or heard of anyone who makes the free speech argument who was not openly hostile to the Israeli cause in this fight. So where am I going to put my money with you?
Yeah, that must be it.🙄
Did he lie on his visa application? Or is that just a rumor?
I don't know the answer to that question. I believe that Rubio has claimed that he obtained a student visa for the purpose of raising hell on a college campus and promoting a foreign terrorist organization, not to study and obtain a degree in a field of study.
Thats the difference. The citizen cannot be deported, only charged with a crime. The alien can have his status revoked and be deported whether or not a local DA decides to charge him with a crime.
Freedom Lover questions free speech. Film at 11.
An important point.
Not yet. If they make the case stick in court (especially if they can show how he was funded), Khalili will wish he had been deported, because the alternative will be a long term in an uncomfortable Federal prison.
My advice is to not sit around waiting for the call about his conviction.
There’s always Mossad. Their power is infinite
Wrong. You absolutely have the right to incite illegal activity. For example: I encourage you to go purchase some cocaine and snort it. I'll think you are really cool if you do. Please go take cocaine. - report me to the cops for this, i dare you
🙄 Let's see if you can be even more ridiculous.
Yeah, that's what I thought. You and I both know you're full of shit when you try to pretend people don't have the right to say whatever they want.
Inciting riot or violence is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2101.
You should shut up now.
That's not really even the question as to whether or not it's punishment. The question is does the Sec of State have the authority to interpret what is and what is not a threat to security. Of course it will be abused and debated. But this lawsuit is going nowhere with its "first amendment " grounds.
the authority to determine what is and is not a threat to security has to rest somewhere; otherwise, we have chaos. where it resides is for our elected representatives to discuss, debate and decide. As it stands now, that authority resides with the SoS. So, judicially, this is not a free speech issue.
I believe Khalil's speech and behavior crossed the line when his speech incited behavior in others that infringed on the rights of others not to be threatened or have their property damaged. If there is evidence to support my belief that he was actively inciting illegal activities on the Columbia campus, this should be sufficient basis for deportation. A case comes to mind that may be relevant: a few years ago, a woman was found guilty and imprisoned when her speech to her suicidal boyfriend was declared by the court to have incited his subsequent suicide. We also have penalties for libel and slander when these cause harm or loss. I'm wondering if we may be in danger of losing sight of the truth that in civil society all rights come with responsibilities.
Then they should charge him with a crime. But they can't, because it doesn't appear to cross to incitement by the legal definition.
The government’s case is based on advocacy of terrorism and the discretion of the executive, not incitement. There could be multiple reasons for this. First, they may just want to get rid of him fast for the headlines and they are using this shortcut. Alternatively, a trial on advocacy has to be public and this might present diplomatic or national security issues. Specifically, if Qatari money is involved (where does a sad little marginalized person get $100K a year to desultorily study at Columbia?). Khalil is still at both immigration and legal jeopardy. All that has been ruled is that he is released from immigration detention.
On this you are correct. It would constitute a "chilling effect" on free expression which is illegal under the first amendment. But as I note in my longer comment these cases are not an attempt to chill speech but rather to remove those who are advocating and leading illegal conduct as well as activity clearly detrimental to the security of the United States. Students (which is what is largely involved) are supposed to come here to study not to lead anti-Western anti-Semitic organizations. They can do that in their home countries.
We have lost too many of the boundaries that protect civil society. While the dialogue continues about where these should be set, we nonetheless have to set them in real time. Otherwise, there is chaos. Parenting is a great example!
I will likely vote against any Republican that supports restricting the free speech rights of permanent residents, which the administration has alluded may be next.
I know people that are permanent residents and now don’t feel safe sharing what they believe on social media, or in public in general.
It is a chilling effect. Many of these folks have been here for decades.
Awful that both Trump and Rubio — who are both intimately tied to immigration — are creating this anxiety.
A future left-wing President could, for example, remove the visas from members of the pro-Cuban community.
Turning visas into tit-for-tat politics is one of the dumbest strategies I’ve ever seen.
Phooey. I was born here and I don’t feel safe anywhere expressing ANY opinion. Because any of my fellow residents can just haul off and shoot me where I stand.
An old American tradition!
Big difference between fear of your neighbors and fear of the government.
You can use self-defense against your neighbors.
I think they intend to take it further and threaten to target naturalized citizens. This sounds insane. To me, the main reason for this stupidity is that Trump again, as in his first term, didn’t select high quality advisers. His cabinet is not comprised of solid experienced, knowledgeable and reasonable administrators. They undermine everything we voted for. His personal qualities are well known, so the only hope was that his appointees would create a functional government. False hopes. Their methodology from DOGE to ICE, is faulty and has turned fighting for noble goals, eliminating fraud and abuse and removing illegal criminals, into clown shows. Clown shows resulting in legal mishaps. And incessant outrage on the left gleefully celebrating every failure of the administration is sure to affect brains of our impressionable public jeopardizing future GOP victories.
I don't think that's the issue. His advisors are fine - in Trump's case, loyalty trumps competence because you at least need people rowing in the right direction.
Tone comes from the top. Anti-illegal immigration is morphing into anti-immigration, and it is Trumps duty to keep that focus. This is more on Rubio than ICE, and Rubio hasn't been a radical on this issue before, but odds are is trying to please Trump -- likely because he is competing for his support when he runs for the presidential nomination in 2028 against Vance.
What naturalized citizens do you think they want to “target?” Fears are not credibility or evidence. People are peeing down their legs all over the place, mostly, I think, because they can’t accept that other Americans are in charge now through democratic means, and their values are very different. They don’t get to have it their way as they have become accustomed to.
> I will likely vote against any Republican that supports restricting the free
> speech rights of permanent residents, which the administration has alluded
> may be next.
perhaps you can contemplate the VICIOUS WAR the administrationS have waged on the medical speech, on political speech, on religious speech of CITIZENS oh these past oh 5-8 years? Seems our gov't murdered MLK because the gov't decided it didn't like HIS free speech and he was even a full citizen, and not just 5/8ths of one. Funny how that happens.
Free Speech is an aspirational goal of those who believe mankind is capable of good. Here's a tip. Mankind and Gov't in particular is EVIL to its core., It is not the least bit concerned with it's supposed handcuffs.
This case is nothing more than trying to shield bad actors (who committed fraud no less) by wrapping them in the Apple Pie of American "free speech" ideals. It is an utterly dishonest campaign and transparently so.
Sure, if this was a polite society and gov't stayed in its lane, could we be magnanimous to agitators trying to stir up trouble? To a point, sure. But even good men can have their patience tested to the point where enough is simply enough.
Heck, here's a very simple example. Crying baby in a room/church/airplane. How annoyed, even angry do you get with the parent for not removing their child promptly or shutting it up? Is the airline within its rights to move the offender to the back of the plane so the 130 other people are bothered less? Damn right they are.
Free speech and tolerating counter views that are presented in a courteous or polite manner is one thing. Agitators disrupting society and being obnoxious to the extreme is NOT protected by free speech. Cross the line and it's high time to take out the trash.
Even ignoring the visa fraud, the gov't action is simply taking out the trash.. He should be glad we don't just shoot, shovel and shut up.
If there are non-citizens who are dissuaded from stating their (presumably legal) views, that's just because they are scaredy cats. If their statement is legit and not designed to incite unrest, you have nothing to fear. Even the endless power of the USG doesn't have time to go after every gnat on the elephant's ass.
"Agitators disrupting society and being obnoxious to the extreme is NOT protected by free speech"
If there's a crime, that's a different story. But agitation is part of persuasive speech. The only speech that needs protection is that which bothers people.
Had Biden used this, he would have been rounding up any visa holders that posted support for the J6ers, or for Russia.
This is a game we shouldn't play. Plus it undermines free speech as a valued concept once we start issuing caveats.
This is wrong. Free speech is, and has always been, limited in its relationship to other rights and separation of powers. We see today what your position comes to: a get-out-of-jail-free card. We need that like a hole in the head. Most Americans understand that. Have you forgotten the large-scale abuses the Biden Administration committed on this score? I’d rather rely on Trump voters to defend my free-speech rights than a bunch of self-appointed experts who have just now shown up at the party to defend miscreants who have brought a foreign conflict to our shores and harmed American citizens.
If he is charged with a crime, he can be punished and must have a trial. He does not need to be charged with a crime to be deported for immigration reasons. Completely separate jurisdiction. In his case, he is being charged with lying on his residency application, which is a deportable offense. Your idiosyncratic beliefs about agitation and persuasive speech are irrelevant in this case, and also have nothing to do with the law.
"perhaps you can contemplate the VICIOUS WAR the administrations have waged on the medical speech, on political speech, on religious speech of CITIZENS oh these past oh 5-8 years?"
BTW, I don't intend on voting for anyone that supports curtailing that speech either.
Because you ARE supposed to watch what you say. Have you been in an immigration hearing? The one I went through with my wife (before she later got her Green Card pulled for, arguably, a speech issue) was tense precisely because the guy could just reject us for any reason he wanted. He claimed our marriage is fake. Could we just say "f*** you"? Of course not, because that would have been the end of things right there, freedom of speech or not.
because it is OUR country and they are GUESTS. Today it's whining about "speech". Tomorrow it's "I stubbed my toe, or I gave birth so I can't be thrown out". Yes, you CAN and we WILL. Get the F out of our country. Don't like something and want to mouth off, do it from your own damn country.
When and IF we allow you to become a citizen, THEN and ONLY then can you enjoy 1st Amendment privilege of mouthing off and not incur "punishment".
Nothing in the Constitution supports that view.
Arguing with that nonsense is below you Mr. Taibbi. Allow your minions to explain to the wall, if that's possible, why this matters. Or, just the commenters have at them. You can't argue with water about being wet. It just is. And it just does. You are the 1A purest we all desperately need.
You won't win this argument. I've had it with people repeatedly. They can't see the obvious. Just like the Patriot Act, every little thing like this that is purported to be aimed at outsiders is turned inward. You are right that we have a vested interest in protecting the speech of resident aliens in order to protect our own speech. Even if there is a loophole, exercising it should be condemned.
Sorry, your personal opinion of the “spirit” of the First Amendment means nothing when it comes to the actual law.
The spirit means everything if you don't want to see speech rights nibbled around the edges. What becomes possible, becomes probable.
This is merely an assertion. It is tall talk. The Trump supporters have been far more vigilant and far more effective addressing concrete free speech problems (media management, engineered cancellations) than those who are trying to apply culturally idiosyncratic opinions about free speech to what is concretely a question of advocacy for a registered terrorist organization.
You do not want to give the government any loopholes to infringe on speech. Period. Have you all learned nothing from the Patriot Act and terrorism laws and how every damn thing they say "oh, it's foreigners, and they don't have rights here" ends up being turned on citizens.
This is not a loophole on speech. It is a law enforcement action on a specific person’s behavior. Did you raise a peep when the last(non-Trump) administration pressured and managed the media against “misinformation” , drove dissenters out of their careers, and incited and permitted local government to punish people for their opinions of Covid vaccination, gender issues, and other protected speech? If you didn’t, your opinion is just wind.
Yes, actually I did do all that, every stinking bit of it. And if you did all that but can’t find it in yourself to condemn this and see it as a dangerous infringement, as you so eloquently said, your opinion is just wind.
If it were truly a speech issue, I’d agree, but it isn’t.
So you've decided to enter a different plea having figured out that the last one didn't work?
Yes, it's a free speech and civil rights issue, just like all the other things you accused me of not trying to bring to people's attention.
Citizens have rights that non-resident foreigners do not. The government is not permitted to jail foreigners for speech, to protect citizens. But the government can deport them by any process that Congress chooses to specify. This is not punishment, because those said foreigners, unlike citizens, have no fundamental right to be here, and are simply being returned to the place of jurisdiction that they always belonged to. If this confuses you, I would say that you don’t understand the meaning of citizenship.
I completely disagree, having one set of rules for citizens and a different set of rules for noncitizens is not a “slippery slope”. If you want the wide protections and individual rights of a citizen then go thru the rigorous process of becoming a citizen. If not, then stay where you are a citizen or accept the more limited rights afforded to you as a guest.
I’d like to add to Jayhawk, if we fully extend First Amendment protections to all non-citizens without limitation, what safeguards remain against foreign adversaries like China or Iran deliberately sending operatives into the U.S. to orchestrate mass protests, manipulate public discourse, and sow domestic unrest? Are we truly prepared to interpret the Constitution in a way that could enable hostile regimes to exploit our freedoms as a weapon against us when the solution is merely sending them back to their home country.
This is EXACTLY the game they are playing. We will be destroyed by our own short-signed virtue signaling about egalitarian niceties. This country is in such a mess BECAUSE we refuse to make very clear distinctions between citizen and non. Other countries don't have this "liberal" myopia. I lived 20 years in Japan. Went to Japanese public school K-9. Do you know how long I'd be allowed to stay in the country if I started a ruckus? 90 seconds. Eviction is a NECESSARY counter-balance to lawlessness. Without eviction, without penalties, there are no "rights" to protect. If you don't jail/kill murderers, then life has no value by definition no matter how much bleating in the media about the sanctity of life or being secure in one's home.
Absolutely. All civil society requires agreed upon boundaries. These can be debated, but in real time they must be operant.
I spent 5 years in Japan. I understand.
We are losing sight of the truth that all rights, whether inalienable or granted, come with responsibilities. So, the issue is, When exercising your right to free speech, did you cause harm to anyone? Isn't this the basis for libel and slander laws?
You are right. The slippery slope works the exact opposite way. Now you have an entire political party essentially insisting that there is no legal right to determine who can and cant be in this country. Many in that party want non citizens to be able to vote. That's a long way from where we used to be not that long ago. There must always be a distinction between citizens and aliens legal or otherwise. And immigration policy should and must be geared towards the best interests of the United States.
Is there still a "united" States? Or have our enemies, within and without, so divided us that there is no nation to speak of; only allegiances to one of two political parties. As there is no longer a sense of commonality, nationhood, there can be no appeal to common sense, to shared values. Just endless sparring among the serfs while the powerful view the spectacle and eggs us on.
I dont believe this is true for the vast majority that lives their lives in the real world and not online.
Green card holders can vote. People here on student visas and the like, cannot.
No they cant.
I mean, they CAN, but it's fraudulent and illegal. They may not vote.
Well yeah technically you are correct.
It's an important distinction because all of these social issues (and matters of law generally) are not can but should/may questions.
That was my initial thought, but then thought about other 1A protections…could the gov prohibit the free exercise of religion for non-citizens? What about foreign journalists in the press? The rights of immigrants to assemble?
I think the answer to these proves the rule.
The first amendment applies to anyone here legally. But the facts in this case aren't really about the first amendment. That's just what the plaintiffs are trying to prove. As Matt notes, there are other reasons to deport these people and that is what the government is actually doing.
Yes! The first amendment argument is a red herring.
Worrying about the 1A rights of illegal aliens is a waste of time. Just deport them.
Yes, we can restrict the rights of those who choose to be our guests in any way we wish, if we think it serves our national interest. If a person does not like the rights/benefits afforded to them as a guest, then they can stay where they are.
Does the free exercise of religion include female circumcision? Then yes, it absolutely can be regulated. The same way I have to do a background check to purchase a gun. The Bill of Rights isn't a blank check.
Let's not overlook the salient point: the issue is about the consequences of one's speech, not free speech per se. we have many laws about penalties, consequences when one's speech has harmed another. someone once said, Your free speech ends where my nose begins.
But inalienable rights are rights we have that no government can take away.
The inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The rest of them are Constitutional rights, which can be changed.
Khalil should have been prosecuted for the kidnapping of the janitor perhaps as a conspiracy and/or violating the civil rights of jewish students at Columbia. He has been consistently undercharged and the University and the Manhattan DA have allowed him to break laws without consequence at all.
He committed numerous crimes but what is being missed is that he doesn't have to be charged for his acts to be grounds for his deportation. It is a lie that he is being deported because of his speech.
True, that
Conspiracy to detain janitors? Are you for real?
Yes when you conspire with others to damage a building and kidnap employees you can be charged with conspiracy.
He acted as a negotiator for a clearly illegal activity
Yet he and his fellow agitators did break the law, its just Alvin Bragg let them slide.
And in fact if it can be proven that a org funded by Soros funded them that could be a link to a conspiracy
It happened. Even the NYT reported it!
Absolutely, Al! Why is this so overlooked in the miasma of red herrings, to coin a metaphor malaprop.
I appreciate the clarification and let me just say that I support any amendment or legislation that seeks to change the law so that the Constitution applies only to those with American citizenship.
Study Roman history. Citizenship was diluted there as well. Turned out kinda shitty as I recall.
Not disputing your statement - it’s not one of the issues plaguing the Roman Empire that left a lasting effect on me…
They were also imperialistic - and maintaining armies ain’t cheap. They also resorted to currency depreciation (inflation) to prolong economic inevitability. But there’s a reason every educated human being has been exposed to Roman History… they were absolutely remarkable. I went to Rome as a young adult and I think the aqueducts may be the most impressive engineering feat in human history - certainly the most valuable to the general populace - and Power to The People.
In my view, America’s enduring legacy will be that this was the first nation-state to be established where Power comes from the consent of the governed (allegedly, but still codified). It’s why Thomas Paine’s introduction to “Common Sense” is so powerful to me today - the cause of America is the cause of all mankind - if we don’t keep our government in check and maintain an America where Power is derived from the consent of the governed humanity loses…
Orwell says, “if you want a vision of the future imagine a boot stomping a human face, forever.” We cannot fail, humanity depends upon us. Also, there’s nowhere left to run. Only places to hide…
Indeed- and to your point, imperialism is what incentivized them to allow more people from further away obtain citizenship and the benefits of citizenship. More citizens = bigger armies = more conquest etc. Roman citizenship came with a significantly reduced financial burden to the state, and offered more benefits. Dilution of the rights of citizens in order to afford them to non citizens has implications for longevity from a fiscal perspective.
"They were also imperialistic - and maintaining armies ain’t cheap. They also resorted to currency depreciation (inflation) to prolong economic inevitability"
🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶🥶
Why is that not clear to everyone?
Because “history is boring”? Idk.
We could still honor the first amendment for everyone on the planet as long as we had clear penalties for the consequences of that speech, e.g., libel and slander, and inciting to riot. the plaintiffs are inserting IA as a distraction from settled law and custom.
Sure, the fall of the Roman Empire was definitely caused by the damn immigrants!
And good luck with that Constitutional
Convention.
You have heard of the Barbarians?
The constitution applies to actions of the government, not to the individual. The US government can’t act to deprive anyone of a constitutional right. This protects citizens above all because the government can’t build a repressive apparatus and claim it’s legal because it’s just for foreigners.
You may be conflating aliens and illegal aliens. Although he had both a green card and a visa there are issues. First the green card while nice is totally dependent upon the validity of the visa. The visa is a student visa. He studied at Columbia but graduated and studied no more. The visa fails making him an illegal.
Thanks, Thomas. That helps.
He is married to a US citizen.
Legal status is not automatic after marriage. Gotta file your paperwork timely!
The process can be grueling if they think your marriage is one of convenience. It takes time. How did he get his green card so quickly, I wonder?
True, and he apparently did so.
The Supreme Court has said that you immigration status is determined independently of whom you marry.
I appreciate that this is a difficult question, and difficult questions typically don't have clean answers. That whichever side of them you end up on, you should understand that there are also valid arguments for the other side, and that on balance you have decided to go one way or the other, but that that doesn't make it clear cut. I feel that Matt makes very valid points on this issue, but also that he has blind spots, which make him too comfortable in his position.
In particular, I feel that one aspect of this that Matt isn't able to fully appreciate is that the behavior in question is not only speech. The individuals involved have (as far as I can tell, but I could be wrong) all been organizers of violent (to greater or lesser degrees) demonstrations that have resulted in assaults on other students, and infringements on the rights of those students. If you were Jewish, you weren't allowed to go to certain areas of campus, including sometimes the library. And you could be beaten up at any time. And classes in general were suspended in some places. This wasn't just objecting to someone speaking, or writing editorials in a student newspaper. There was action too.
Even with citizens, while we are extremely permissive when it comes to speech, even inciteful speech, we have also distinguished that from activity that infringes on other people's rights. We have no problem saying that people are free to picket some location, be it an abortion clinic or a factory, but they are not free to prevent others from crossing the picket line. With the abortion demonstrators we go even further, and don't even allow the protest to take place in the immediate vicinity of clinics, even if the protesters in no way impede access. We similarly don't allow demonstrations outside of abortionists' private homes, as that is considered harassment. My point here is that even with seemingly absolute rights, those rights can be curbed if they are mixed with illegal behavior of some sort. Engaging in the speech does not somehow magically sanctify the problematic behavior.
While I too am somewhat uncomfortable with our actions here, I also think that the fundamental question that Trump is asking is quite valid: why are we letting a bunch of foreigners shut down our universities and harass Americans, especially when they're here on student visas, and shutting down universities would seem contrary to the point of those? I strongly suspect that if these people had confined themselves to just making speeches and writing newspaper articles, then no-one would have bothered them.
And secondarily, I think it's perfectly proper to explore how the rights of aliens differ from the rights of citizens. This isn't a slippery slope. It's just lazy to say that there are no differences. Yes, aliens enjoy the same basic rights as citizens, but when push comes to shove, they're a separate class that has inferior rights, even if it isn't clear what the distinction is. And importantly, no alien, even a lawful permanent resident, has an unqualified right to be in a country. Guests can always be asked to leave. I did most of my growing up outside of the US, and was acutely aware of being in someone else's country, and that certain things were off limits for me, even though I was a permanent resident. I knew that I was a guest there. I suspect that Matt felt similarly during his time in Russia.
Excellent, Emmanuel. thank you. Holding one responsibile for the consequences of their speech is not a limitation of their free speech. As an inalienable right, it cannot be separated from our personhood. Nor can it be relieved of the responsibility required for a civil society to endure.
A diplomat can be declared persona non grata and instantly deported. Happens all the time.
The issue with Mahmoud K is I think that’s in order for him to come here in the first place on a student visa, he had to swear that he was not a member of a terrorist group, nor would he enounce support for a U.S.- government designated terrorist group, or encourage others to do so. Mahmoud K clearly did both.
His organization CUAD celebrated Oct 7 and Hamas terrorism both originally in October 2023 and again at the one-year anniversary in October 2024, and in the seizure of the Barnard College building that he led in March 2025, which distributed a pamphlet praising Yahyah Sinwar and Sinwar’s slaughtering of Jews.
Another aspect here: Mahmoud K was taken off by ICE agents just two days after he led the CUAD seizure of the library building on the Barnard campus.
That may be true for aliens here legally. It doesn’t appear that they have any rights if they’re here illegally.
Dave
They have Habeas rights.
Disagree, in that due process does not apply to deportation if you entered illegally or overstayed.
FIRE is completely right. Constitution applies to all legal residents, not just citizens.
FIRE's IA argument is a red herring. Khalil lied on his visa application, overstayed as no longer a student, and incited others to harm others. We have penalties for speaking in a way that harms others: libel, slander, incitement to riot.
For criminal matters. Nott immigration.
True. The LEGAL part of resident is up for debate
legal or illegal. He broke the law, caused other to harm others.
In other words, it's not a first amendment case.
It may be, it may not be. The country needs this case.
The confusion here seems to be that people think the constitution “grants” rights. It is a limit on the power of the government.
Correct, 09dale. And the Constitution ascribes to the legislature to create the laws that protect those rights. Important to remember that it's to protect the rights for all persons. As someone once said,"Your rights end where my nose begins." so, you could still bring your IA rights with you to prison ...or to the hospital, or back to your home country.
The Declaration correctly observes that natural rights are held by humans because they are humans; they are not granted by states.
Islamists in Arabia, for instance, or anarchists in Latin America, have the natural right to speak freely, and no legitimate government can infringe that right and remain legitimate. Not the government of the United States, nor of Saudi Arabia, nor of Venezuela.
But states do have the power, and rightly so, to allow or forbid humans outside its territory to enter that territory. To deny that is to deny statehood.
States also have the right and the responsibility to provide penalties for the consequences of speech that causes harm to others. It all comes down to setting boundaries. This is where we have been on the slippery slope for decades.
Still, if we’ve been there for decades, is it really all that slippery?
Your conclusion seems a stretch... Society has to allow foreigners the same rights as citizens or no one is entitled to rights? Really??
The justification for the First Amendment is that government, inherently, has no authority over speech. People can and will think and speak freely. If we change that up and say the state suddenly has authority over the speech of legal residents, we’re putting government in the speech business. Instantly our system devolves to a British or Canadian or French concept. Do you want that, or do you want the absolute rights we’ve always had?
I want the absolute rights we’ve always had.
Jesus Christ, I am astonished by the number of people afraid of free speech.
You are not distinguishing free speech from hate speech. Each has a legal definition and consequences result from hate. It doesn’t mean the 1st amendment is perfect or sacrosanct. It wasn’t written by God or stress tested in various situations, like it is being tested right now. The Supreme Court can add clarity, like free speech turns into hate speech when it is systemic, aligns with illegal entities (terrorist organizations) that use the same language, and incitement that results in violating another citizens civil rights.
1. The First Amendment has been stress tested forever. Matt gives clear examples.
2. Correct, not written by God,
Because our founding fathers wanted God as far away from laws as possible.
3. Move to the EU or UK if you want your speech limited. Don’t try to limit others’ free speech here.
I don’t recall saying anything about limiting free speech, so you’re clearly misinterpreting what I’m writing. The Supreme Court does make a clear “legal” distinction what constitutes free speech and what constitutes hate speech with intent to aid a foreign terrorist organization and to cause harm to a protected minority group of U.S. citizens. Under that legal definition, I am arguing that what Khalil engaged in was not free speech.
You wish to decide what is hate speech (not allowed!!) and what is OK. That's limiting free speech, with a capital L.
Lots of people in the EU who would welcome a brother in arms who also wishes to censor, based on some nebulous definition of what you think hate speech is. Rosie and DeGeneres say Ireland and UK are great!
That's expressly not true. The government exercises speech control in many instances. Just try saying something deemed detrimental to national security and watch how fast you're detained.
Hell I was 10 years old and got harassed by a postal inspector for writing the words 'nuclear proliferation' on the outside of an envelope. This being during the Carter administration.
The National Security Act of 1947 pretty much put paid to 1A protections.
Who's the We you are talking about...??? Does this apply to all the other rights or just the first amendment because it's special? I get the nostalgic throwback zealotry for freedom of speech but you're twisting yourself into knots and making comparisons that don't seem logical... Maybe I'm just not smart enough...
> Maybe I'm just not smart enough..
you didn't go to college. There they use 20 dollar words to teach you to stand on your head and tell the rest of the world its they whom are upside down.
Jefferson originally described our rights as "unalienable", but later changed this to "inalienable". Important distinction. the briliance of the American Constitution is that it elevated man as never before in history, per our birth-rights, the inalienable rights that attend personhood. As someone once said, "You could die with your rights on". Without agreement about the responsibilities that accompany every right, we would have chaos, the opposite of civil society. Here is where we are beginning to fail as a civil society.
Matt, I am wondering - do you think that the USG should be able to deny a visa application solely on speech grounds?
The “ absolute rights” thing has always made me uneasy. Sometimes this belief goes against all common sense survival instincts.
Thank you! This is the brilliance of "endowed by our Creator". Such rights are beyond the reach of mere men. They are ours inherently, citizen or not.