Sorry you are unaware but the constitution protects every human being on U.S. land. Not just citizens. It’s the supreme law of the land. Where did you get the idea that it doesn’t apply to non citizens???
Visas can be revoked for any reason.
It's absurd how outraged you people are pretending to be about Hamas activists getting their visas revoked.
Should the US revoke visas for all pro-Netanyahu Israelis? He's a wanted war criminal.
They have both of those rights, the one right they do not have is the right to remain here.
Again, these people are not being charged with a crime, there is no trial to be had. They had a temporary pass to be here, and that pass is no longer valid.
It's odd that you think non-citizens have some basic rights like rights to a fair trial, and rights to privacy. But other basic rights like freedom of speech are restricted. If you can have your visa ripped up for expressing your opinions, then that person doesn't have freedom of speech.
And once they start ripping visas up for arbitrary reasons, they start ripping up green cards, then naturalized citizenships, then dual citizens, and finally - you.
They have freedom of speech in the same way I have freedom of speech while in my neighbor's house. I can insult my neighbor if I like, but I must first consider that I might no longer be allowed in his house if I do that.
If I am arrested for not leaving his house, it's not because of what I said. It is because I refused to leave when asked and became a trespasser.
I am free to say whatever I want about my neighbor in my own house or on the public sidewalk, but he has every right to not let me in his home. This does not volatile my freedom of speech.
It's odd that you think non-citizens have some basic rights like rights to a fair trial, and rights to privacy. But other basic rights like freedom of speech are restricted. If you can have your visa ripped up for expressing your opinions, then that person doesn't have freedom of speech.
And once they start ripping visas up for arbitrary reasons, they start ripping up green cards, then naturalized citizenships, then dual citizens, and finally - you.
They have freedom of speech in the same way I have freedom of speech while in my neighbor's house. I can insult my neighbor if I like, but I must first consider that I might no longer be allowed in his house if I do that.
If I am arrested for not leaving his house, it's not because of what I said. It is because I refused to leave when asked and became a trespasser.
I am free to say whatever I want about my neighbor in my own house or on the public sidewalk, but he has every right to not let me in his home. This does not volatile my freedom of speech.
I understand your weak analogy.
It's just a very long winded way of saying non-citizens do not have any freedom of speech.
They have freedom of speech in the same way I have freedom of speech while in my neighbor's house. I can insult my neighbor if I like, but I must first consider that I might no longer be allowed in his house if I do that.
If I am arrested for not leaving his house, it's not because of what I said. It is because I refused to leave when asked and became a trespasser.
I am free to say whatever I want about my neighbor in my own house or on the public sidewalk, but he has every right to not let me in his home. This does not volatile my freedom of speech.
I understand your weak analogy.
It's just a very long winded way of saying non-citizens do not have any freedom of speech.
They have freedom of speech. They just do not have the right to come into or remain in the U.S. indefinitely, as that is something that only belongs to citizens. I don't see any conflict in these statements.
I know you think you are being clever here, but there is no contradiction.
The U.S. has the best free speech protections in the world. This is an objective fact. Deny the holocaust, advocate for another holocaust, be a white supremacist, anything you can think of. The government cannot put you in prison. The same cannot be said for anywhere in Europe.
At the same time, student visas are a privilege. It is like a guest being in your home. They can be canceled because someone smells bad, they died their hair a color we don't like, or just because we feel like it. Same for kicking someone out of my house. They have no right to be there in the first place, so their rights are not being violated by being forced to leave. Citizens, on the other hand, do have a right to be here. Just like say, my child, has a right to be in my house. I can not kick them out just because I am angry at them.
You seem to think there is some kind of "hypocrisy trap" you have caught me in here, but there isn't. Citizens of the USA have the best free speech protections in the world, but if you come here as a tax payer funded guest, your trip can be cut short for any reason we deem fit.
In Finland and plenty of other countries they have free speech. That is not exclusively American and never has been. Also should we be bragging about not restricting white supremacists? They spread ideas that cause shootings and other terrorist attacks.
They can be cancelled for reasons but not for no reason. There is also procedures and the person can appeal.
Again not for no reason. They have a right to due process especially since that is what we tell them. They also spend quite a bit of money on college here so just pulling the rug out from under them is fairly rude.
NEARLY 30 cops armed with Tasers smashed their way into a Quaker meeting house and arrested six young women who they suspected of planning a protest. The doors at the Westminster branch of the reli…
It's just a very long winded way of saying non-citizens do not have any freedom of speech.
They have freedom of speech. They just do not have the right to come into or remain in the U.S. indefinitely, as that is something that only belongs to citizens. I don't see any conflict in these statements.
It's worth noting that no one who's actually been responsible with these recent deportations for speech acts has been willing to defend their actions in such simplistic terms, and none has suggested that there should not be due process when depriving someone who was granted lawful residency in the US (and especially anyone who passed the rigorous vetting process required to get a Green Card) of something they deeply value.
Rubio himself has stuck to the claim that people are being deported not on a whim and not simply for being "rude guests"; he claims they have done things to actually harm the country and its interests. He's not keen to have his accusations tested via due process, but that he feels the need to make such accusations is telling and important. And, thus far, of course, the US courts don't think all of this is a simple matter of legal non-citizen residents being "guests" who can be removed from the country for ANY reason.
Finally, while the US has a history of summarily depriving non-citizen residents of their rights under the Constitution, this has not happened on the basis of mere speech acts or legal associations for a very long time (though, notably, even suspected Nazi collaborators were granted due process before being removed).
Does the fact that it is happening again in 2025 not concern you? Is the country's security situation so dire and fragile (as in, e.g., the 1940s) that this sort of thing is required or justifiable?
Would you be comfortable seeing this phenomenon continue under different political leadership in the future? For instance, were a future Democratic (or other) President to decide to seriously pursue a "two state" solution in Israel/Palestine, would you be comfortable with his/her Sec of State moving to deport Zionist/"Greater Israel" proponents for their speech acts in defense of this position?
Were deporting legal non-citizen residents for mere "rudeness" to become a routine practice in the US, would you not worry that the its global reputation would be irreparably harmed?
From top to bottom, the general tone of the GOP and its supporters in discussing this issue is flippant and profoundly, dangerously, unserious.
This post was edited 11 minutes after it was posted.
I know you think you are being clever here, but there is no contradiction.
The U.S. has the best free speech protections in the world. This is an objective fact. Deny the holocaust, advocate for another holocaust, be a white supremacist, anything you can think of. The government cannot put you in prison. The same cannot be said for anywhere in Europe.
At the same time, student visas are a privilege. It is like a guest being in your home. They can be canceled because someone smells bad, they died their hair a color we don't like, or just because we feel like it. Same for kicking someone out of my house. They have no right to be there in the first place, so their rights are not being violated by being forced to leave. Citizens, on the other hand, do have a right to be here. Just like say, my child, has a right to be in my house. I can not kick them out just because I am angry at them.
You seem to think there is some kind of "hypocrisy trap" you have caught me in here, but there isn't. Citizens of the USA have the best free speech protections in the world, but if you come here as a tax payer funded guest, your trip can be cut short for any reason we deem fit.
In Finland and plenty of other countries they have free speech. That is not exclusively American and never has been. Also should we be bragging about not restricting white supremacists? They spread ideas that cause shootings and other terrorist attacks.
They can be cancelled for reasons but not for no reason. There is also procedures and the person can appeal.
Again not for no reason. They have a right to due process especially since that is what we tell them. They also spend quite a bit of money on college here so just pulling the rug out from under them is fairly rude.
That is simply not true. Here is quote directly pulled from the Finish Police's website:
"The Criminal Code of Finland limits the freedom of speech by stating that acts like defamation and ethnic agitation are punishable offences. Therefore, if these crimes are motivated by hate, they can also be hate crimes. Combating and investigating crimes like these is the duty of the police"
I brag about not restricting white supremacists because that is the definition of free speech, not because I agree with what they say.
A non citizen does not have a right to a visa. Period. There is no due process, unless you are trying to appeal to some International law nonsense that we are under no obligation to follow. The secretary of state decides who gets a visa and who doesn't, there is no right to a trial or right to an appeal.
A non citizen does not have a right to a visa. Period. There is no due process, unless you are trying to appeal to some International law nonsense that we are under no obligation to follow. The secretary of state decides who gets a visa and who doesn't, there is no right to a trial or right to an appeal.
Nobody is debating this. What we're debating is whether the Secretary of State removing visas for speech that displeases him is justified and whether it constitutes a restriction in freedom of speech (it does).
Marco Rubio could just have easily have removed visas from Black non-citizens and bluntly said he doesn't want black people in America. Legally he can remove visas from anyone for any reason. But you can't say it's not racism because a non-citizen doesn't have a right to a visa.
Practicing First Amendment lawyer here. Just a few points:
1) There is absolutely no reasonable argument that any other country has broader protection for freedom of speech than the US. When people say otherwise, they're engaged in semantic sleight of hand. For instance, because "freedom of speech" is widely understood to be a good thing, people will argue that certain restrictions on speech actually have the effect of promoting "free speech values." Or they might argue that they're correcting distortions in the "marketplace of ideas" (by analogizing to antitrust). Or they might argue that certain ideas have been deemed so categorically harmful that there is no longer a reason to allow them to be exchanged. Whatever the merits of these arguments, they are, at bottom, arguing that it's better to have less freedom of speech than the U.S. has.
2) The interplay between the First Amendment and immigration law is extremely underdeveloped in U.S. law. There is no question that aliens generally have First Amendment rights. That's been settled for a long time. There's also no question that someone can be denied entry into the U.S. based on their protected speech. The unsettled area is whether people can be deported based on speech that would be otherwise protected. Anyone who tells you the answer to this is obvious is not someone you should pay attention to. Analogizing aliens to guests in a private home is not a legal argument, however superficial the appeal might be. I'm not an expert in this area, and I don't pretend to be. Even the experts say it's tricky.
3) Even if revocation of lawful status (whether a visa or LPR) could be premised on an individual's protected speech, consistent with the First Amendment, we don't even reach that question unless the executive has statutory authority to do so. Congress makes the rules, and while the President has a lot of latitude in how to implement them, he doesn't get to just ignore the rules.
4) Finally, even if non-citizens can lose immigration status on the basis of their speech, they are still entitled to due process. There's no colorable argument that due process is only for citizens. The government would have to prove to a neutral arbiter that the speech at issue met whatever the applicable statutory standard is before someone could lose their lawful status.
If i stood on a busy corner in Central Park and started preaching that the white man was evil and there should be a holy war against America. Would I be able to rant about free speech when I get arrested?
Absolutely, that’s the beauty of the first amendment. The KKK and other white supremacist groups do it all the time and never were arrested. It’s only under this administration that they are arresting people for speaking out against Israel.
Pro Palestinian protesters were being arrested under the last administration as well. Even at the Democratic Convention in Chicago.
Both sides have divided us all. Divide and conquer.
" For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter. "
" For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter. "
- George Washington
technically george tried to join the british army first but they wouldnt give him a position of high enough rank
" For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter. "
- George Washington
technically george tried to join the british army first but they wouldnt give him a position of high enough rank
It only explained part of his reason for splitting with the British. Clearly they made a grave error in his abilities and so what if that's what fueled him anyway. Everyone in the colonies were tired of being taken advantaged of. During the revolution he fought on the front lines being shot at by British soldiers. The current US president dodged the draft. The two men in practice and in philosophy could not be any more different.
