IMPORTANT - this subreddit is in restricted mode as dictated by the admins. This means all posts have to be manually approved. If your post is within the following rules and still hasn't been approved in reasonable time, please send us a modmail with a link to your post.
Reddit Meta Rules - no username mentions, crossposts or subreddit mentions, discussing reddit specific censorship, mod or admin action - this includes bans, removals or any other reddit activity, by order of the admins
Subreddit specific rules - no offtopic/spam
if posting a video, please include a TL\;DW of the content and how it relates to censorship, per Rule 6. thank you:
Of course visa holders have freedom of speech. But they don’t have the right to stay in the United States if they are deemed a threat. Come here in a visa and organize riots and you should be deported. Two things are true at the same time.
Wasn't it the Nazis that organized riots to "oppose" "the Jews". We're the ones saying that people who want to do that and are on a visa shouldn't be here. We have enough idiots in our country, we don't need to import more of them.
There is no right to be in the United States for non-citizens. This is not about opinions but organizing and facilitating violent protests. So you love foreign violent protestors. Get it.
Even if it were organizing non-violent protests. Nobody has a right to do anything outside the scope of their visa. I studied in a country that would allow you to work at a restaurant that sold alcohol, but you couldn’t work at a bar that didn’t sell food. One of my friends worked at a bar and he didn’t share that with anyone he didn’t know well because he knew the government had every right to remove him if they found out.
The government gave these people a visa to go to school, not to protest, no matter how just they think it is.
All of what you're saying can be true about the protestors, but they're not using due process, so we have no idea what can be proven. This is how innocents wind up in El Salvador.
Edit: Lol this bot blocked me what a snowflake. At least have the courage to say green cards don't deserve due process like the other conservatives here.
Yeh....Joe Biden let millions in so that's not going to happen. We can take millions out the exact same way that they came in. There's no other way to fix what they created, so get it done.
How exactly is pointing out the extreme hypocrisy on display any of what you say? Obama threw three million people out of the country and virtually zero ever saw a judge or the inside of a court room. Ice picked them up and threw them out. Period. That was the due process.
So pointing out the hypocrisy of pretending what Trump is doing is any different than what Bush, Obama and Biden did is something you feel is worthy of ridicule and insults?
The idiots who are pretending this is different, like yourself, are definitely deserving of ridicule for their idiocy, and according to one of your masters, Alinsky, ridicule is one of the most powerful weapons a political activist or communist can wield.
The deportations under Trump are just as valid as the deportations under Bush, Obama and Biden there big brain.
Thanks for the liberal holler than thou, ivory tower talking down to, it's what all the idiot liberal assholes do to emphasize their extreme narcissism.
Oh, you're a crazy person, lol! Am not a liberal, don't like biden, etc etc, gotta love that brainwashing that tells you anyone who disagrees with you must be some commie liberal though lol!! God what a dumb post, if you are older than your teenage years I am deeply sorry for you :/
Im with you. These clowns deserve to lose their green card based on supporting a terrorist org, however without due process is a problem. I’m about as much pro-border and deportations as the next guy, however what many of my conservative friends don’t understand is that Trump won’t always be in office. What about when President AOC declares the IDF a terrorist org (which her and many like her believe) then start deporting massive amounts of the Jewish population without a court date? It’s a problem…
agree with this reasoning except why would declaring IDF a terrorist org imply massive jewish deportations lmao most jews aren't really tied to the Israeli state even less the idf
I’m sure many Jewish folks, especially non-secular ones would be included in that as they generally widely support Israel while secular Jews do not. But yes, not just Jews who have migrated here as I’m sure there could be others.
as they generally widely support Israel ?while secular Jews do not.* (emphasis mine)
False. I really hope you're a teenager because the idiocy of your posts is stunning. Regardless, you may wanna just STFU because spouting nonsense as if it's factual doesn't help you or anyone and I imagine your hyperbolic rhetoric is a misguided way of trying to help jews. (Edit- glanced at your history, you are beyond your 20's!?! The idea that a grown man could write the crap you've written is just a sad embarrassment, holy shit :( That's enough reddit for one day I'm out.)
Didn't wanna stand behind your claim of secular jews not supporting israel? That's 0 for 2 posts that you're objectively unable to support your bullshit lol, cannot believe you'd even respond here after spouting such outrageous lies, what a total clown :P
What about when President AOC declares the IDF a terrorist org (which her and many like her believe) then start deporting massive amounts of the Jewish population without a court date?
What an insane thing to say. AOC supports israel's right to defend itself and has explicitly said so, she toes that line the same as any&every democratic&republican American politician does. But by all means keep making up hysterical conspiracy theories about 'AOC deporting massive amounts of jews' lol that is the most detached from reality statement I've read on reddit today which is saying a lot, man this site doesnt(does...) disappoint!
Lmao, her words directly contradict when it comes to Israel. Saying “I support Israel’s right to defend itself BUT…” isn’t being a supporter of Israel, don’t be retarded tiger
Where's the contradictory part? Having a qualification isn't a contradiction, surely you can tell us the contradiction? You were saying how it was bad enough that mass deportations were on your mind, so I am sure you can be specific?
Of course visa holders have freedom of speech. But they don’t have the right to stay in the United States if they are deemed a threat. Come here in a visa and organize riots and you should be deported. Two things are true at the same time.
“You have the freedom of speech, but just don’t say anything we don’t like.”
Edit: this sub is censoring me from responding to comments so I’ll put my response here.
There are no “terms” that were violated by writing in a blog. That’s a hoax. You don’t give up your free speech rights to be in the country legally.
“You have the freedom of speech, but just don’t say anything we don’t like."
As we have learned well from the Biden administration. Influencing social networks and news networks to control the population is something that Americans should speak out against
Of course visa holders have freedom of speech. But they don’t have the right to stay in the United States if they are deemed a threat. Come here in a visa and organize riots and you should be deported. Two things are true at the same time.
I get it. You love violent foreigners having freedom reign in the United States. You convinced me that’s what you think.
You see, in America, I don't have to like Nazis or antivaxxers for me to want them to have the right to spew their vile. I get this may be a strange concept to non-Americans.
Speech is a valid criteria for citizenship consideration, it always has been. We test people on their ability to regurgitate US historical knowledge as a means to measure character. If someone is saying "I hate America, and I hate Americans" that's a clear indication the people of this country wouldn't benefit from making them a citizen, so we shouldn't.
Citizenship is all about reciprocity and mutual benefit and citizens have rights that non-citizens don't. How could they not? That's what it means to be a citizen, that you qualify for special consideration from that nation.
That said, if someone already has permanent resident status then I feel they've already made it past that step.
No I think deflecting from the actual conversation in order to personally insult in an admission that you can't engage on the specifics. Because you have no principles.
This talks about Khalil, but the principles are the same.
From the NYT a month ago:
“The Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment applies to noncitizens in the United States when it comes to criminal and civil penalties. But those protections don’t necessarily apply to deportations, the court has found. The federal government has nearly absolute power over immigration, including its ability to deport noncitizens; it gets to decide who comes and then stays in this country, potentially at the expense of constitutional rights.
In 1952, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could deport immigrants for Communist Party membership without violating the First Amendment.
More specifically, administration officials cite a 1952 statute that lets the government deport immigrants, even green-card holders, for views that hamper U.S. foreign policy. The administration says that Khalil and others supported Hamas and Hezbollah, designated terrorist groups. That supposed support seems to be limited to the immigrants’ advocacy — social media posts, fliers, protests, attendance at a Hezbollah leader’s funeral. The government has not accused them of sending money or other assistance to those groups. It says that speech is enough to justify deportation.
The administration’s efforts to punish speech and bypass due process would be blatantly unconstitutional for a U.S. citizen. But for immigrants, the legality of the government’s actions is less certain.”
Maybe it’s “punishment” but non citizens on visas are not entitled to their visa. I don’t agree with deportation for speech except in extreme cases. But non citizens do not belong in our public discourse and stay here at our discretion. They aren’t citizens
But non citizens do not belong in our public discourse and stay here at our discretion.
That's where you're wrong kiddo. The bill of rights extends to all persons in the US. It's why SCOTUS has on-again off-again decisions over illegals having guns. Due process, right to a speedy trial, right to representation, no cruel or unusual punishment, speech, all things being stripped from non citizens but are entitled to.
Does visa revocation meet the legal criteria of punishment? I understand it’s punitive. But, visas are not something foreign nationals are entitled to the same way that they might be entitled to not be jailed for the same offenses I would suspect those cases were deciding between deportation or incarceration, not their fundamental right to posses arms. I’m no expert, but that is my understanding
isn't punitive just a synonym for punishment? If you've sank 3 yrs into your career and spent time and treasure only for the government to take it away, how is it not punishment?
Visas are not blanket agreements to indefinitely stay. It’s different for a resident alien to be deported versus being held in a U.S correctional facility on criminal charges. If I rent a house it’s kind of “mine” but if I break the terms of the agreement that lead to it being “mine” it can be taken away. Think about visa holders as renters and citizens as homeowners. Yes they have legal permission to be here. But that permission isn’t irrevocable. My understanding is that visas can be revoked for essentially any reason and at any time if they are not asylum claimants. Are they normally? No. Is it procedurally proper? Yes. Do support it? Not really. But I do fundamentally believe that American politics are for American citizens to participate in. Foreign born naturalized citizens belong in our politics, but non citizen foreign nationals do not. Foreign nationals who have not been through the citizenship process are not entitled to a voice in our democracy. Do I think it’s an efficient use of resources to deport students and whatnot who do try to enter our politics? No, not except in the extremely rare cases that espionage is involved. Do I support what’s going on? No. But there’s nothing illegal about it. We are not obliged obligated to allow foreign nationals on visas to organize political movements on our soil
I don’t think you’re right about the law. I don’t pretend to be an expert. But if political constitutional rights universally apply to visa holders, why can’t visa holders vote? Constitutionally we can’t send them to jail for speech. But visas come with conditions, one of those conditions is that they can be revoked for any reason since you are not a citizen and are in the country through an agreement that has strings attached to it
Visas are not blanket agreements to indefinitely stay. It’s different for a resident alien to be deported versus being held in a U.S correctional facility on criminal charges. If I rent a house it’s kind of “mine” but if I break the terms of the agreement that lead to it being “mine” it can be taken away. Think about visa holders as renters and citizens as homeowners. Yes they have legal permission to be here. But that permission isn’t irrevocable. My understanding is that visas can be revoked for essentially any reason and at any time if they are not asylum claimants. Are they normally? No. Is it procedurally proper? Yes. Do support it? Not really. But I do fundamentally believe that American politics are for American citizens to participate in. Foreign born naturalized citizens belong in our politics, but not non citizen foreign nationals. Foreign nationals who have not been through the citizenship process are not entitled to a voice in our democracy. Do I think it’s an efficient use of resources to deport students and whatnot who do try to enter our politics? No, not except in the extremely rare cases that espionage is involved. Do I support what’s going on? No. But there’s nothing illegal about it. We are not obliged obligated to allow foreign nationals on visas to organize political movements on our soil
I didn't say that visas were indefinite, let them continue their career as originally agreed on and let them apply for a resident permit like everyone else.
In general I agree with you that it should happen that way and that deporting law abiding residents for political speech is an inefficient use of resources and not particularly kind. But you don’t seem to understand that foreign nationals are only legally entitled to be here if they are here under a qualifying asylum claim. And even then, their right to stay in the country while they make claims is complicated. But they do have the right to an eventual court appearance that will evaluate their claim
I agree that it shouldn’t be happening, except MAYBE in cases where a foreign national is having a huge individual impact on our politics. No one comes to mind that meets that criteria. But do you understand that it’s totally legal to revoke a visa for reasons that it is unconstitutional to prosecute someone for? Yes, it is unconstitutional to incarcerate them for speech. But they are not legally entitled to most forms of visa the same way they are entitled to not face criminal charges for the same action that could jeopardize visa status
In general I agree with you that it should happen that way and that deporting law abiding residents for political speech is an inefficient use of resources and not particularly kind. But you don’t seem to understand that foreign nationals are only legally entitled to be here if they are here under a qualifying asylum claim. And even then, their right to stay in the country while they make claims is complicated. But they do have the right to an eventual court appearance that will evaluate their claim
I agree that it shouldn’t be happening, except MAYBE in cases where a foreign national is having a huge individual impact on our politics. No one comes to mind that meets that criteria. But do you understand that it’s totally legal to revoke a visa for reasons that it is unconstitutional to prosecute someone for? Yes, it is unconstitutional to incarcerate them for speech. But they are not legally entitled to most forms of visa the same way they are entitled to not face criminal charges for the same action that could jeopardize visa status
I don't even know where you're going quoting asylum seekers. Are you American or just slapping arguments together trying to sound informed?
I do. I know there are several different competing legal theories, so I am always conscious of the source. Here’s the complicated thing about law, there tends to be a general consensus, but outlier opinions are very common. It’s important to be aware of whose messaging you’re consuming. I rarely am able to find media that’s truly non partisan. I like CNN, but I think they are a little conservative with what they label editorial. I liked the Washington post before 2016. I still like the Wall Street journal. But it feels like everyone is pushing an ideological agenda. It’s easy to cherry pick outlier opinions to paint an inaccurate narrative. I’ve already made my ideological choice on what I think it should be. I just want some non biased information about the legal procedures. I do value constitutional law and consistency more than ideology, but I know how I think it should be.
Trump’s eyes being replaced with glowing red and the obvious low budget YouTube set up does not bode well for credibility. It’s easy for major news networks to pick sources that paint a misleading picture, but they generally follow basic journalistic standards and just warp the perspective for ideological reasons. A lot of YouTube people just make stuff up. But I do not know as much about constitutional protections for authorized visa holders as I would like. Worst case, I’ll get a sense of the disinformation that’s catching on. I will give it a listen while I cook later. Thanks
Yes laser eyes are for the clicks. Boring legal jargon and citation of law is buried in the middle.
other .. less important comments ...
personally I hate CNN and WSJ and WaPo -- they are all at the beck and call of the wealthy, and never report from the point of view of the working man. ProPublica is currently the only actual news org in America.
I wish people would stop thinking left/right and level up to gain class consciousness. Start seeing the world as rich vs poor.
That's on the Venezuelan govt. The US is perfectly within its rights to ban foreigners for being even suspected gang members. Then it's on the Venezuelan govt to repatriate their citizens. If Venezuela refuses to accept them, that's on them. Hopefully gangs will take this into consideration when they develop their international franchising strategy.
Wow. You genuinely surprised me. Of all the pathetic defenses of the United States shipping people to foreign prisons without due process that I thought might pop up, deflecting blame to Venezuela never occurred to me. Props to your extreme shamelessness.
You don't know that they're gang members. That's what due process is. What you're communicating is you don't care if they're gang members, let alone if they've committed any actual crimes, before being sent to a foreign prison.
Your movement has no principles or values outside of defending your god king. It's a joke.
My movement? I think Trump is a horrible human being, and I disagree with a whole host of his policies. But some things he gets right, and this policy is one of them.
I despise Israel's genocidal policies, and I'd much rather that the govt was deporting visa-holders for being Zionist. Unfortunately, I can't only support a policy when it's convenient to do so - that would be unprincipled.
As far as the Venezuelans go, they are in the US illegally. That in and of itself is grounds for administrative deportation (or, it's not a punishment). The fact that they're not deporting everyone is already a step toward a clemency/humanitarian-driven policy. But if you're in the US illegally and suspected of being a gang member for any reason, that's more than enough grounds to deport you.
I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to grasp that Venezuelan citizens are the responsibility of the Venezuelan govt. This isn't a unique problem - the UK is having problems with Pakistan refusing to accept deported Pakistani criminals/suspects. Australia is having problems with India refusing to accept its citizens deported from India. These countries are poor, and they have no interest in accepting a plane load of criminals & suspected criminals back.
Your stance that this problem is somehow the US's fault or responsibility just tells me that you are guided by empathy and a sense of righteousness/moral outrage rather than thinking things through. If you're under 24 or some, that's fine - and it's good you're learning to advocate your positions using only words.
Sure buddy, you hate Trump the man and movement, it's just that on principle you support denying people due process before shipping them to foreign prisons. It's hilarious to me how much Trump lovers pretend they don't love him. It's almost like you guys know what an absolute piece of shit he is.
You don't know that the Venezuelans were here illegally, once again, because they were denied due process. You're gonna have to stop pretending you have any knowledge about them at all, and start defending denying people due process. Until you do that, you're dodging like a coward.
"But if you're in the US illegally and suspected of being a gang member for any reason, that's more than enough grounds to deport you."
But at least you admit your principles are so pathetically non-existent you think crossing a border deserves imprisonment in a foreign prison and not just, you know, normal deportation.
I don't know why it's so difficult for you to grasp that due process in America is the responsibility of the American government. Except actually I do know why that's hard for you to grasp. You simply don't care.
It pains me to disagree with Ron Paul on issues of personal liberty, but in this case I think he's wrong. The govt can reject a visa for any reason or non-reason they choose. Any decision to the contrary will just discourage the granting of visas in the first place.
There would be blanket bans from some countries, or visa applications would be incredibly expensive to cover the cost of a full-blown investigation into an applicant's political background.
You’re saying that the government should be allowed to reject visas based on any reason, even personal/political beliefs? I agree there are valid reasons applicants should be denied, such as a criminal background, but what you’re arguing for is the start of a slippery slope for the government policing speech. Regarding the cost aspect, wouldn’t determining the political belief of an applicant make the whole process more expensive?
I think the system is fundamentally broken. If there are millions of illegal immigrants, and each one is permitted access to due process via the courts and appeal process, you've created a system of unenforceable law which requires the govt to effectively cede sovereignty. And that's an insane, unacceptable outcome.
If you're in a country illegally, you should have no expectation of any right to stay. Deportation should be automatic. If you want to appeal, fuck off and do it from your country. This false empathy of saying that queue jumpers and illegal immigrants should be granted special treatment is a betrayal of the millions of genuine refugees who wait in refugee camps and respect the law. This false empathy fuels the human trafficking industry and forces millions of people to undertake perilous voyages so that self-righteous morons can feel better about themselves.
It's a fucked up process when every single one of a thousand appointed judges imagines they have an unlimited veto over the President.
This has nothing to do with loyalty to Trump. FDR faced many of the same accusations of being a dictator ignoring the law, as did Andrew Jackson before him. Rule of Law is a foundation of government, but this doesn't make it sacred. When bad law interferes with good governance, elected officials should be willing to publicly challenge what they see as bad law, to force a debate and have the law overturned or reformed.
Freedom of speech actually does imply the government is limited in what retributive actions it can take against speech it disapproves of.
Obviously if someone is supporting terrorist activities or commuting crimes, then they should of course have their visa revoked. But if all they’re doing is writing opinion pieces criticizing certain policies and entities, as appears to be the case with the Tufts student, supporting their deportation sets a dangerous precedent.
Is it three million people who have already had due process and are just waiting deportations now? I think that's correct, su how many flights is that at 200 per flight?
That's 15,000 flights, and I only know if three so far so 14,997 more to go.
And that's not counting the ten million plus that came in over the last four years, we're going to need about 45,000 more flights.
Unfamiliar with that person. I’d have to google it.
I will say though that my support of free speech is so large and all encompassing that I’d be called “complicit in genocide” by Reddit because I truly don’t believe in de-platforming ANYONE.
Nick Fuentes, the Pro-Palestinian folks, the Zionists, Trump, Musk, AOC, etc.
Let the marketplace of ideas decide who wins.
If your ideas are insane, the public will usually filter it out.
She is a student who has her visa revoked for allegedly participating in pro Palestine protests. Which presumedly from your description of yourself you'd defend her right to do so.
This sub has a lot of conservatives because free speech advocates were an ally of convenience when conservatives were out of power. There are plenty of people here who as a result are not nearly the free speech absolutists they claimed to be a year ago now that the shoe is on the other foot. That doesn't seem to be your case, you seem to be principled on this matter
That doesn’t mean that I want people with the opposite opinions of me to be censored or deported for speech. Conservatives should look in the mirror because the 2nd amendment is just as important as the 1st and there should be no wavering in support of it. She is here legally and has the right to speak. I definitely support her!
Ozturk WAS a guest in our country. Here to take advantage of the education that is available here.
The State Department has determined that she was doing much more than just speaking or marching. She was actively working against the good of the United States. As a guest alien in our country, her welcome was rescinded by The US State Department. Very legally and in accordance with immigration laws.
Nothing about this is normal, nothing about this compares to previous presidents. The trump administration is authoritarian and is censoring anyone who speaks against it.
OP needs flair. Something like "village idiot" would suffice for this sub. At least this time the article headline is related to the sub, even if the content isn't necessarily.
You're right that homes aren't democracies, but you have obligations when you go to someone else's home, and similarly you have obligations when you go into another person's homeland.
The law does not support the claim that non-citizens enjoy the same freedom of speech and US citizens:
"Yet the Supreme Court has also suggested that the extent of due process protection may vary depending upon [the alien’s] status and circumstance.7 In various opinions, the Court has suggested that at least some of the constitutional protections to which an alien is entitled may turn upon whether the alien has been admitted into the United States or developed substantial ties to this country.8 Thus, while the Court has recognized that due process considerations may constrain the Federal Government’s exercise of its immigration power, there is some uncertainty regarding the extent to which these constraints apply with regard to aliens within the United States."
This is the series of laws that determine that student visa holders are aliens/non-immigrants and can be deported for supporting terrorism:
Per Immigration, student visa holders are considered “aliens” and “non-immigrants”.
Per 8 USC 1227: “Any alien who was admitted as a nonimmigrant and who has failed to maintain the nonimmigrant status in which the alien was admitted or to which it was changed under section 1258 of this title, or to comply with the conditions of any such status, is deportable.”
Per U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII): “(VII) [Any alien who] endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization” is inadmissible and therefore failed to maintain their nonimmigrant status.
Therefore, non-citizens could potentially be deported for supporting terrorist organizations despite the First Amendment which would likely protect a US-citizen.
Actually, no they don't. At least if they're holding visas and green cards they don't. The law is very clear on this. Ron Paul literally doesn't know what he's talking about.
"Freedom of speech, doesn't mean freedom from consequences!"
"Freedom of speech, does not include hate speech!"
And now that standard is being applied to the people who were in favor of those arguments. So let's just face it, freedom of speech is dead. Nobody believes in it anymore, except for themselves.
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
IMPORTANT - this subreddit is in restricted mode as dictated by the admins. This means all posts have to be manually approved. If your post is within the following rules and still hasn't been approved in reasonable time, please send us a modmail with a link to your post.
RULES FOR POSTS:
Reddit Content Policy
Reddit Meta Rules - no username mentions, crossposts or subreddit mentions, discussing reddit specific censorship, mod or admin action - this includes bans, removals or any other reddit activity, by order of the admins
Subreddit specific rules - no offtopic/spam
if posting a video, please include a TL\;DW of the content and how it relates to censorship, per Rule 6. thank you:
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.