Do conservatives think free speech should apply to tourists, foreign students, green card holders, etc?

[Lovebug]

Do conservatives think free speech should apply to tourists, foreign students, green card holders, etc? Do people who are in the US and not citizens have free speech rights? Because, according to Tim Pool, they shouldn't have those rights:



Is Tim Pool not a ''free speech absolutist" then?

Could you sum it up for us?

 

[Lovebug]

Take your pick, if the conservative movement allowed itself to be swallowed by MAGA, they deserve some of the blame for allowing that to happen, they shouldn't get off scot free.

There are some of us who didn't get swallowed up.

 

[Lovebug]

Yes, free speech applies.

As does this:

“If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student, and you tell us that the reason why you're coming to the United States is not just because you want to write op-eds, but because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus, we're not going to give you a visa. If you lie to us and get a visa then enter the United States, and with that visa, participate in that sort of activity, we're going to take away your visa.”​

Marco Rubio says 300 student visas have been revoked, including detentions at Tufts, Columbia and more

The comments come amid two more high-profile detentions by ICE of a Tufts University student and a University of Alabama student.

www.cbsnews.com

Lil Marco, the man I almost thought had a backbone. What happened to you, lil Marco?

 

[Lovebug]

Here's the Norway case:

Did a JD Vance meme get a tourist banned from the US?

US officials have denied claims that a Norwegian man was sent home because of a meme - but the case has raised international questions.

www.bbc.com

Doesn't sound so suspicious now that there are multiple sides to the story.

US Homeland Security officials say

whatever they are ordered to say?

 

[Gardener]

I think answer is "yes, but." The "but" is coming from the fact that unless you are either a US citizen or an immigrant with permanent status, you are a guest in the United States. I don't think speech from anyone -- including non-citizens -- should ever be a crime, but no one has right to a visa or a green card.

For example, I see no reason why a green card or visa should not be revoked for someone who:

• Preaches that blacks or jews are inferior people.
• That women are best kept as property.
• That terrorism is justified.
• That apostates should be executed by the faithful.

... or the like.

While garbage like this must be tolerated from US citizens, I see no reason to put up with up from a guest. They can still speak their piece, but they can do it from other side of the border.

At least leftists are consistent. When we go to Arab countries, they expect us to abide by their rules.

When Arabs come here, they expect us to abide by their rules.

 

[Lovebug]

Let's quit with the "conservatives" thing. Sure, there are some left, though I don't really believe them if they voted for and continue to support this regime. The Republican party is not controlled by "conservatives." It is something different now.

I consider myself a conservative and I left the Republican party years ago. Let's stop that overly broad brush.

 

[Cosmo]

whatever they are ordered to say?

The stoner from Norway already admitted to drug use per the link:

 

[Lovebug]

The stoner from Norway already admitted to drug use per the link:
View attachment 67578353

Isn't that convenient.

 

[anatta]

Well, lets check the story:

US officials reject claim tourist was denied entry over bald JD Vance meme

DHS does not deny strong-arming tourist into letting them into his phone, only that agents sent him home because of a meme

www.independent.co.uk

So DHS said they did strong-arm him into searching his phone and stated they denied him for drug use.

However, that same article says this:

"A recent State Department cable directs diplomats to review social media profiles for “any indications of hostility towards the citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles of the United States.”

In recent months, reports of increased denials, detentions, and heightened scrutiny of visitors by DHS agents have made headlines.

In one instance, a French researcher was denied entry after customs agents found a “personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy” on his phone. The denial earned a public scolding by a French minister.

Last week, an Australian writer was sent back to Melbourne after DHS agents in Los Angeles questioned him over his views on the Israeli treatment of Palestinians.

The general political tension and instability dovetailing with heightened security screenings have led several nations — including China, Denmark, and Finland — to issue travel warnings advising its citizens to consider if a trip to the United States is worth the risk of harassment or violence."

Seems like DHS has a pattern of denying entry to tourists who just so happen to disagree with the Trump administration. So my overall point is correct.

social media is an open source. VISA applications are vetted. There is every reason to look at what visa holders say about national security issues. It's a power designated to the Sec of State, by virtue of the executive branch

 

[Cosmo]

Isn't that convenient.

The transparent truth sure is convenient.

For me.

 

[Lovebug]

The transparent truth sure is convenient.

For me.

I don't slurp up everything that's convenient for the felon.

 

[Cosmo]

I don't slurp up everything that's convenient for the felon.

Sounds like you have a problem with the truth. That's a difficult challenge to surmount, but still, I hope you find peace.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

How many foreign students who have been arrested by ICE did any of those things mentioned by Rubio, and how many just expressed an opinion he didn't like?

The general idea, I believe, is that ICE is targeting those subject to 8 USC 1227(a)(4)(B), making them removable for being inadmissible under any grounds contained in 8 USC 1182(a)(3). For most of the cases at issue, the applicable grounds would likely be 8 USC 1182(a)(3)(B)(VII), someone who "endorses or espouses terrorist activity." As Hamas is a State Department-designated terrorist organization, endorsing their actions violates this section. I think it's a higher hurdle to clear once a person is in the country as opposed to evaluating their eligibility to receive a nonimmigrant visa or whether they are deemed admissible at a port of entry, this is the state of the law, and it has not been ruled unconstitutional.

Was free speech denied to that Norwegian tourist who was denied entry to the US because he had a JD Vance meme on his phone?

This never happened, so no.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Notice that there is no specification that the visa grantee actually did anything illegal,

Many of the charges under the grounds of inadmissibility don't require someone have broken a law. None of the health-related grounds involve illegal activity (8 USC 1182(a)(1) - all following statutory citations should be read as including "8 USC 1182(a)" before it). The bar on persons who have been or attempted to procure a prostitute does not specify that the prostitution be unlawful in the jurisdiction in which it occurred ((2)(D) charge). Becoming a public charge isn't illegal, yet a likelihood of becoming such makes one inadmissible under (4). Failing to have a labor certification under (5) isn't unlawful, but it makes one inadmissible. Failing to prove admissibility (7) is the basis of a significant portion of refusals, yet it's not illegal. Being an immigrant who is ineligible for citizenship isn't illegal (8(A)). Accompanying a helpless inadmissible alien (10(B)) makes one inadmissible, even if that person is otherwise admissible themselves - not ilegal to accompany someone, and they aren't even being refused for something they did at all! It's perfectly lawful to renounce US citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation, but 10(E) makes you inadmissible if you do it.

just association with particular movements that this administration has issues with.

Hamas is a State Department-designated terrorist organization, and has been so since the designation was created in 1997. This is nothing new.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

If a conservative Canadian or Brit tourists states anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage arguments at a bar, should government agents be able to deport them right away if a Democrat was President?

Upon which ground of removability would such an action be based?

Do you think the government should send tourists to ICE detention camps?

If they've violated the terms of their admission, they should be subject to removal.

Do you think Canada or UK should deport American tourists if they express an unpopular opinion at a bar?

See above question.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

people in other countries are being advised to bring burner phones to the US:

The melodrama of other countries is their own creation. Nothing has changed regarding border search authority under Trump.

 

[Yes_Minister]

The melodrama of other countries is their own creation. Nothing has changed regarding border search authority under Trump.

Yeah, it's not like the US doesn't put Canadians into ICE camps:

Canadian woman detained by ICE being used as ‘example,’ immigration experts warn | Globalnews.ca

Len Saunders, an immigration lawyer in Blaine, told Global News that he is not Mooney's lawyer but he did speak to her a few weeks ago after being referred by a fellow client.

globalnews.ca

I hope you don't mind if the US tourism industry collapses.

Trump Policies Will Cost The U.S. Up To $29 Billion In Tourism

Halfway through 2025, the U.S. stands out as the world’s biggest loser in an otherwise thriving global tourism economy.

www.forbes.com

 

[exoplanet]

Many of the charges under the grounds of inadmissibility don't require someone have broken a law. None of the health-related grounds involve illegal activity (8 USC 1182(a)(1) - all following statutory citations should be read as including "8 USC 1182(a)" before it). The bar on persons who have been or attempted to procure a prostitute does not specify that the prostitution be unlawful in the jurisdiction in which it occurred ((2)(D) charge). Becoming a public charge isn't illegal, yet a likelihood of becoming such makes one inadmissible under (4). Failing to have a labor certification under (5) isn't unlawful, but it makes one inadmissible. Failing to prove admissibility (7) is the basis of a significant portion of refusals, yet it's not illegal. Being an immigrant who is ineligible for citizenship isn't illegal (8(A)). Accompanying a helpless inadmissible alien (10(B)) makes one inadmissible, even if that person is otherwise admissible themselves - not ilegal to accompany someone, and they aren't even being refused for something they did at all! It's perfectly lawful to renounce US citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation, but 10(E) makes you inadmissible if you do it.

Your point is rather obtuse here. Please relate this to the discussion at hand.

Hamas is a State Department-designated terrorist organization, and has been so since the designation was created in 1997. This is nothing new.

So you're alleging that Hamas was in our universities "creating a ruckus"? If you aren't, then I think you've lost the plot. If are you are then please explain why you would think so.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Also a Canadian did die in an ICE camp:

What did he die of?

 

[Yes_Minister]

What did he die of?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-dies-in-ice-custody-1.7571876

"The cause of death is unknown and is under investigation, according to the release.

Public court documents from that case state that Noviello had epilepsy which required medication to control his seizures."

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Could you sum it up for us?

A lot of this discussion was had when this interview was first bandied about... six weeks ago.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Your point is rather obtuse here. Please relate this to the discussion at hand.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you just griping about how someone's refusal wasn't connected to unlawful acts? I'm showing you how many reasons that are used to refuse admission are unconnected to unlawful acts.

So you're alleging that Hamas was in our universities "creating a ruckus"?

I have never used that term on this forum, ever. You're either confusing me with someone else or falsely attributing to me things I've never said. Which is it?

If you aren't, then I think you've lost the plot. If are you are then please explain why you would think so.

I'm telling you Hamas is a designated terrorist organization and advocating for their activities makes an alien plausibly inadmissible under 8 USC 1182(a)(3)(B)(VII) and therefore removable under 8 USC 1227(a)(4)(B).

 

[Grizzly Adams]

"The cause of death is unknown and is under investigation"

"I don't know what killed, him so it must be ICE!"

 

[NatMorton]

You guessed wrong. I really don't care what you will say or not say, because I already know that no matter what Donald does, you will not show the strength of will to cross him. You'll either quietly express a dissenting opinion to nobody in particular, stay quiet, or deflect to some Other. If Trump takes this power, no one believes that the likes of you would actually stand up to him.

And you think you're "standing up to him?"

 

[NatMorton]

But citizens can, so why can't non-citizens? I mean if they are otherwise law-abiding?

My post answers your question. As a citizen, you have a right to speak. As a visitor, you also have a right to speak, but you don't have right to a visa.