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

[Peter]

As long as that free speech does not include inciting or participating in riots or any way violating the terms of their VISAs.

Who gets to decide what speech is considered being pro violence or saying they intend to be involved?
If I agree with the a bunch of rioters does that mean I'm banned from entry?

 

[MAGAnificent]

Who gets to decide what speech is considered being pro violence or saying they intend to be involved?
If I agree with the a bunch of rioters does that mean I'm banned from entry?

Do you feel that yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre and causing a stampede when there is no fire is okay?

 

[Peter]

Do you feel that yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre and causing a stampede when there is no fire is okay?

That's not a valid comparison.
I can agree completely with everything a rioting group says and yet still not be a threat to the US because I'm against violence and prefer to use my vote.
Am I still banned because I agree with what the rioters are rioting for?

 

[AZRWinger]

Speech isn't free if it's restricted.

Absolutely true. See the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop reporting engineered by the Biden campaign.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The point of my distinction is that association is part of free speech and that is what is being abridged. IOW, I'm talking about the goal of this enforcement, not the legal justification.

The goal seems to be enforcement of immigration law, which makes a person removable for associating with certain groups (Hamas) and/or advocating for their activities. Is this not what Rubio was talking about?

The term is from Rubio, from a quote that was in the post I was replying to. It's the context that you seem to be missing.

Pardon me for not remembering words I didn't speak. Mea culpa. You're right, I'm wrong. You're great, I'm awful. You're a winner, I'm a loser.

Feel better now?

In the context of the conversation I'm having, this appears to be irrelevant.

I don't think it is.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I particularly liked the demand from the Department of State that "all applicants for F, M and J non immigrant visas will be instructed to adjust the privacy settings on all their social media profiles to "public."

If any European nation had done something like this - you can bet there would be a line of MAGA posters telling us that European nations doing it are all police states.

Yeah, this is dumb.

 

[exoplanet]

The goal seems to be enforcement of immigration law, which makes a person removable for associating with certain groups (Hamas) and/or advocating for their activities. Is this not what Rubio was talking about?

You keep talking about Hamas, but Rubio doesn't mention them in that quote or any of their actions in the quote I'm responding to. He's clearly talking about student protests in the US. So why are you still talking about Hamas?

Pardon me for not remembering words I didn't speak. Mea culpa. You're right, I'm wrong. You're great, I'm awful. You're a winner, I'm a loser.

Feel better now?

Actually, that's very cringe and awkward. Just say "My bad" and move on.

 

[eohrnberger]

The statement you posted didny day "if the individual in question is guilty of those things, it said if they are associated with protests in which such things happenned

In other words, if Joe Blow went to a protest about the genocide in Gaza, and somewhere else in that protest, some other people committed vandalism, then Joe Blow is guilty by association and can have his green card revoked.

Nice theory. Can you support that this happened with citations?

 

[Desert Storm]

No, you're there as a guest of the country. Show some respect to your hosts

 

[eohrnberger]

They don't equate. That's part of my point. Rubio is trying to conflate the two while actually forbidding association.

Yes, this would be the accusation / claim from the left, as of yet, this hasn't been supported with citations documenting such.

Are you really having trouble finding the phrase "participate in movements" in that short quote you provided? I'm not sure what you're missing.

Well, you've dropped allot from that quote, apparently taking it out of context.

"because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus"
"participate in movements" that are "doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings".
Would be fully in context, would it not?

I'm reading his words. Do you actually think you can't figure out what his intent is because you aren't a mind reader?

The intent which I read from the quote, which appears to be pretty clear, is students on student visas shouldn't participate in 'vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings'.

That was never my claim.

Hmm.

. . .
I don't see Rubio worried about visa holders associating with the Proud Boys or going to Trump rallies.

. . .
Du please support and document by citation where a visa holder was associating with the Proud Boys or going to Trump rallies and direct orders were issued to ignore that.
. . .

So what did you mean by 'Rubio worried about visa holders associating with the Proud Boys or going to Trump rallies'?
I reads like you are fabricating a hypothetical, at least not demonstrated, to counter something which we do know happened, i.e. student visa holders participating in 'vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings'.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Do you feel that yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre and causing a stampede when there is no fire is okay?

What about “Hang Mike Pence”?

 

[eohrnberger]

No, you're there as a guest of the country. Show some respect to your hosts

This would appear to be common, normally expected human decency, would it not?

 

[The Brad Dad]

Yes, this would be the accusation / claim from the left, as of yet, this hasn't been supported with citations documenting such.


Well, you've dropped allot from that quote, apparently taking it out of context.

"because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus"
"participate in movements" that are "doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings".
Would be fully in context, would it not?



The intent which I read from the quote, which appears to be pretty clear, is students on student visas shouldn't participate in 'vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings'.


Hmm.


So what did you mean by 'Rubio worried about visa holders associating with the Proud Boys or going to Trump rallies'?
I reads like you are fabricating a hypothetical, at least not demonstrated, to counter something which we do know happened, i.e. student visa holders participating in 'vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings'.

We have zero instances of our government labeling protest as violence. Especially the Trump regime. Conservatives spend all their time telling us they’re arming because the government can’t be trusted but then TRump gets elected and you’re blandly quoting state PR.

 

[The Brad Dad]

This would appear to be common, normally expected human decency, would it not?

So you don’t feel they should criticize the government? That’s something that you feel strongly about as an American who understands the principles of our Constitution?

 

[eohrnberger]

We have zero instances of our government labeling protest as violence. Especially the Trump regime. Conservatives spend all their time telling us they’re arming because the government can’t be trusted but then TRump gets elected and you’re blandly quoting state PR.

So you don’t feel they should criticize the government? That’s something that you feel strongly about as an American who understands the principles of our Constitution?

Newbie Tip: Try responding to what was actually posted.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Newbie Tip: Try responding to what was actually posted.

I did. Try not to run so hard next time, you fell on your face and I laughed.

 

[eohrnberger]

I did.

No, you really didn't.

Try not to run so hard next time, you fell on your face and I laughed.

LOL, the running you imagine seeing is just your imagination running wild.

 

[AZRWinger]

Wonder if the self proclaimed defenders of importing so-called students and tourist agitators promoting river to the sea genocide would be ever so fervent demanding visas for visitors or students intending to participate in another "Unite the Right" rally? Remember, the Charlottesville Mayor and Virginia Governor both Democrats denounced the rally goers as "having no place in America" despite the fact organizers had legally obtained permits for the rally. Democrats demand deportation of citizens with disagreeable views while demanding we importing foreign radicals as students or tourists.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Nice theory. Can you support that this happened with citations?

“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.”

^^^^From your citation.

The individual needs not have done those things, if they participate in a movement where such things have happenned they are guilty by association.

Proves my point.

Real life example. Mohsen Mahdawi

He did not vandalize anything or comit any crimes whatsoever. he participated in a movement .

"

• The Arrest:
  Mahdawi, a Columbia University student and Palestinian green card holder, was arrested by ICE officers at a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office in Vermont.
  
  
• Context of Arrest:
  He was there for a citizenship interview, which he had been told was related to his naturalization process.
  
  
• Legal Action:
  His lawyers immediately sought a temporary restraining order to prevent his deportation.
  
  
• Judge's Order:
  A federal judge granted the request, ordering that Mahdawi not be removed from the U.S. or transferred out of Vermont until further notice.
  
  
• Release:
  Mahdawi was subsequently released from ICE detention.
  
  
  
• Allegations:
  Prior to his arrest, Mahdawi had been a vocal critic of Israel's military campaign in Gaza and had participated in protests at Columbia. "
  
  

 

[Ikari]

Conservatives, yes. MAGAs, no.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I can agree completely with everything a rioting group says and yet still not be a threat to the US because I'm against violence and prefer to use my vote.
Am I still banned because I agree with what the rioters are rioting for?

If you incite or participate in riots while visiting the US, expect to have your visa canceled. I would expect the same conditions if I visited your land of tea and crumpets and behaved inappropriately.

 

[exoplanet]

"because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus"
"participate in movements" that are "doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings".
Would be fully in context, would it not?


The intent which I read from the quote, which appears to be pretty clear, is students on student visas shouldn't participate in 'vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings'.

Your idea of context is to pretend that phrase "participate in movements" doesn't exist.

But the distinctions between the movement's and the individual's actions are clear. It is right there in plain English and it's also there in the context of the quote. Rubio is responding to a question about Rumeysa Ozturk, who as far I know has only written an op-ed critical of Israel. He didn't actually say that she was, for example, guilty of vandalism or had personally done any of those things. What she had done was, "participate" in a "movement". But he tried very hard to make the implication. It's so effective that you are now seem willing to believe that the people they are enforcing this on have personally done these things without evidence.

So what did you mean by 'Rubio worried about visa holders associating with the Proud Boys or going to Trump rallies'?
I reads like you are fabricating a hypothetical, at least not demonstrated, to counter something which we do know happened, i.e. student visa holders participating in 'vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings'.

I mean I literally don't see that, and by your response it looks like you can't cite that anything of that sort either.

You talk about hypotheticals, but why would we worry about whether or not some visa holder actually attended a Trump rally, when the very idea of Trump administration rejecting a visa due to an assocation with Trump is absurd on its face?

 

[eohrnberger]

“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.”

^^^^From your citation.

The individual needs not have done those things, if they participate in a movement where such things have happenned they are guilty by association.

It is illegal to "vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings".
Have you heard of 'Aiding and abetting'?

Aiding and abetting is a legal doctrine related to the guilt of someone who aids or abets (encourages, incites) another person in the commission of a crime.​

Aiding and abetting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In this instance you are fabricating for the sole purpose of furthering your push narrative.

Proves my point.

Real life example. Mohsen Mahdawi

He did not vandalize anything or comit any crimes whatsoever. he participated in a movement .

"

• The Arrest:
  Mahdawi, a Columbia University student and Palestinian green card holder, was arrested by ICE officers at a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office in Vermont.
  
  
• Context of Arrest:
  He was there for a citizenship interview, which he had been told was related to his naturalization process.
  
  
• Legal Action:
  His lawyers immediately sought a temporary restraining order to prevent his deportation.
  
  
• Judge's Order:
  A federal judge granted the request, ordering that Mahdawi not be removed from the U.S. or transferred out of Vermont until further notice.
  
  
• Release:
  Mahdawi was subsequently released from ICE detention.
  
  
  
• Allegations:
  Prior to his arrest, Mahdawi had been a vocal critic of Israel's military campaign in Gaza and had participated in protests at Columbia. "
  

 

[eohrnberger]

Your idea of context is to pretend that phrase "participate in movements" doesn't exist.

No, see post directly above, specifically the definition of Aiding and abetting.

But the distinctions between the movement's and the individual's actions are clear. It is right there in plain English and it's also there in the context of the quote. Rubio is responding to a question about Rumeysa Ozturk, who as far I know has only written an op-ed critical of Israel. He didn't actually say that she was, for example, guilty of vandalism or had personally done any of those things. What she had done was, "participate" in a "movement". But he tried very hard to make the implication. It's so effective that you are now seem willing to believe that the people they are enforcing this on have personally done these things without evidence.

I mean I literally don't see that, and by your response it looks like you can't cite that anything of that sort either.

You talk about hypotheticals, but why would we worry about whether or not some visa holder actually attended a Trump rally, when the very idea of Trump administration rejecting a visa due to an assocation with Trump is absurd on its face?

 

[NolanVoyd]

It is illegal to "vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings".
Have you heard of 'Aiding and abetting'?

The people in question didnt aid and abbet. They arent cgarged with anything of the kind.

The lies need to stop.