This article isn't super clear about what agencies are using this for what purposes, beyond looking at visa applicants, but visa applicants aren't US citizens and aren't in the US, so they don't have the same set of rights that citizens do, nor should they.
I take issue with the "nor should they" aspect of what you said. While I'm aware it's not a binding document, the United States [1] claims that these rights should be inalienable. This, to me, would imply that these rights should apply to everyone.
Obviously this gets into more nebulous territory if the person isn't within the states, but I still fundamentally think the right to free speech should apply.
EDIT: [1] Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence declares it self-evident that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the purpose of governments is to secure these rights, subject to the consent of the governed.
Unless I'm misreading it, the Declaration of Independence doesn't directly mention freedom of speech.
Also, presumably these tools are being used to prioritize applicants based on a benefit/risk assessment. If the purpose isn't to deny entry as a form of punishment, then freedom of speech presumably wouldn't come into the picture. Intent matters. Prioritization isn't necessarily punishment.
“My wife is a would-be immigrant so I am sympathetic”
Or sometimes
“My partner is half X So I understand discrimination against X”
Or even sometimes
“I am in category Y so there’s no way I can hate people in category Y”
I don’t think that line of reasoning makes sense. People often times carve out mental exemptions for people close to them that they care about, not for everyone in the same category. Further more, it is totally possible to love a person but not every quality about them. Also just because you are close to someone doesn’t mean you understand entirely their struggles
It's possible that you're often similarly misreading statements from others as implying causality. It's absolutely faulty logic to say I have relationship X to Y so I can't be Y. However, P(Not against Y | my relationship X to Y) > P(Not against Y) may certainly be valid reasoning.
I certainly can't think of any Y where I'd take a tonights-bar-tab bar bet against the statement that people married to Y are more sympathetic on average toward Y than the average person.
It's preemptive defense against inevitable knee-jerk "you're anti-immigrant" ad hominem attacks. I wish I didn't feel the need to preempt such diversions, but that's the world in which we live.
Otherwise, what does it mean to you? Is your view that simply being physically capable of doing something means you're 'free' to do it?
Do you think people in North Korea have freedom of speech? After all, they can say whatever they like. It just comes with a cost (life in a labor camp).
Which seems a bit silly, most people understand it to mean 'free' above a certain underlying threshold.
e.g. swear words in a kindergarten
Every possible human action does not have a punishment or a deterrent applied by those with power.
Freedom to do X means there's no punishment for doing X.
Since every living member of society has some non-zero amount, it would still be the case that free speech is practically impossible, if you set the bar too low. As the chances of that applying to at least 1 person out of 8 billion is pretty close to 100%.
So then the question is, how high exactly is the bar above zero?
is semantically different from
> "The right of each person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
A group can have a right in the general sense that is restricted from individuals in that group. Note that this is a different construct than is used in the First Amendment (and I have a hard time believing that the framers took their semantic decisions in drafting these phrases lightly):
> "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"
In the first I'm specifically referring that it says the right is to the people to petition grievances. The wording pretty clearly doesn't prohibit congress from stopping non-people from assembling/petitioning.
If you can't have a gun you are necessarily not a person based on the present day interpretation of the courts. Therefore most aliens are not people and law can prohibit their grievances (derogatory posts perhaps) and assembly and abridge their protection from search and seizure.
Note:
>> "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"
Lol you purposefully chopped off the part where some of that was explicitly qualified to 'people' rather than to anyone!
You mean the bit after the clause I cited, which applies to a different thing than the freedom of speech?
My objection, to be clear, is your insistence on bending over backwards to justify the assertion that the denial of one right necessarily implies the denial of other rights based on a strange inversion of the idea of "personhood".
Would it be okay to deny entry to a foreigner because they're black? Or gay? They don't have a right to enter anyways, so I guess it's okay.
This is really about "how does the negative things they say about the US affect how they'll improve the US by being there, if at all" which is really the general rule for most immigration; how can this person help and improve the country they're entering.
Likewise, I expect that it is not in the USA's best interest to do this, let alone fair to the person who would immigrate into the the US.
Is this meant as a straw man?
When does criticism become hate, and how to do you judge speech anyways. Reminds me of that guy in Hong Kong who was given a huge fine and banned from trading in the HKSAR because he said Evergrande would go insolvent. Obviously a hate crime.
I'm not religious, so I don't believe in a "creator" in the most literal sense, but doesn't this imply that (from the government's perspective) that these rights were given by God, and cannot be taken away by a government?
Again, I'm aware that the declaration is not a legally binding document, but I feel like it symbolizes the ideals of what the US was supposed to be.
I'm not a lawyer or a political philosopher or an ethicist, I'm just a mediocre software engineer, so I will acknowledge that I'm speaking out of my ass on this; I'm just a guy who has read a few books and has a frustrating adherence to my principles.
This is no different, for example, from applying for a research grant and getting denied on the basis of the application. The government examined your speech in the application and decided not to give you money, is this a free speech suppression?
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Which would seem to be irrespective of nationality. I think that today, we understand that "men" was meant as a generic term for "person", but the rest of that sentence seems to say that everybody who is a creation of God (which is understood to be everybody) has those unalienable rights. It sure reads to me like it says "everyone on Earth has these rights" not just "people in these colonies have these rights".
I am trolling a little bit here, since I don't actually believe we (the U.S.) should insist on our Constitutional protections applying to non-citizens. But that is what it says to me.
It's superseded by The Constitution, the actual foundation for all American laws.
It's a nice thing Americans are proud of, but for example, The Supreme Court can't cite in a ruling, unless it's also in-line with The Constitution.
The Supreme Court is itself the sole arbiter of this exception, so in practice they can cite it whenever they want to. The Federalist Papers are cited in a number of supreme court rulings. While one could argue that they are equally relevant to the Declaration, it would be hard to argue that they are less relevant.
That said, I think it's perfectly useful to demonstrate the possible intent of the founders. Even if you can't directly cite a law out of it, it can still be useful as a tool to figure out what the founders were going for.
Disclaimer: Not a legal expert.
Ex: Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495 (1976)
The Plaintiffs argued that they were denied Social Security benefits because they were "illegitimate" children of their father even though the plaintiffs were able to prove that they were related.
The court held that among other reasons, because as defined in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal", that there was no differentiation between a "legitimate" child and an "illegitimate" child in the eyes of the government.
There's a few other cases, but that's one that I've studied the most.
The first 7 words of The Constitution are “We the People of The United States.” Later in the same paragraph they specifically state that they are doing that for “ourselves and our posterity”
There is no ambiguity that the framers were creating rights and laws for “People of the United States”
The first 7 words of The Constitution are “We the People of The United States.” Later in the same paragraph they specifically state that they are doing that for “ourselves and our posterity”
There is no ambiguity that the framers were creating rights and laws for “People of the United States”
> maybe we should be reaching out to other countries and telling them what rights they have.
I don't think it is a matter of telling "other countries" what rights they have or impose the U.S.'s view on people who aren't citizens but of consistently exercising human rights within U.S. jurisdiction (which includes visa applications).
It's "right of entry/movement" that is impacted, and that along with a few others (voting) isn't extended to non-citizens at all.
While the United States is certainly big enough to ignore a few insults, some derogatory statements might imply a willingness to do the country or its people harm.
What you are talking about here, is that we as a people, have no right to listen to what you say and make decisions based on that. What you are saying is that if there's a guy outside your house yelling that you're an evil bad person who should rot in hell, you obligated to ignore his words in your decision to open your door and invite him in, because he has a right to say anything he wants. Do you... Do you get robbed a lot? If you do, you should observe the world around you, and make decisions based on those observations. This will greatly help you not get robbed a lot.
That was a strong Kool-Aid. There are universal human rights, there is no need to grant applicants USA constitutional rights to respect the former. It's a matter of decency and honesty, you are not free to infringe the privacy of others just because they weren't born in a different soil than you.
Of course, human rights are constantly abused at several degrees all over the world, but geez, at least try to be discrete about it.
I don’t see how denying a visa constitutes infringing on someone’s freedom of speech at the level of a human rights violation.
> infringe the privacy of others
These are public social media posts. Not private messages.
Privacy is one of those analienable universal human rights recognized by the UN, and demanding to see the social networks of other is infringing it, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. It's not only a faceless government employee(s) probing and ogling your social life, social networks allow private messaging, which becomes non-private after these unreasonable demands.
Don't normalize the erosion of human rights.
Admittance to the United States is not a universal right. If I wanted to move to Europe right now, it is a lengthy painful process just like an alien trying to move to the US.
Applicants will be screened. Reviewing what you say publicly about the United States as part of that process is not a privacy violation. If you are making statements that you want to blow up buildings or steal nuclear secrets, it is very reasonable to deny you entry.
Moving permanently is one thing, but Europeans have to go through that bullshit even for tourist visas, while all y'all need is your passport because our dumbass politicians didn't insist on reciprocity.
[1] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-tra...
Most Europeans get to use the quick and relatively cheap shortcut of ESTA/VWP rather than needing to apply for a full tourist visa, though indeed there are exceptions based on nationality or personal history.
> while all y'all need is your passport because our dumbass politicians didn't insist on reciprocity.
The EU has been working on their own version of ESTA called ETIAS for many years now, which has been repeatedly delayed for EU-internal reasons that as far as I've read have nothing to do with US pressure, like technical/IT delays and a request from France for the related Entry/Exit System not to begin before the Paris Olympics. ETIAS is currently expected to begin operation in 2025 and will apply to US citizens just as it will to every other Schengen-visa exempt third-country nationality.
Since you said "Europeans" rather than "EU citizens" or "Schengen citizens", I'll recognize that the UK is still in Europe and note that they're preparing to do the same kind of thing, with their system to be called ETA and also intended to include US citizens once fully implemented.
So that will bring approximate reciprocity, again with the exception of those Europeans who don't qualify for the US ESTA/VWP system.
You still need to pass the CBP exam, have your social media profile scanned by them, or you can be rejected at the border because the CBP agent doesn't like you got convicted for pot at 18.
You Americans don't have to endure any of that to enter the Schengen area.
> ETIAS is currently expected to begin operation in 2025 and will apply to US citizens just as it will to every other Schengen-visa exempt third-country nationality.
I have zero reason to believe ETIAS will be ready by that date.
We agree that the US government border rules for noncitizens are far too invasive and harsh, especially as to drug rules - though the core of that harshness comes from laws passed by the elected legislators, with only part of it coming from agency regulations and culture.
Much of that awfulness is not about a lack of reciprocity for the visa exemption: what you describe applies even to people who do need visas, not only to those who qualify for the Visa Waiver Program.
Even Canadians, who normally are truly exempt from needing any kind of pre-approval at all to show up at a US port of entry with a Canadian passport, can still be interrogated and refused for all the same reasons as any European - they can just skip the advance approval, aside from any waiver they might need due to previously having been found inadmissible, but they are still rolling the dice at the border as with any other visitor.
By contrast, people who need US visas have far more expense and hassle to deal with than the still-bad bullshit that the US puts most European tourists through - on top of most of that bullshit, not instead of it.
> You Americans don't have to endure any of that to enter the Schengen area.
Very true, but again, this difference between the systems is far more pervasive than just any lack of reciprocity. The European immigration and border control systems are just plain more humane and less broken than the US equivalents, regardless of which countries exempt which other countries from which documentation requirements.
> I have zero reason to believe ETIAS will be ready by that date.
It’s true that it’s been delayed an absurd number of times so far and could get delayed again. But the biggest reason for the duration of the latest delay is just a short-term political matter rather than anything technical: France wants to delay the Entry/Exit System until after the Paris Olympics, and ETIAS depends on that working well for some months.
From what I’ve read, the IT side of things is close to ready. We will see. I would not be surprised by further small delays, but I do expect these systems to begin operating within a few years instead of beyond that time.
[0] I'm assuming there's some kind of 4A-equivalent bound on government behavior in the Calvinball soup that is the UK 'constitution'
Is every other country going to follow suit? Would you have the US disband their military as well? Or should they just deploy it without any sort of intelligence gathering?
I do think we should not have these specific agencies, because they've proven themselves too corrupt, and we should consider a "defund" strategy for our entire military industrial complex, completely dismantling the existing systems and replacing them with something a little less... evil? Certainly scaled back by a few orders of magnitude.
But then the only reason these agencies act the way they do and get away with it is because the government wants it that way. So maybe just burn it all down, I don't know. I'm starting to think Thomas Jefferson was right and we should at least try to shoot all the politicians, rip up the Constitution and start over every 20 years.
So not a realistic suggestion, no.
> Would you have the US disband their military as well?
Honestly I think the world would be better off if the US only had the national guard and a small purely defensive coastal navy like Japan. Maybe not randomly fuck up Asian or Middle Eastern countries every few years in the name of oil or Jesus or kickbacks to Lockheed Martin.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one.
Since 9/11, one cannot apply for a US visa if they’re in US. In the context of US immigration, “visa” grants entry, “status” grants stay. If you’re in US, and need to change “status” to a different category (business/leisure, student, etc), you have two primary choices: (1) apply for “change of status” in US, or (2) leave US, apply for a new “visa” in the new category, and enter US using that new “visa”.
Your entry into the states (visa) and your stay (status) in the states are two completely different things. When you enter with a visa, the CBP officer note your status and its validity date on your I-94.
All a visa does is afford you the opportunity to present yourself at the port of entry and request to enter, it bears no guarantee nor right to enter.
That area covers over 65% of the total US population btw
The US owes nothing to the people who want to immigrate here, certainly not due process. If they don't like the US, its policies or citizens, the US should find that out. It is the duty of US immigration to scan their posts for anti-US sentiment, as well as adherence to any ideology that is corrosive to democratic society.
They are effectively applying for a job as US citizen, and should comport themselves accordingly.
Then there’s the US who has consistently held that those rules only apply on US soil (hence Guantanamo) and that the rules only really apply when it comes to US citizens (lawful permanent residents get a slightly more diminished “store brand” version of the protections).
First, Johnson v. Eisentrager (the one case on which your “consistently held” seems to be anchored), was narrower than that, only holding that US courts lacked jurisdiction to hear challenges from enemy military prisoners who at no point had been held in the US.
Second, it and the idea that those detained by the US government have no rights cognizable under US law or enforceable in US courts were subsequently contradicted by Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (US citizens detained in conflict, even entirely overseas, retain Constitutional due process rights), Rasul v. Bush (military detainees have right to habeas corpus review of detention in federal court; this and subsequent cases in this list all deal with non-citizen detainees), Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (in a habeas challenge as allowed under Rasul v. Bush, finding the military commissions instituted at that time at Guatanamo illegal under both the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ), and Boumedienne v. Bush (section of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 purporting to strip detainees of habeas corpus rights was unconstitutional and detainees retained those rights.)
Practically all of these have a gaping martial exemption.
That said, as far as I know, martial law has only been declared at the federal level once, in 1863 during the Civil War, so I’m not sure what that has the do with anything.