[flagged]
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
It is our personal responsibility to learn what is true and what is false, and then hold both ourselves and our elected leaders to that standard.
For the good of community, its citizens and visitors, and the world at large.
And even if it didn't mean that, it'd be very ironic for an administration, where one of its most powerful gray eminence admonished for example Germany for its "lack of free speech" (paraphrasing).
Is there some reason to be sceptical about the validity of the French assessment? I'm fairly certain that if the researcher had actually claimed actual violence or similar in the texts, then France wouldn't have made this into a diplomatic incident. Do you have a reason to disagree?
Also, this is an action by CBP, not by the POTUS. I seriously doubt there was any order by POTUS regarding the speech of foreigners abroad. Most likely this is just a zealous CBP agent making this decision. I've been given the third degree by immigration officers in the U.S. and Canada, and it always felt very random.
Nowhere in the First Amendment, or anywhere in the Bill of Rights (or later amendments), does it state, or even imply, that the First Amendment is only applicable to US citizens and permanent residents. SCOTUS has repeatedly interpreted the First Amendment's protections as extending beyond just citizens and permanent residents in matters of freedom of speech and religion. While some rights, such as voting, are restricted to citizens, the First Amendment's protections apply to anyone within the U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship status.
The amendment is short and clear: "Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Even if one argued "the people" refers only to U.S. Citizens (on what basis, who knows), that would only restrict assembly and petitions. The first part is unambiguously comprehensive and clear: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" (emphasis added by me.)
The Second Amendment does ("... the right of the People ..."). And the Fourteenth Amendment specifically refers to people "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments are taken to apply to all persons in the U.S., citizens, residents, and otherwise, even though they say nothing of the sort.
If one wished to say that the 2A's mention of "the People" implies that the other amendments don't apply to foreigners, that would have perverse results such as denying all due process to foreigners. The contrary is true. Therefore the other protections do apply to foreigners except for the fact that foreigners can be expelled, and there is no protection against that (in principle not even due process protections against removal except as granted by statute).
The Constitution is not just what's written on it but what the courts have said in their interpretations. I'm quite sure that the 1A does not protect foreigners against removal for their speech is not controversial in legal circles as a statement of actual jurisprudence.
So perhaps not a violation of the Constitution. Though if the scientist's claims that he was denied entry because he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy, then it certainly violates the spirit of the First Amendment, and much of what the government claims it stands for. Is it legal? Perhaps. Will it cause long-standing damage to US soft-power and the ability of US organizations to recruit world-class scientists? Quite possibly.
Thanks.
> Though if the scientist's claims that he was denied entry because he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy, then it certainly violates the spirit of the First Amendment, and much of what the government claims it stands for.
That's an "if". We don't know what the CBP agent saw. But let's assume it's harmless, then I agree that it's damaging to the Administration's brand, but I also wouldn't agree (yet) that it happened because of Trump's orders.
> Is it legal? Perhaps.
Current law gives the executive branch the power to turn away foreigners for almost any reason.
> Will it cause long-standing damage to US soft-power and the ability of US organizations to recruit world-class scientists? Quite possibly.
Almost certainly, especially if neither CBP makes a more useful statement nor the WH comes out and clears things up. It's entirely possible that the WH will not take notice and that CBP doesn't want to engage the public on this.
Some years ago the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission started going into convention venues in Texas and arresting anyone they could argue was publicly intoxicated. That led to a spate of conventions boycotting the state until the TABC backed down.
Additionally, the CBP spokesperson[1] defended the action, and despite reporters asking questions, the administration has done nothing to walk back the action or apologize. All signs point to the administration being very okay with stuff like this happening.
[1]: This might not be widely known, but one of the first actions that happens on inauguration day is the replacement of US government agency spokespersons with new political appointees. One of the powers of the executive branch is the bully pulpit and smart administrations seek to use it from day one.
How is it not?
> How is it not?
I'd like to remind you that we don't know what it was the they wrote. The news article doesn't specify, and CBP did not provide any details.
The French government has had access to this info before addressing a complaint.
Given Musk and Vance have lectured other countries on 'free speech' I think this argument no longer works. If they're so invested in the rules on speech in various European countries they're hypocrites when they deny it to foreign nationals.
Also, calling someone else's point "sophistry" is not exactly nice, and one should instead assume good faith.
People in Europe, and especially the UK, are absolutely being imprisoned for speech that in the U.S. is protected speech. You can argue about degrees of free speech if you like, but the fact remains that we have a great deal more legal protections for political (and other) speech in the U.S. than in Europe.
But apart from that, yes, free speech!
The context is speech in the country you are a citizen of. I'm sure citizens of all countries can badmouth Trump at any European airport, but that's not a good test of whether citizens of a European country A have free speech rights within their own country especially when speaking against their own governments.
Either way, applications for visas do not have to be accepted.
Americans talk crap about Trump and Biden and every other leader in this country. Here you are doing it on a US based website. Nobody cares.
This is something that feels like it should be true but it isn't. The Constitution applies to everyone with some very specific exceptions to the jurisdiction of the United States.
What is true is that there's a long standing sort of gentleman's agreement between the courts and the executive that basically grants the administration a large amount of discretion in handling immigration despite the Constitution.
Some parts of the Constitution apply to everyone. For example, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments absolutely apply to all persons, but a while a foreigner accused of crimes in the U.S. has all the same rights to a fair trial, speedy trial, counsel, non-self-incrimination, confrontation, etc., they don't have a right not to be expelled from the country instead of having the trial.
> What is true is that there's a long standing sort of gentleman's agreement between the courts and the executive that basically grants the administration a large amount of discretion in handling immigration despite the Constitution.
Decisions of the court are not "gentlemen's agreements". They are binding precedent.
Generally between the courts' interpretation of Article II and various statutes the POTUS does have great latitude as to removal of foreigners but not as to trials of foreigners. (Nor do foreigners not have the right to life, liberty, and property. They can't be summarily executed, for example, nor can they summarily be imprisoned. And they have the right to liberty within the parameters of their visas. And generally they have the right to property within the jurisdiction of U.S. law.)
If you're talking about Mahmoud Khalil, that was probably unlawful, and you should wait for your judicial branch to pass judgment before reaching the conclusion that fascism is lawful.
For example [John Demjanjuk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Demjanjuk#Loss_of_US_citi...).
That being said, I suspect there is more to this story than the headline is alluding to, as there often is.
> You don't have a right to visit another country. It's a privilege.
In fact as a French citizen, the US has signed bilateral convention with my country that gives me the right to visit the US under a certain set of formalities depending on the circumstances, and this is reciprocal.