Hacker News Reader

Comment by cryptonector | Hacker News Reader

While I think this case is silly (bad), First Amendment protections are only available for U.S. citizens and to a lesser extent to permanent residents (we've seen that permanent residents can have their permanent residency canceled). EDIT: To be clear foreigners can't be imprisoned in the U.S. for their speech any more than a citizen, but unlike a citizen they can be removed from the U.S. because of their speech.

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.

View on HN

> First Amendment protections are only available for U.S. citizens and to a lesser extent to permanent residents

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.)

> 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.

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.

Some fair points. Courts have ruled Congress can make laws concerning foreign residents that would be unconstitutional if applied to domestic residents and citizens. They generally can't deny someone their Constitutional rights once already inside the US though. But since deportation isn't a criminal conviction (and rejection at the border especially isn't), it's conceivable that they could deny someone entry for a variety of reasons.

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.

> Some fair points.

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.

It's literally in the first sentence: "We the people of the United States of America"

Yes, though many of the constitutional rights do apply to all people, not just The People, it's just that there is one right that foreigners definitely don't have in any country in the world: the right to enter and stay in any country other than their own.

Why would you absolve POTUS when it's clear his administration's policies created the environment that enables CBP officers to take this liberty?

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.

I've been watching this sort of thing for decades. Decisions like this by a CBP agent never get overturned by their management, and it never reaches the White House. If what the French researcher wrote was harmless then I would agree with you that this would be a case of policy from the WH causing overreactions below.

> If what the French researcher wrote was harmless then I would agree with you that

How is it not?

> > If what the French researcher wrote was harmless then I would agree with you that

> 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.

> I'd like to remind you that we don't know what it was the they wrote.

The French government has had access to this info before addressing a complaint.

>> First Amendment protections are only available for U.S. citizens

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.

Demanding that Europe have free speech for their citizens is not the same thing as demanding that Europe have free speech for non-citizens. Sophistry doesn't help in controversial times, IMO.

Of course, there's no need to "demand" something that is already given. We have free speech rights here, no matter what Vance or Musk say.

Also, calling someone else's point "sophistry" is not exactly nice, and one should instead assume good faith.

> Of course, there's no need to "demand" something that is already given. We have free speech rights here, no matter what Vance or Musk say.

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.

Except if you badmouth Trump at an airport, obviously. Or represent his opponent in court. Or advocate for Palestine. Or refuse to say "Gulf of America". Or peacefully protest. Or generally say anything he doesn't like.

But apart from that, yes, free speech!

You don't actually know what the texts said. There's been a great deal of conjecture with no actual confirmation. Maybe there's something else here and the media is just running with a narrative. Maybe the CBP is being overzealous and needs to be reigned in.

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.

Why did you choose to ignore everything else in my post, which has applied to Americans and legal residents in the last 2 weeks?

> Except if you badmouth Trump at an airport, obviously.

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.

> First Amendment protections are only available for U.S. citizens

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.

> 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.

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.)

> we've seen that permanent residents can have their permanent residency canceled

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.

There have been other cases of permanent residents, and even naturalized citizens losing their residency or citizenship. Ironically many of those cases are about actual Nazis.

For example [John Demjanjuk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Demjanjuk#Loss_of_US_citi...).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com