More lack of freedom of speech from Trump - kicking visa holders out who say things he doesn't like

[Lisa558]

Foreigners being in America is a privilege, abuse that privilege and it is revoked. Once again we see non-Americans as the liberal priority over the citizens they insult and abuse.

Yes, leftists have everything upside-down: foreigners over Americans, thugs over decent law-abiding people, Islamic savages against Jews.

 

[Mack The Finger]

Let it all be a lesson stop embracing BLM/DEI and all forms of radical leftism. Just go back to traditional Democrats like John F. Kennedy.

Great post !

Since I post it all the time...I'm sure you know I say JFK would be a PUB.

I don't mean he would jump ship (even with his flaws) he a great president !

 

[Hafar1014]

US revokes six foreigners’ visas over social media comments criticizing Charlie Kirk

State department says it has ‘no obligation’ to host foreign nationals who ‘celebrate heinous’ death of far-right activist

uk.yahoo.com

"US revokes six foreigners’ visas over social media comments criticizing Charlie Kirk"

Trump dressed it up as people "celebrating" Kirk's death. Nothing of the sort

"“The United States has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death on Americans,” the state department said in a statement posted on X. “The State Department continues to identify visa holders who celebrated the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk.”"

Here's the first example they gave:

"“Charlie Kirk won’t be remembered as a hero,” one of the comments posted on X read. “He was used to astroturf a movement of white nationalist trailer trash!”"

Did this person "celebrate" his death? Nope. He just said he won't be remembered as a hero.

This is very dangerous. Either people have freedom of speech, or it becomes a privilege, and in the US, it's becoming a privilege.

What next? Locking up Americans for it?

Visa holders dont have free speech or hate speech rights

 

[Frankenstein]

US revokes six foreigners’ visas over social media comments criticizing Charlie Kirk

State department says it has ‘no obligation’ to host foreign nationals who ‘celebrate heinous’ death of far-right activist

uk.yahoo.com

"US revokes six foreigners’ visas over social media comments criticizing Charlie Kirk"

Trump dressed it up as people "celebrating" Kirk's death. Nothing of the sort

"“The United States has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death on Americans,” the state department said in a statement posted on X. “The State Department continues to identify visa holders who celebrated the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk.”"

Here's the first example they gave:

"“Charlie Kirk won’t be remembered as a hero,” one of the comments posted on X read. “He was used to astroturf a movement of white nationalist trailer trash!”"

Did this person "celebrate" his death? Nope. He just said he won't be remembered as a hero.

This is very dangerous. Either people have freedom of speech, or it becomes a privilege, and in the US, it's becoming a privilege.

What next? Locking up Americans for it?

Good

 

[Frankenstein]

Having the RIGHT to free speech means all people in the US legally have these rights.

It doesn't seem like that right now.

You don't have to let people in, but once you've given them a visa, you should only kick them out for COMMITTING A CRIME. They didn't commit a crime.

They did it's called a hate crime

 

[Frankenstein]

Right, just like it's the victim's fault that they get murdered.

such as?

 

[SweetTea]

The European history lesson continues. Now we know.

Boy are you confused.

 

[wamose]

Stupid visa holders. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Visa holders dont have free speech or hate speech rights

Yeah, they do.

Can the Government Restrict Immigrant Free Speech Rights?

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution opens with sweeping language: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” It makes no obvious distinction between citizen and non-citizen, seemingly protecting all “people” within America’s borders. ContentsThe Constitutional...

govfacts.org

"The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution opens with sweeping language: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” It makes no obvious distinction between citizen and non-citizen, seemingly protecting all “people” within America’s borders."

"The First Amendment protects the rights of “the people” to assemble and petition the government. Its speech protections aren’t limited by citizenship status. For over a century, the Supreme Court has confirmed that non-citizens within the U.S. are “persons” protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments."

"This interpretation means many basic constitutional rights, including freedom of speech and religion, apply to citizens and non-citizens alike. However, the judiciary has carved out significant exceptions."

"Non-citizens seeking to enter the United States have the fewest First Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has consistently held that there’s no constitutional right to enter the country, giving the government its broadest authority in this domain."

"Once lawfully admitted into the United States, a non-citizen’s constitutional status changes significantly. They become “invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders”. However, a critical gap emerges between protection from criminal prosecution for speech and vulnerability to severe immigration consequences for the same speech."

"Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs or “Green Card” holders) enjoy broad First Amendment protections. They can criticize the government, participate in protests, and advocate for political causes without facing criminal charges based solely on their speech."

"However, these protections don’t shield them from immigration-related actions. Federal law allows the government to deny an LPR’s citizenship application or initiate deportation proceedings if their speech or associations are deemed a national security threat."

"
Individuals on temporary visas, such as students and workers, are also protected by the First Amendment and have rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. They can participate in protests and express political views.

However, their status is conditional and more fragile than LPRs. An arrest during a protest, even if charges are dropped, or university disciplinary action related to activism, can be used by immigration officials as basis to revoke their visa or deny future applications. This vulnerability creates a powerful “chilling effect,” where visa holders may self-censor their speech and avoid political engagement out of fear."

So, all in all, you can bar a foreigner from entering the country for whatever reason. Once they're in the country they have the right to say whatever they like, as long as it's legal. If they get arrested then that's a little different, for some strange reason, even if they don't get prosecuted.

If they say something that is a "national security threat" then they can be kicked out for it. However, these people weren't doing that at all. Trump is just being an a-hole.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Stupid visa holders. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Are these people tourists or workers?

And if they're workers, they have significant protections.

 

[Hafar1014]

Yeah, they do.

Can the Government Restrict Immigrant Free Speech Rights?

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution opens with sweeping language: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” It makes no obvious distinction between citizen and non-citizen, seemingly protecting all “people” within America’s borders. ContentsThe Constitutional...

govfacts.org

"The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution opens with sweeping language: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” It makes no obvious distinction between citizen and non-citizen, seemingly protecting all “people” within America’s borders."

"The First Amendment protects the rights of “the people” to assemble and petition the government. Its speech protections aren’t limited by citizenship status. For over a century, the Supreme Court has confirmed that non-citizens within the U.S. are “persons” protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments."

"This interpretation means many basic constitutional rights, including freedom of speech and religion, apply to citizens and non-citizens alike. However, the judiciary has carved out significant exceptions."

"Non-citizens seeking to enter the United States have the fewest First Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has consistently held that there’s no constitutional right to enter the country, giving the government its broadest authority in this domain."

"Once lawfully admitted into the United States, a non-citizen’s constitutional status changes significantly. They become “invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders”. However, a critical gap emerges between protection from criminal prosecution for speech and vulnerability to severe immigration consequences for the same speech."

"Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs or “Green Card” holders) enjoy broad First Amendment protections. They can criticize the government, participate in protests, and advocate for political causes without facing criminal charges based solely on their speech."

"However, these protections don’t shield them from immigration-related actions. Federal law allows the government to deny an LPR’s citizenship application or initiate deportation proceedings if their speech or associations are deemed a national security threat."

"
Individuals on temporary visas, such as students and workers, are also protected by the First Amendment and have rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. They can participate in protests and express political views.

However, their status is conditional and more fragile than LPRs. An arrest during a protest, even if charges are dropped, or university disciplinary action related to activism, can be used by immigration officials as basis to revoke their visa or deny future applications. This vulnerability creates a powerful “chilling effect,” where visa holders may self-censor their speech and avoid political engagement out of fear."

So, all in all, you can bar a foreigner from entering the country for whatever reason. Once they're in the country they have the right to say whatever they like, as long as it's legal. If they get arrested then that's a little different, for some strange reason, even if they don't get prosecuted.

If they say something that is a "national security threat" then they can be kicked out for it. However, these people weren't doing that at all. Trump is just being an a-hole.

VISA holdes do not have hate speech rights

 

[frigidweirdo]

VISA holdes do not have hate speech rights

Explain.

 

[citygator]

The exampled comment wasnt even overly critical. The US has a giant shit-stain on its constitution and flag that Trump left wiping his ass with it. You guys sniff it daily on here. You all need serious help.

 

[Hafar1014]

Explain.

Explain.

The United States has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death on Americans,” the State Department announced Tuesday. “The State Department continues to identify visa holders who celebrated the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk.”

The six individuals were identified as natives of Argentina, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Germany, and Paraguay.

The comments reportedly included references to Kirk as someone who “devoted his entire life to spreading racist, xenophobic and misogynistic rhetoric,” and statements such as “there are people who deserve to die.”

Bye bye

 

[wamose]

Are these people tourists or workers?

And if they're workers, they have significant protections.

It doesn't matter if they're tourists or workers. They're invited guests who can be uninvited for inciting unrest against our government. Guests shouldn't shit on their host's rug. Adios.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The United States has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death on Americans,” the State Department announced Tuesday. “The State Department continues to identify visa holders who celebrated the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk.”

The six individuals were identified as natives of Argentina, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Germany, and Paraguay.

The comments reportedly included references to Kirk as someone who “devoted his entire life to spreading racist, xenophobic and misogynistic rhetoric,” and statements such as “there are people who deserve to die.”

Bye bye

And the one example given didn't "wish death on Americans". Didn't say anything about death. Just said "Kirk was like this".

Also you didn't explain, didn't even try and explain, why visa holders don't have "hate speech rights". You didn't talk about "hate speech rights". You quoted something already quoted.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It doesn't matter if they're tourists or workers. They're invited guests who can be uninvited for inciting unrest against our government. Guests shouldn't shit on their host's rug. Adios.

Do you understand rights?

Do you understand what the Supreme Court has said on the matter?

If you work in the US legally, you're part of "the people".

 

[Hafar1014]

And the one example given didn't "wish death on Americans". Didn't say anything about death. Just said "Kirk was like this".

Also you didn't explain, didn't even try and explain, why visa holders don't have "hate speech rights". You didn't talk about "hate speech rights". You quoted something already quoted.

Hate speech gest you kicked out simple to understand. No administration was more opposed to free speech than the Biden administration. Dd you complain then

 

[Hafar1014]

Do you understand rights?

Do you understand what the Supreme Court has said on the matter?

If you work in the US legally, you're part of "the people".

Apparently not try and keep up. As democrat we understand hate speech is part of your thinking

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hate speech gest you kicked out simple to understand. No administration was more opposed to free speech than the Biden administration. Dd you complain then

I guess you were the wrong person to ask questions to.

Either answer the question, or don't respond.