FIRE is suing Secretary of State Marco Rubio to challenge two federal immigration law provisions that give him unchecked power to revoke legal immigrants’ visas and deport them just for speech protected by the First Amendment.
Every criticism of this article is answered in the article itself! Either you believe in free speech or you don’t. I think what we are observing is cognitive dissonance amongst those who espouse a belief in free speech but love when their ideological enemies are punished for their public thought crimes.
Keep up the good work. If your case winds up before the Supreme Court, though, do you think it will agree with you that the two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that the Trump Administration is invoking are unconstitutional?
Noncitizens in the United States have First Amendment rights. Despite that, Rubio is wielding two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act to target lawfully present noncitizens for their opinions.
The first allows the secretary of state to initiate deportation proceedings against any noncitizen for protected speech if the secretary “personally determines” the speech “compromises a compelling foreign policy interest.”
The second enables the secretary of state to revoke the visa of any noncitizen “at any time” for any reason.
As FIRE’s lawsuit explains, the provisions are unconstitutional when used to revoke a visa or deport someone for speech the First Amendment protects.
The prohibited actions of the people you defend are not speech-related. Khalil was trespassing many times. There is no first amendment right to trespass on private property.
Rubio actually never said his "speech" invalidated his visa. They said he was in violation of the terms of his student visa and application for green card status by behaving in a manner that runs counter to US foreign policy interests.
“The censorship of noncitizens affects Americans, too. If international students and green-card holders have to censor themselves out of fear, we stand to lose many ideas as a result. Should John Oliver have been forced to censor his criticism of the Iraq War on The Daily Show before he became a U.S. citizen? Should British politician Nigel Farage have been prohibited from criticizing Joe Biden during last year’s Republican National Convention? Of course not, and Americans interested in hearing their perspectives would have been all the worse for it.”
You conflate freedom of speech with whether or not someone has the right to be in the U.S. on an ongoing, permanent basis.
People who are not citizens publicly arguing against the national interest, and speaking for the interests of known designated terrorist groups, do not have a right to continue to be here.
That you would prefer that policy is fine. But not only is that not a First Amendment issue, it is not a free speech issue.
Freedom to criticize the government is very different from freedom of non-citizens to agitate, advocate for and organize for groups that are opposed to the interest of the country.
Sleight of hand claiming that therefore non-citizens should have identical rights on speech as citizens is just that - sleight of hand.
But mostly, the claim that “we stand to lose many ideas” if we don’t let non-citizens remain in the U.S. to agitate against the interests of the U.S. is somewhere between laughable in terms of likelihood and a good thing if it came to pass.
The First Amendment indeed protects *Americans’* rights to say whatever they wish, at least in the political context.
It does not protect the right of non-citizens to agitate for foreign entities, let alone to actively engage in activities in support of designated terrorist groups.
The ability to agitate the government is fundamental to free speech (and the 1st amendment). Any conception of free speech that prohibits that is useless. The interests of the country are not agreed upon, therefore speech is not limited based on whether it adheres to YOUR definition of what is best. The Biden Administration and the Trump administration, for example, wouldn’t agree on the “interest of the country”. The entire point of the first amendment is that speech is NOT limited by what one administration or party deems to be against its own interest.
You are allowed to organize against the government as well. You’re just making this stuff up, and it’s really dumb.
I seriously cannot understand how otherwise mildly intelligent people fail to grasp the entire point of the first amendment and free speech as a principle.
“You are allowed to organize against the government as well. You’re just making this stuff up, and it’s really dumb.”
CITIZENS are indeed allowed to “organize against the government” (though not for insurrection). Non-citizens have no such inherent rights.
This is about whether or not non-citizens have unequivocal rights to remain in our country, or whether our elected representatives can tell them they must leave. If the issue is national security, this is a no-brainer.
I seriously cannot understand how otherwise mildly intelligent people fail to grasp the entire point that national security takes precedence over the supposed “rights” of non-citizens to REMAIN IN OUR COUNTRY and agitate against the government and the national security interests as determined by the elected government that represents the interests of Americans.
Which is different from saying it is perfectly ok for any random person within the government to order deportation based on nothing. But the Secretary of State swearing that the person is a risk to the national security interests of the U.S. is not nothing. And yes of course different elected administrations will decide this differently.
The First Amendment is not absolute even for citizens. You can’t speak direct incitement to violence, and you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.
And non-citizens cannot be *arrested or imprisoned or fined* simply for political speech.
But the idea that non-citizens have an inherent right to be in this country once they are here, and cannot be removed from the country for conduct - which includes speech - that threatens American interests as determined by our elected leaders is not a crazy idea. Whether it is your policy preference or not.
“In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court struck down a Texas law that denied public education to undocumented children, explaining that undocumented immigrants are still “persons” under the Constitution.”
You undercut your own argument when you cite Plyler as supporting it.
That was a terrible decision that the current court would almost surely reverse if revisited.
Your argument re: speech may be correct. But the idea that the Constitution requires providing costly education to people here illegally is frankly absurd.
Free speech - even for non-citizens - may indeed be a near-absolute right that the government cannot infringe. Education supplied at great expense by taxpayers is self-evidently nothing like a right.
Every criticism of this article is answered in the article itself! Either you believe in free speech or you don’t. I think what we are observing is cognitive dissonance amongst those who espouse a belief in free speech but love when their ideological enemies are punished for their public thought crimes.
Keep up the good work. If your case winds up before the Supreme Court, though, do you think it will agree with you that the two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that the Trump Administration is invoking are unconstitutional?
https://www.thefire.org/news/lawsuit-fire-challenges-unconstitutional-provisions-rubio-uses-crusade-deport-legal-immigrants
Noncitizens in the United States have First Amendment rights. Despite that, Rubio is wielding two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act to target lawfully present noncitizens for their opinions.
The first allows the secretary of state to initiate deportation proceedings against any noncitizen for protected speech if the secretary “personally determines” the speech “compromises a compelling foreign policy interest.”
The second enables the secretary of state to revoke the visa of any noncitizen “at any time” for any reason.
As FIRE’s lawsuit explains, the provisions are unconstitutional when used to revoke a visa or deport someone for speech the First Amendment protects.
I agree that the second provision may well be over broad and in violation of the First Amendment if the actions are truly limited to speech.
Khalil’s actions *obviously* were not limited to just speech. Where arguably Öztürk‘s case is limited solely to speech.
But the idea that the first provision is also in violation of the First Amendment as it pertains to non-citizens defies common sense.
At least FIRE had the good sense not to try to defend Khalil.
Even if I disagree with them on this case, I have far less of a problem with them defending the Öztürks of the world than the Khalils.
The prohibited actions of the people you defend are not speech-related. Khalil was trespassing many times. There is no first amendment right to trespass on private property.
The admin made it clear it was about his speech.
No they didn’t. Khalid’s defenders did.
This is not true. White House Pressec Leavitt made a statement about it.
This is purely and simply about his speech, and the Trump admin's lack of belief in our free speech foundations as a country.
You know nothing. You are willfully putting your head in the sand. Khalil's actions are on videotape.
That's not what we're arguing about. The administration made it clear this was about his speech, not his actions. Even if his actions were recorded.
Rubio actually never said his "speech" invalidated his visa. They said he was in violation of the terms of his student visa and application for green card status by behaving in a manner that runs counter to US foreign policy interests.
And what did Rumesya Ozturk do that was not speech-related?
I have no fucking idea. But I do know that Khalil ain’t a fucking angel.
“The censorship of noncitizens affects Americans, too. If international students and green-card holders have to censor themselves out of fear, we stand to lose many ideas as a result. Should John Oliver have been forced to censor his criticism of the Iraq War on The Daily Show before he became a U.S. citizen? Should British politician Nigel Farage have been prohibited from criticizing Joe Biden during last year’s Republican National Convention? Of course not, and Americans interested in hearing their perspectives would have been all the worse for it.”
You conflate freedom of speech with whether or not someone has the right to be in the U.S. on an ongoing, permanent basis.
People who are not citizens publicly arguing against the national interest, and speaking for the interests of known designated terrorist groups, do not have a right to continue to be here.
That you would prefer that policy is fine. But not only is that not a First Amendment issue, it is not a free speech issue.
Freedom to criticize the government is very different from freedom of non-citizens to agitate, advocate for and organize for groups that are opposed to the interest of the country.
Sleight of hand claiming that therefore non-citizens should have identical rights on speech as citizens is just that - sleight of hand.
But mostly, the claim that “we stand to lose many ideas” if we don’t let non-citizens remain in the U.S. to agitate against the interests of the U.S. is somewhere between laughable in terms of likelihood and a good thing if it came to pass.
The First Amendment indeed protects *Americans’* rights to say whatever they wish, at least in the political context.
It does not protect the right of non-citizens to agitate for foreign entities, let alone to actively engage in activities in support of designated terrorist groups.
The ability to agitate the government is fundamental to free speech (and the 1st amendment). Any conception of free speech that prohibits that is useless. The interests of the country are not agreed upon, therefore speech is not limited based on whether it adheres to YOUR definition of what is best. The Biden Administration and the Trump administration, for example, wouldn’t agree on the “interest of the country”. The entire point of the first amendment is that speech is NOT limited by what one administration or party deems to be against its own interest.
You are allowed to organize against the government as well. You’re just making this stuff up, and it’s really dumb.
I seriously cannot understand how otherwise mildly intelligent people fail to grasp the entire point of the first amendment and free speech as a principle.
“You are allowed to organize against the government as well. You’re just making this stuff up, and it’s really dumb.”
CITIZENS are indeed allowed to “organize against the government” (though not for insurrection). Non-citizens have no such inherent rights.
This is about whether or not non-citizens have unequivocal rights to remain in our country, or whether our elected representatives can tell them they must leave. If the issue is national security, this is a no-brainer.
I seriously cannot understand how otherwise mildly intelligent people fail to grasp the entire point that national security takes precedence over the supposed “rights” of non-citizens to REMAIN IN OUR COUNTRY and agitate against the government and the national security interests as determined by the elected government that represents the interests of Americans.
Which is different from saying it is perfectly ok for any random person within the government to order deportation based on nothing. But the Secretary of State swearing that the person is a risk to the national security interests of the U.S. is not nothing. And yes of course different elected administrations will decide this differently.
The First Amendment is not absolute even for citizens. You can’t speak direct incitement to violence, and you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.
And non-citizens cannot be *arrested or imprisoned or fined* simply for political speech.
But the idea that non-citizens have an inherent right to be in this country once they are here, and cannot be removed from the country for conduct - which includes speech - that threatens American interests as determined by our elected leaders is not a crazy idea. Whether it is your policy preference or not.
“In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court struck down a Texas law that denied public education to undocumented children, explaining that undocumented immigrants are still “persons” under the Constitution.”
You undercut your own argument when you cite Plyler as supporting it.
That was a terrible decision that the current court would almost surely reverse if revisited.
Your argument re: speech may be correct. But the idea that the Constitution requires providing costly education to people here illegally is frankly absurd.
Free speech - even for non-citizens - may indeed be a near-absolute right that the government cannot infringe. Education supplied at great expense by taxpayers is self-evidently nothing like a right.
“…its noncitizen student writers are afraid to practice basic journalism”
Opinion pieces are NOT “basic journalism”
The fact that most journalism spewed out these days has become opinion rather than reporting notwithstanding.