Thus I appreciate this thoughtful critique of some actions that the present administration is taking that arguably are unconstitutional transgressions of the First Amendment. These are not the usual suspects for whom that administration can do no right but ever wrong; rather, they're supporters more or less who are pointing out that some of this is over the line. Not all of it, though, and they try to draw out where the lines really are or ought to be.
Free Speech Arguments
I've always believed in free speech, even very nasty speech that I personally wouldn't say or enjoy hearing. There are strong arguments for protecting even jerks who say terrible things, for example, so you'll know who the jerks who think terrible things are. It's always the jerks you are supporting in this game, in fact, because they're the ones who are going to run afoul of limits.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I believe in free speech too.
But when the government pays hundreds of millions for it, is it really free anymore? Paid Speech would be a more accurate description.
My position is all these Universities can do what they like, just don't ask me to pay for it. Hillsdale would be a good example for them.
I don't think it's a free speech issue. At all. It's more akin to a contract law case. When you accept the privilege of being granted a green card, you agree to terms- some of which might well impinge on your rights. But you agreed to that in exchange for the benefit. It's not unlike agreeing to join the armed forces and being subject as a result of accepting the (admittedly low) pay, that you can be prosecuted under the UCMJ for things that were you not in the military would be perfectly within your rights.
Maybe I'm wrong in this thinking, but it makes sense to me.
For what it's worth, I think a similar argument applies to the Georgetown case- they accept the money, they get the strings that are attached too. It's not like *requiring* speech is any less control of speech, and that's currently what happens with that money. If that's legal, so is this.
I'm not seeing the free speech angle. In the first place, visa holders probably would be tolerated forever if they refrained from overt threats and incitements of violence against their immediate neighbors, primarily Jews in this case. In the second place, we're entitled to grant or revoke visas on the ground of support of terrorist causes, which is not quite as clear-cut a case of threats or incitements of violence, but close enough for people petitioning for the privilege of hanging out in my country.
I thought Lukianoff and Shibley made the case for it falling under free speech. They do say that the US has every right to make conditions on who is given a visa or a green card or citizenship, so we could make such conditions going forward, but right now there are no free speech limitations on non-citizens that do not also apply to citizens (fraud, libel, etc.).
james, as I understand it, there is nothing in the process of getting a green card that tells a recipient they don't have the same free speech rights as American citizens. So, this case seems to be a gotcha -- we're not going to tell you the rules, but you better not violate them or we'll upend your life. That is not like the contract you sign when you enlist in the military, which is very explicit about that sort of thing.
It seems that there is an exception if the Sec of State determines that the non-citizen is a “threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States.” This is what the US is claiming, not that Khalid broke any laws or violated any agreements made to get his green card.
I would prefer to deport Khalid, personally, but I see the free speech issue and I would like to be consistent. Lately, the Democratic Party has been attacking free speech under the guise of calling speech they don't like 'misinformation' or 'disinformation' and so on, and I have argued against that on free speech grounds.
I think we need to revise the entire immigration system, but that will take legislation. I think that's the right way to handle the situation.
A law that might be able to pass now would simply deny visa and green card renewals for those who publicly advocate for terrorist causes and organizations, or any other enemies of the US, and make it disqualifying for citizenship. Even Democrats might not want to vote to keep foreigners who advocate for terrorism.
Already the law. This twitter thread (especially the second tweet) get pretty in depth-
https://x.com/BenTelAviv/status/1899498655394005461
That's good to know! Thanks for digging that up and sharing.
It really seems like we have a lot of sensible immigration laws that have just been ignored for decades. How in the world can anyone accuse Trump of threatening the rule of law when administrations of both parties have been ignoring our laws for decades? Does the hypocrisy not burn?
Post a Comment