A university president makes a case against cowardice

> The US has the prerogative to filter immigrants based on their views and affiliations.

What comes before “filter[ing] immigrants” is due process. Resident aliens have the right to due process which the current US administration is not providing.

Alien residents with every right to be here are being removed from the US illegally and mistakenly.

I am not sure there's technically a due process right in the case of immigration visa revocation and the ensuing deportation. There is a due process right in the case of crimes, but getting your visa revoked is not a crime.

The best argument I have heard is that visa revocation may be like firing: the US can do it for almost any reason and you can fire someone for no reason, but can't do it for specific prohibited reasons. Speech would probably be one of those bad reasons under the US's civil rights framework.

> The best argument I have heard is that visa revocation may be like firing: the US can do it for almost any reason and you can fire someone for no reason, but can't do it for specific prohibited reasons. Speech would probably be one of those bad reasons under the US's civil rights framework.

No, the U.S. has the prerogative to pick and choose foreigners who are allowed to immigrate based on categories that would be impermissible for employers. That includes nationality, e.g. our green card quota system, as well as speech and affiliation. The Supreme Court has upheld deporting communists who are foreign nationals: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/580/.

This is reflected in the statute. Aliens can specifically be excluded for political beliefs and views if the Secretary of State determines that is necessary: "An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien's past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien's admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest." 8 USC 1182(a)(4)(C)(iii).

I think the real argument here is a constitutional one about that statute, not about the statute itself. It is unlikely, though, that the supreme court would reverse its stance here.

The current statute reflects the Supreme Court’s precedents on the issue. The Supreme Court precedent, in turn, reflects the fundamental difference between citizens and non-citizens. The government has plenary power, constitutionally, to decide who is permitted to enter the united states and on what terms.

The government may be within its legal rights. As an expression of values however it's hard not to see the expulsion of these students as petty politicalized retaliation. The sort of thing you would see in an electoral autocracy as opposed to a liberal democracy.

> The US has the prerogative to filter immigrants based on their views and affiliations.

Just to point, the prerogative to "filter" immigrants does not allow the US to keep them in jail, torture, or send them to foreign countries non-supervised labor camps.

If there's no due process for everyone, that distinction literally does not matter in the slightest!

Dozens of citizens could have been sent into slave labor for all we know, and no judge has been able to provide the constitutionally mandated oversight. It has been upheld many times and for hundreds of years that the Due Process clause applies to non-citizens for this reason.

If you're a guest, act like a guest. Anti-Israel protests are by extension a protest against the US foreign policy, so yeah... You protest your host in a violent and disruptive manner, you probably shouldn't have been allowed in to begin with.

Not in my America.

I welcome any and all persons from anywhere in the world if they want to come and protest the American war machine

Our forefathers would be absolutely ashamed at what you just said. Protesting a totalitarian government that lacks proper representation is the most American thing you can possibly do, and that makes these immigrants more American than you will ever be, as long as you hold such views.

Edit: It seems you have edited your post in order to remove the extremely distasteful language you originally expressed. I assume you still hold such views or you'd not have expressed them to begin with, and as such my comment still stands.

Due process only means “This is the minimum required process for the government to act”. It doesn’t mean that every non-citizen is entitled to a jury trial that can escalate to the USSC.

In some cases, “due process” is “Your name made it into a spreadsheet, the President can drone strike you”

That only Americans have the right to participate in our political system is an expression of values. And it’s entirely compatible with democracy. The citizen versus non-citizen distinction is fundamental to democracy.

Due process doesn’t require judicial process.

Fuck that!

We have this thing called the First Amendment. It applies to all people under the jurisdiction of the United States. There’s no exception for “guests.” Criticizing the government is a time-honored American tradition. Throwing people out for it is absolutely vile.

Americans can criticize their government all they want. Foreigners shouldn’t have no input in the american political system. The first amendment is the exception to the democratic rule, not the other way around.

>the First Amendment . . . applies to all people under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Not according to the Supreme Court it doesn't.

Foreigners aren't allowed to vote or donate. They should be allowed to voice their opinions on the government, though. In my opinion, anyone who says foreigners in the country shouldn't criticize the government is less American than said foreigners.

> Our forefathers would be absolutely ashamed...

Well, like half of our forefathers. Maybe 30%.

America has always been this weird combined project of Hopeless Idealists and The Worst People In The World. Our forefathers sought independence for freedom and self-determination and all sorts of other noble things, but also because many of them owned a bunch of slaves and were worried that was going to be outlawed in the near future. And then sought independence again a century later out of the same fear.

Making America subservient to Israel's interests is anti-American. The fascist zionists play at being "America first" but this couldn't be further from the truth.

No, it is not.

That's a good point, I often use "forefathers" loosely when I really mean just the good forefathers, such as Franklin, Paine, etc. I need to figure out a way to be more precise about this without being too verbose.

You have case law to back that up?

It absolutely is not. And your views are very concerning. Everyone residing in the US is entitled to the ammendments. That is exactly why Guantanamo bay was formed, as a matter of fact. What makes this so much worse is these individuals were not arrested for criticizing these United States, but for criticizing a hostile foreign nation, that just so happens to be the darling of billionaires of a certain faith, who constitute an overwhelming majority in the aristocracy of the US (and have been there since around the 70s). It can in fact be traced back to AZC, when JFK forced them to register as foreign agents.

A protest is disruptive by definition.

We were talking about the Tufts PhD student who did not engage in any violence or disruption, but wrote an op-ed advocating for a boycott of another country.

I’m not weighing in on the specific protests here—I’m actually not unsympathetic to your point about that. I’m talking about the general power of the government to decide what kinds of foreigners it wants to allow in the country.

Do you think the first amendment means the government has to allow in immigrants that are Nazi sympathizers? What about Communists?

Americans have free speech. But Americans can also decide which foreigners are allowed the privilege of being on American soil. In fact, I would say that it’s precisely because we have free speech that we must carefully guard who is allowed into the tent.

It’s like due process 101: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/05-proce...

(See link for footnotes.)

> Non-Judicial Proceedings.—A court proceeding is not a requisite of due process.745 Administrative and executive proceedings are not judicial, yet they may satisfy the Due Process Clause.746 Moreover, the Due Process Clause does not require de novo judicial review of the factual conclusions of state regulatory agencies,747 and may not require judicial review at all.748 Nor does the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit a state from conferring judicial functions upon non-judicial bodies, or from delegating powers to a court that are legislative in nature.749 Further, it is up to a state to determine to what extent its legislative, executive, and judicial powers should be kept distinct and separate.750

It's hard for me not to be extremely cynical about the anti-Israel protests that happened. For one thing, a lot of people who favor them gloss over the illegal things done at them like break-ins, vandalism, trespassing, and illegal occupations.

But in general I think the case made by the pro-Palestinian side was that somehow universities bore responsibility for what Israel did because of vague investments in their endowments. I didn't think owning an ETF that held a weapons manufacturer or some Israeli company on the stock market was explicitly Zionist but this was the premise for protests. Why not protest the US or Israel directly? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

It felt like they were asking universities to explicitly be pro-Palestine which is a strange thing to ask for in America.

The good forefathers? What is the basis for deciding? Like back in 2017 there was the Unite the Right rally on the UVA campus. I am guessing you would not support that kind of anti-Semitic speech and "protest against totalitarian government" although there's not really much difference in speech said at that rally versus the anti-Israel ones at Columbia except by who was saying it. Maybe I am wrong and you are a free speech absolutist but if not I would be interested in hearing how to decide which hate speech should be cracked down upon and which shouldn't.

Fair. I sit enlightened. Although the court cases so far didn't seem to end up there.

Who is we in this regard? You and I do not decide on such matters (was there a survey or referendum?) I agree with your sentiment, but I reject that a select few (rich Jews like the Adelsons) get to decide who comes in by donating to a campaign and influencing intepretations for our ammendments. Let us apply this standard to everyone and block IDF soldiers alongside those individuals. Will this ever happen? I doubt it (Gal Gadot served in those armed forces for instance, and is a darling of Disney executives). The problem I have with this issue, is it is being weaponized by one group to subjugate another. I am not sympathetic to either sides (although as of late, I am much more sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, given they are victims of an oppression at the hand of a much more powerful entity, backed by powerful states that are losing the propaganda edge they have mastered for so long). I have an issue with the weaponization of free speech to advocate on behalf of one group that holds a lot more power in the US. That is not something I accept. Ultimately, you and I can debate this, but no effect will result from this. The Adelsons made donations to Trump explicitly because of Columbia's protests, and what they asked for was crystal clear: everyone (including citizens) must be deported or blacklisted from jobs for protesting against darling Israel. The deans of Harvard and Columbia were sacked. You see this as a free market or a lawful interpretation of Immigration. I see it as foreign interference with a cooperation from American traitors (like the Adelsons) and treason to American values. It is an anti-American initiative that prioritizes the wellbeing of Israel at the expense of American free speech and the well-being of students that chose to come here.

source?

Rayiner says it in a comment upthread. Whereas most lawyers in the US work on cases filed in state court, Rayiner works on cases filed in Federal court, and if you were to sue the US government to try to assert the free-speech rights of the immigrants we are talking about, you'd do it in Federal court.

Sadly, his comment has been flagged.

> personally determines that the alien's admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.

What, exactly, about Rumeysa Ozturk's student newspaper contributions[1] could possibly justify the notion that her _residence in America_ is compromising a compelling US foreign policy interest?

The clear purpose of that statute including a long list of properties which would not normally be grounds for exclusion is to set a reasonably high bar for the Secretary of State's 'personal opinion' about a compromising admission. If the intent were to grant a broad, beyond question license to deport Fulbright scholars for _engagement in society_, it would just say they can do whatever the fuck they want and skip the salad.

I completely agree on this, however I will note that the courts somehow always forget that the number 2 exists.

> What is the basis for deciding?

For one, whether or not they supported abolition.

I also will not engage in a debate with a poisoned premise: To be clear, supporting Israel today means supporting genocide. That is the beginning and end of it. You can denounce Israel and still denounce Hamas. You can support an individual Jewish person's right to life and liberty without making the mistake of supporting their genocidal government.

Given that my own government, the United States, is also genocidal and has a history of bloody colonialism, I appreciate when people can make this distinction. I condemn my own government and still support my fellow countrymen.

None of this needs pointing out. Any attempt to paint an anti-Israel stance as an antisemitic stance is deliberately deceitful and wholly reprehensible. Israel the government is illegitimate and Netanyahu is wanted in the International Criminal Court for genocidal crimes.