←back to thread

523 points sva_ | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.279s | source
Show context
__loam ◴[] No.44314220[source]
This is a gross violation of some of our most sacred principles.
replies(3): >>44314392 #>>44314457 #>>44314475 #
buckle8017 ◴[] No.44314475[source]
Can you be specific which principles this violates?

Historically visas could and were denied for completely arbitrary reasons.

replies(1): >>44314488 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.44314488[source]
> Can you be specific which principles this violates?

The right to free speech. Even in its restrictive First Amendment form.

replies(1): >>44314512 #
lesuorac ◴[] No.44314512[source]
I'm not sure 1FA applies to non-US individuals on non-US soil.

Once they're in the country, sure.

----

Not that I think it's been demonstrated that this policy will improve US security or etc. Wonder if the APA applies here.

replies(4): >>44314539 #>>44314761 #>>44315556 #>>44315834 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.44315556[source]
> not sure 1FA applies to non-US individuals on non-US soil

Textually, it does. (The President acts without force of law when he restricts “freedom of expression.”)

Intent-wise, for those seeking entry to America, it does—our republic was formed, in part, to restrict the executive from excluding religious minorities he doesn’t liked

Legally, however, you are right.

replies(1): >>44329543 #
1. dlivingston ◴[] No.44329543[source]
> Legally, however, you are right.

Is this true? My understanding is that the 1A has been understood by SCOTUS as a restriction on government power to influence speech, _not_ as a right granted to individuals.