←back to thread

New US visa rules will force foreign students to unlock social media profiles

(www.theguardian.com)
523 points sva_ | 3 comments | 18 Jun 25 23:11 UTC | HN request time: 0.661s | source
Show context
southernplaces7 ◴[19 Jun 25 06:26 UTC] No.44316005[source]▶
So, aside from the first Amendment no longer applying to anyone in the U.S (not just citizens mind you) as has always been its interpretation, the government has given itself the right to explicitly, wholesale, normalize the total invasion of anyone's private "papers" (translate that to the modern era) in the name of bullshit entry security theater.
replies(1): >>44316153 #
godelski ◴[19 Jun 25 06:54 UTC] No.44316153[source]▶
Just an FYI for anyone reading, according to the constitution, the first amendment applies to everyone, not just citizens. It specifically says "the people" rather than "citizens". Courts have ruled time and time again that citizen rights are specifically those with the verbiage "citizens" and rights like these apply to everyone.

Not that that exactly matters to this administration, who is happy to act first and let the courts figure it out never

replies(2): >>44318293 #>>44323173 #
Aloisius ◴[19 Jun 25 22:38 UTC] No.44323173[source]▶
Everyone inside the United States.

Non-resident aliens abroad aren't generally considered to be protected by the First Amendment, so denying someone a visa before they enter the US based on speech may be Constitutionally ok.

Deporting people already in the US because of speech is a different matter.

replies(1): >>44325016 #
godelski ◴[20 Jun 25 05:35 UTC] No.44325016[source]▶

  > so denying someone a visa before they enter the US based on speech may be Constitutionally ok.
It probably applies outside. Pay careful attention to the text

  | Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It does not say anything about when, where, or who utters speech. It only says that congress shall pass no law prohibiting it. It's highly debatable, but honestly speaking, let's be real, this right has no borders. Even if we look back to the intent, it is clear. We should ensure that it does not gain borders, because that will not be good for anyone, including citizens.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

replies(1): >>44331917 #
1. Aloisius ◴[20 Jun 25 20:44 UTC] No.44331917[source]▶
If you look at "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, it refers to "the people of the United States" which would not include aliens abroad.

The Supreme Court hasn't said much, but in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez plurality opinion by Rehnquist held that the rights of "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment (written similarly) does not extend outside the United States to aliens abroad as they are not a "class of persons who are part of a national community or ... have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

replies(1): >>44332634 #
2. godelski ◴[20 Jun 25 22:17 UTC] No.44332634[source]▶

  > it refers to "the people of the United States" which would not include aliens abroad.
Yes. That is why the courts have continually ruled that rights belong to noncitizens as well

  These are different:
    - The people
    - The people of the United States
    - Citizens
The three terms are used and not interchangeably.

If you are confused about this you can 1) Google to confirm, 2) read the constitution, not just the amendments, to see this actively play out, or 3) read the Federalist Papers, where it is stated more explicitly.

replies(1): >>44341557 #
3. Aloisius ◴[21 Jun 25 23:42 UTC] No.44341557[source]▶
The courts have granted rights to non-citizens in the United States, not non-citizens outside the United States.

James Madison provides the rationale:

"Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage."

While aliens within the United States owe temporary obedience to its laws and thus enjoy protections under the Constitution, aliens abroad do not.

Again, see United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez where the Supreme Court determined aliens abroad were found illegible for Fourth Amendment protection as they were not considered "the people."