> When a University’s SEVP certification is revoked, currently enrolled international students must choose between transferring to a different institution, changing their immigration status, or leaving the country, according to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement website.
It's crazy they're punishing tons of students who don't even have anything to do with these protests
This is exactly how division works. Threaten all and they turn on each other. "Why me? I'm not the one you want! Take them!" It's not so much about the Gaza protests, that's just another occassion to normalize division and mistrust within all parts of society.
Often, these protests were overtly supporting an organization officially classed as "terrorist" (HAMAS). The Americans making foreigners who are found to openly support a known terrorist organization leave is par for the course, I would say. If you showed up at the German border and told them you were a HAMAS supporter, my guess is you wouldn't get in.
Now, the Trump admin is not this careful, and many people who are not overt HAMAS supporters have probably been affected. But I wish to make the point that there is a substantial group of students (non-citizen HAMAS supporters) for whom punishment is not crazy.
None of this allows the government to compel Harvard to do something. The government can revoke visas and deport people (after due process) if it wishes to and believes it can make its case.
It's protected speech if you're a citizen, but it's not clear to me that non-citizens, especially when they're at the border rather than within the country, would be so-protected.
- 1A limits what congress may do, "Congress shall make no law...". It does not positively define what people may do, and therefore doesn't pick out a class of people to whom it applies.
- It is settled that the U.S. government may condition immigration-related decisions on your speech and actions. They don't have to let in an Al-Qaeda member when he shows up at the border, and they don't have to give a pro-HAMAS agitator in the country on a temporary visa a green card. It's still not totally clear to me if a green card might have some sort of special-but-noncitizen status, and maybe it's not clear in general.
- The U.S. government asks people who are applying for entry or a visa questions like, "Are you a terrorist, or have you ever belonged to or supported terrorist organizations?". Part of the reason they do this is to catch you in a lie if it then turns out that you are e.g. supporting HAMAS. If you lied on your immigration documents, they can throw you out.
- For this reason, it seems like e.g. refusing to renew a visa on the grounds of HAMAS support would be fine. But maybe canceling a visa and kicking someone out wouldn't be fine?
Few understand this. You’re allowed to openly advocate for whatever absolutely insane, horrific ideas you want.
You’re allowed to be a Nazi, you’re allowed to be a Hamas (non-financial) supporter, you’re allowed to be a pro-Gaza genocide advocate if you want. You can advocate for the extermination or enslavement of all black or white or Christian or atheist or gay people if you want.
You may (and probably should) become a social pariah and private parties can decline to affiliate with you, but the government isn’t allowed to do a damn thing about it.
The question is: To whom do these rights extend in the U.S.?
They certainly don't extend to foreigners at the border (any country would rightly turn away an avowed Al-Qaeda member). Foreigners in the U.S. are in the U.S. at the pleasure of the government.
Do foreigners currently in the U.S. have these rights? I don't know for sure, maybe it's not a settled issue. My guess is that the U.S. gov't asks "Are you a terrorist?" at the border for good reasons, and one reason is so they can kick you out for lying to them when they learn you're a HAMAS supporter.
Should they have these rights? I'm honestly not sure of my feeling on this. Perhaps the way to handle it is to prevent the renewal of a visa or re-entry, but not actually kick anyone out for it.
The country obviously has no obligation to give visas to anyone. However, once you are within US jurisdiction (i.e. in the country), you have a suite of Constitutional rights including (unambiguously) 1st Amendment and 5th Amendment rights. So, correct, they definitely cannot be deported without due process. They cannot be deported even with due process for protected speech. They cannot even lose their visas for protected speech. There are a million different reasons the government may decline to give someone a visa or they may revoke one, but "engaging in protected speech" is not one of them.
And yes, yelling "kill all X" during a protest is protected speech in this country, which AFAIK is far beyond what any of these people are alleged to have done.
Private schools can create and enforce their own rules how they wish. The United States government is forbidden from creating or enforcing rules on content of speech.
It's actually only a 1st Amendment question in one case and not the other. Looks like they tricked ya though!
(Technically it's a 1st Amendment question in both cases in that private entities have a 1st Amendment right to create rules for their own campuses)
In regards to protest though, the activity they are interested in, that is a right of 'the people to peaceably assemble' per 1A.
Non-immigrants are not 'the people' per current interpretation of the constitution. If they were people, they would have all the rights ascribed to 'the people' including right to bear arms. Non immigrants do not have a right to bear arms, thus it cannot logically follow they are [the] people.
> immigrants are not 'the people' per current interpretation of the constitution.
Not true. The meaning of "the people" is interpreted differently from Amendment to Amendment. In the 1st and 5th Amendments, it has historically been interpreted to include non-citizens (even illegal ones!) while in the 2nd Amendment it has been interpreted much more narrowly.
And regardless, this in no way authorizes the government to compel Harvard to do anything. Even in the most fascist interpretation you can dream up, it would mean the government itself is allowed to curtail their assembly. Harvard has no obligations (under the 1st Amendment!) to do any such thing.
I'm not sure anyone can take seriously the proposition that 'the people' is Jekyll and Hyded amendment by amendment, especially when the constitution is completely devoid of any suggestion it is interpreted as such.
Whoops! That was meant to be a 4. But yeah, like a 7th grade civics class (in the US) would’ve educated you on the role of case law as it relates to interpreting the Constitution. Presumably your home country didn’t spend much time on it though, which makes sense!
But the 4th amendment doesn't appear to provide 'the people' protection to non-immigrants. A US citizen cannot be compelled to produce their citizenship with out a warrant, whereas a non-immigrant can be compelled to produce their papers on the spot.
Also the recent Bruen ruling was taken by at least one case law in Illinois [] that applied 'the people' the same as the other amendments (as it was in early American history), when they overturned (from memory) a prohibited possessor conviction. They just came to a different conclusion what 'the people' is and held an illegal immigrant (as applied) was part of 'the people'.
And finally, despite the fact the case law isn't as 'unequivocal' as you seem to think, you still have to get around the fact that the very writers of those amendments believed the rights in the bill of rights were god given natural rights, thus case law can at best reflect them and at worst incorrectly apply them but not modify the natural right. In fact this was part of the reason why the 2nd amendment was written, was because the founders needed a check when the case law, legislator, and executive all applied the constitution in contradiction to the acknowledged natural rights.
You can read here, but in short 'the people' are those who are members of the 'political community' according to certain criteria. Generally this doesn't include non-immigrants.
They sure can! You can choose not to attend them. You can go stand on public property and yell at them.
Under the US Constitution, "the consequences" are absolutely not allowed to include weaponization of the State through coercion, punishment, or threat to control what the public thinks.
Fascist goobers skipping out on their "Basics of Being an American" course lmao
And I can vote for Trump who will cast shame and doubt on their reputation and damage them as far as his authority allows. I have no sympathy for any of them: students, administration, professors that plagiarized their way to the top, those who had connections to Epstein. Burn it down
Well no, he's extending well beyond his authority. That's the whole problem, and you're sitting here making excuses.
You don't need to have sympathy for them. You need to respect the US Constitution's protection for them nonetheless. Or just admit that you hate America, which you're also welcome to do (because America rocks)!
Also, absolutely lmfao about "connections to Epstein." Bro Epstein said on tape he was Trump's best friend [0]. Trump came out and said "Epstein likes em young" decades ago [1]. Trump also said on the Apprentice that he's good friends with Diddy [2].
You're in a cult amigo. Keep these comment threads around so when you wake up from whatever daze you're in, you can inspect them closely for clues about how he managed to break your brain so thoroughly.
They might prefer to start with certain targets, but all international students are target of opportunity [0] the same way they've attacked people with lawful residency.
It's crazy they're punishing tons of students who don't even have anything to do with these protests