The whole idea of looking at people's social media for undesirable political views is contrary to the spirit of the first amendment. It's fine for private universities to vet their incoming students, but government shouldn't be doing that at all.
Could it be time for the US to look towards European declaration of human rights and define political views, or any world views for that matter, to be equally worth defining as a protected class as for people who visit a holy place regularly. None should be looking at people's social media for undesirable political views, no more than they should dig into peoples life to determine if they are a devout something.
"Hard way", sure; just don't count on the "learning" part.
I'm a British national. When I left the UK in 2018, people were still talking about Dunkirk like it was a British victory rather than a rolling defeat whose only (even then partially) successful component was the final evacuation; about WW2 like it was a simple victory rather than a Pyrrhic victory; and about the Empire like the end of it was the UK's choice.
US has had periods of wild spread moral panic around satanic worshipping, including murder trials where such ideas became central to the cases.
Scrutinizing belifs generally don't lead to anything but misery for everyone involved. This is very different from scrutinize crime that has happened.
The only grey area is the role of secret police. Some people, possible a majority, do want the government to scrutinize belifs and political views in order to determen risk. I am less sure, but I also know that human rights and protected classes has less protection against risk assessments conducted by the secret police.
Maybe a nitpick, but there is no European Declaration of Human Rights. To unweave the web of confusingly similarly named documents:
1) The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights [0] which was written by the United Nations (with Eleanor Roosevelt as the committee chair). As a Declaration, the document itself has no legal weight, and the US has only ratified three out of nine core treaties that are based on it. One of them is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [1], which does seem applicable here. Before rejoicing however, consider that the other two treaties that the US has ratified are the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [2] and the United Nations Convention Against Torture [3] -- so don't expect any miracles here.
2) The European Convention on Human Rights [4], which is both a document and a court where human rights violations can be tried. Its jurisdiction is all members of the Council of Europe [5], which is broader than just the European Union (even Russia used to be a member, but was kicked out after the invasion of Ukraine). The EU requires all members to ratify the ECHR as one of the conditions of membership.
3) The EU itself has a Charter of Fundamental Rights [6] which covers the same topics. From what I could find, the main reason for the name change is that the EU fundamental rights are broader than the international human rights, so this avoids confusion when discussing either in international contexts.
> The idea that the first amendment disallows vetting of non-citizens is unfortunately not tenable
Yeah, I keep hearing people say this kind of thing, or that the first amendment only protects US citizens. But ... where does that come from?
I thought SCOTUS was supposed to have been jammed with conservative "textualist" justices, and the amendment states "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."
Nowhere does this mention citizenship.
Nowhere does it say it can regulate speech outside or at our borders.
Now, from just the text I could imagine someone trying to claim that the Executive is not bound by the first amendment which specifically says "Congress shall make no law" ...
> from just the text I could imagine someone trying to claim that the Executive is not bound by the first amendment which specifically says "Congress shall make no law"
Especially because it's not like all US citizens agree with this extreme level of shoring up support for destroying Gaza. Sec. Rubio and this administration are willing to throw away a century of slowly earned international prestige, just to slow down Europe's response to the one-sided war. The only logical interpretation is that they're hoping Israel can rejoin the world after it is over (if they could be enabled until it's finished) with some mixture of regret and denial, and don't care too much about what happens here at home in the process of getting there.
They aren't doing this to protect israel. They are doing this to destroy academia. Antisemitism is rife within people hired to significant positions within the trump administration. This was never about israel. That's just the cover story.
They are doing this to protect Israel, and protecting Israel has nothing to do with antisemitism. Because Zionism and Judaism are pretty much unrelated!
Israel is strategically advantageous for the US and the rest of the West. Having a Western strong arm in the middle east is the goal geopolitically. Nobody actually cares about Jews or really thinks they're entitled to that land. We just really, really want that land because of course we do.
I don't think the rest of the west besides the USA is all that interested in the strategic value of Israel; I'm not even sure the USA is strategically interested… well, not economically and militarily at least, I think the politicians care about the country for the sake of their own re-election.
If the US only cared about power-projection in that area, Cyprus would also be an easy option (like the UK does with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrotiri_and_Dhekelia), as would Turkey (a NATO member), and these days they could probably have an easy time working with Egypt.
Sure, Israel has a lot of stuff going for it (nukes that won't necessarily be blamed on the USA; MOSAD is infamous; etc.), but counting on them alone is an all-eggs-in-one-basket strategy that comes with risks.
US expends a lot more effort propping Israel up than it gains from Israel's existence. Our politicians often talk about how important it is to have "an ally in the region", but if you look at that proposition closely, it falls apart because the cost of this particular ally is basically making everyone else there into an enemy.
One of the unfortunate lessons of the past year has been that there is no ideological conflict between supporters of "return to home" (I don't recall the precise translation) and antisemites. I myself discovered this fact in the writings of pre-Nazi German nationalists, but did not expect it to become relevant in my lifetime. The track record of extreme support for Israel is as strong in the present administration as the track record of accepting probable or evident you-know-whats, who (and I can dig up evidence if you want to see it, but I don't want to do that - it's in the documents of white nationalists dating to the alt-right era as distinct from older groups) have actually adopted Israel as a model for their own nationalist views in the past decade or two.
I'd say it's worse than that. This new policy of vetting will be extremely high cost in terms of time, money, and lost opportunities for students and universities, while also be rather useless in practice. Seriously, what student applicant won't clean up their social media profile? What threats will actually be caught by this approach?
This whole policy is dumber than conventional security theater.
But then again, that's the point of this policy. It has the thinnest veneer of being for a legitimate purpose while hurting those that this administration wants to hurt.
I guarantee that you cannot imagine the course of American history if every foreign national was vetted for dissident works. Losing WWII would have only been the tip of the iceberg.
The US constitution has generally been thought to apply to _everyone_ interacting with the US government, citizen or not.
It’s why in the past tourists could expect due process under the law, and not be disappeared out of the blue, etc.
So if the US is rewriting that social contract, they should probably explicitly say what provisions only protect US citizens and which apply to everyone. Because otherwise, is it none?
That's the same country that operates an illegal torture prison (Guantanamo), claiming the rule of law does not apply there because it is not on US soil. That prison is still open. It did imprison minors.
There is specific distinction between citizens and persons.
Habeas Corpus applies to persons. But there is no right that applies to every person in the world that would give them a right to get a student visa to a US university.
You're misconstruing what I said— nowhere in the constitution is a student visa a “right” to a citizen or not. But subjecting a non-citizen to a potentially unreasonable search while exempting regular citizens is likely against the 4th and 5th amendments (due process + unreasonable searches). Of course, “unreasonable” depends on the court’s interpretation.
Some Supreme Court decisions—
Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945)
> freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
> constitutional protections extend to “all persons” within the U.S, including undocumented immigrants.
One of the things every democratic constitution henceforth, and supported by the US, did differently. Maybe a constitutional change to afford basic rights to aliens is in order.
Being subject to unreasonable searches likely does, still. Depends on what is “reasonable” or not, but just because they’re applying for a status does not mean they give up their right to unreasonable searches and detainment.
Note: US Embassies, where interviews are often conducted, are still considered US soil subject to US laws (otherwise the latest declaration from Trump pausing them would not apply to them)
> Note: US Embassies, where interviews are often conducted, are still considered US soil subject to US laws (otherwise the latest declaration from Trump pausing them would not apply to them)
I don't think that's how it works. The US visa application requests significant amount of personal information, and this is supposedly cross-checked with the US databases/intelligence agencies.
So I doubt they sit down with you going over all your posts on hackernews, but rather ask what you use and your usernames and cross reference that with lists of people interested in ISIS telegram groups.
I would be uncomfortable giving that data myself, but i was uncomfortable writing a lot other things in my visa application, and never thought anyone is forcing me to visit the US
The 1st amendment covers "US persons." A US Person is a term of art broader than a citizen. OTOH since this is for a visa review that a non citizen wouldn't need I don't see where it comes into play.
If you want to be overly semantic it only talks about freedom of assembly for the "people", which as you defined above might refer to "the people of the united states"
Also, going through social account history is not only for reasons of oppressing freedom of speech. Presumably you might want to reject visa applications from someone who threatens others with murder
"US Person" has a very specific definition in government parlance. It includes citizens and green card holders, a few very specific exceptions like those granted permanent asylum, but NOT visa holders.
“Present in the US” also has caveats at the border. A border is defined specifically in the law, which is 100 miles.
A citizen of another country is not allowed to open carry at the border just because they showed up, for example. Similarly, there is no universal right to get a student visa.
Citizenship wasn't even a concept in the constitution until the 14th Amendment in 1866! When the constitution and First Amendment was written, it applied to all residents of the US and citizenship was mostly defined at the state level.
> No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
> No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
It uses the term of "citizen" but does not specify a requirement or legal definition. The constitution implies a continuance of English Common Law in regards to citizenship:
In regards to slaves or Native Americans - again it depended on the states' laws. Hence the entire reason why the 14th Amendment was passed.
The fact that they only called out the requirement of citizenship for office should make it pretty clear they intended the rest of the constitution was universal.
Maybe it includes a reference to citizenship but it does not define it as a constitutional concept. It also certainly doesn't make it a requirement of the constitution, as sitting US politicians or the OP are currently arguing.
If this is what you are defending than we couldn't disagree more.
It doesn't define a lot of things; treason's the only crime defined, for example, but we knew a whole bunch of others existed on day one.
It does clearly imply a difference between "natural-born" citizens and naturalized ones, and that citizens and residents/people/persons aren't the exact same thing.
The choice to use "citizen" in some spots and "person" in many others seems very deliberate.
No, it’s still problematic because it creates chilling effects and self-censorship, which is deeply wrong if you care about the spirit and not just the letter of the First Amendment.
1st amendment covers us citizens and people in USA. Before a noncitizen enters, there is no 1st amendment protection. Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant to this fact.
No. It's an inalienable right inherent to all humans regardless of citizenship.
That said, the right to free speech does not mean you are free from consequences from that speech. If you're hoping to gain access to a country, it would be wise to refrain from criticizing that country. Yes, views can change and maybe you talked negatively before realizing you wanted to visit the offended country. Not sure what to say to that.
> It's an inalienable right inherent to all humans regardless of citizenship
No, it's not. The First Amendment is a legal provision restricting what the U.S. government can do. Free speech, as a principle, is a broader construct. Some people believe it's a natural right [1].
I assume that’s why OP said “the spirit of”. The spirit of the first amendment is free speech. Once you start litigating exactly who gets to speak freely and in what scenarios in an attempt to limit it as much as possible then I’d agree it’s very much not in the spirit of the amendment.
I’m pretty sure the men who actually wrote the first amendment would have been strongly against any non-European foreigner being educated in America, let alone those among them with anti-American views.
I agree with you that this violates the spirit of the first amendment as it is currently interpreted and portrayed, but how do we square that with this interpretation producing results that are squarely at odds with the intent of the founders? Pornography being protected by the first amendment is another example that is pretty straightforwardly against the original spirit.
If this is actually about anti-Israel sentiment being policed though then I’m just confused generally. If the views in question aren’t “destroy America” or “revolution in America”, both of which should be left to US voters and not foreign agitators, I don’t think that is really any of the US government’s business.
> In the eighteenth century, bookstores in the American
colonies carried an extraordinary array of erotica, ranging from
Boccaccio’s Decameron to such explicitly sexual works as Venus
in the Cloister, The Politick Whore, and Letters of an Italian Nun
and an English Gentleman, and there were no statutes forbidding
obscenity during the entire colonial era. To the contrary,
throughout this period, the distribution, exhibition, and
possession of pornographic material was simply not thought to
be any of the state’s business.
> The first obscenity prosecution in the United States did
not occur until 1815, at the height of the evangelical explosion
of the Second Great Awakening, which triggered a nationwide
effort to transform American law and politics through the lens
of evangelical Christianity.
> I’m pretty sure the men who actually wrote the first amendment would have been strongly against any non-European foreigner being educated in America, let alone those among them with anti-American views.
Is there any example of colonial or early federal period governmental actions demanding that anyone make a record of all of their correspondence available for review to determine whether they had anti-American views? Even at the level of senate confirmations, did the standard of "we should be able to check that you never wrote anything which we view as unacceptable" ever turn up? Bear in mind that for years after the fight for independence, many of them lived in communities where they knew and interacted with former British loyalists, so this wasn't an idle concern.
I think a bunch of them were on record making very broad statements in defense of personal liberties, and a bunch of them had been accused by the crown of being treasonous based on stuff they had written, so one could understand them being _not_ on the same page of creating punishments for categories of speech.
> Pornography being protected by the first amendment is another example that is pretty
straightforwardly against the original spirit.
Is it? My understanding is anti-obscenity laws at the federal level in the US really go back to the Comstock act in the 1870s, i.e. the founders and multiple generations after them didn't attempt to ban porn. I think it's entirely consistent to believe that the founders didn't imagine that a government had any business making such stipulations.
>how do we square that with this interpretation producing results that are squarely at odds with the intent of the founders?
By not pretending we can read the minds of the dead, not letting racist rapists dictate our society from beyond the grave and enforcing the law as written and as interpreted by the courts. This idea that the founding fathers are the sole source of truth is not only dangerously destructive, it's explicitly denied by the constitution itself. This doesn't violate the spirit of the first amendment as currently interpreted, it violates the first amendment.
What kind of country do we want? One that welcomes a broad set of views, and in turn ensures its future by not attaching itself to any single point of view dogmatically, or one where people use references to the founders to justify their insecure political choices?
I'm having a hard time thinking of any non-Europeans who would be interested in going to the US for education when European schools were closer and better. I'm having a harder time wondering why Madison et al. would care.
By "foreigner" do you include Native Americans? From what I gather, Harvard, Dartmouth, and other colonial era colleges nominally encouraged educating Native Americans, as part of their Christianization. There wasn't much of it, to be fair, but it was a stated goal. There were also schools like Moor's Indian Charity School.
By "foreigner" do you include the Black population? We know there were schools for black children, like the Williamsburg Bray School. From what little I know of slaveholder Madison, I don't think he was against free blacks getting an education.
Could you point to anything specific from Madison on this topic?
Many of the Founding Fathers were slaveowners. Their racism would most certainly have treated white-skinned European-descended Hamilton differently than a dark-skinned descendant of African parents, even if both were born in the Caribbean.
We have plenty of echoes of this today, like the birthers doubting Obama's citizenship. We all know why he was singled out for that one.
I'm not sure how an understanding of their racist beliefs translates into an endorsement to you.
Help me understand how you get from "the Founding Fathers held racist beliefs" to "those beliefs were good and I support them"?
1770s America saw Hamilton as European-American, not Caribbean-American. They'd have cared most about his skin color and lineage, not the physical location of the birth.
This is most certainly vetting against anti-Israel views. I know first hand that rich donors to the Trump campaigns (Adelsons and others) made Israel their top priority. They are seeking to control the narrative around this war, and are unable to do so with college-aged students that do not consume Facebook or Fox News media. It seems with everything else failing, they are resorting to vetting. Their concern is empathetic students coming into positions of power, which threatens the well-being of their darling (Israel). Among college aged students, Israel is viewed like Iran (and rightfully so, because the videos coming out of Ghaza are incompatible with western morals and values). America naturalized Trevor Noah during a Trump admin, who was critical of America on his show for 5 years. It seems Israel is where they draw the line, mainly because of the power some groups hold over the Trump admin (like every other admin frankly). In our country, you can criticize everything and everyone but free speech does not include a criticism of the darling of most of America's billionaires
> how do we square that with this interpretation producing results that are squarely at odds with the intent of the founders
Jesus christ. Don't you feel at all obligated to provide support for the thing you're "pretty sure" about before asking people to accept it at face value? Based on your surety? It's hard to tell if this is basic rage-baiting with the absurdity of your claim sans support, or if you truly believe that wild claims don't require any, because enough people's reactionary vibes align with yours.
Frankly, who cares what the founders as slave owning dead men think?
They were right about the first amendment but were wrong about a bunch of other things.
Don’t forget that the first amendment isn’t the only amendment. America didn’t even achieve equitable civil rights until the last half decade or so. Within living memory women weren’t allowed to get bank accounts without spousal consent.
This idea that we should go back to the original ideas thought up before industrialized society was invented is super weird.
