Grad Students being disappeared by ICE, Visas repealed by Rubio
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 147
- Views: 3K
- Politics
The "no one is entitled to a visa" argument reminds me of the AP opinion just handed down by the Supreme Court (edit: by the district court, not the Supreme Court- got confused with all the Trump cases going to the Supreme Court right now).
The US does not need to grant a visa, but if it chooses to do so, it cannot then engage in viewpoint discrimination about revocation. The AP does not have the right to enter the Oval Office, but if that right is granted to some press, you can't discriminate against the AP simply because it won't play along with Trump's fiction that the Gulf of Mexico should be called the Gulf of America.
Likewise, you can't discriminate against visa holders based on whether they have a red, green, black and white flag or a blue and white flag on their social media channel.
Last edited:
How does an idea cross a border illegally?
- Messages
- 17,728
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 6,742
This is basic, 1L level con law. One would hope that the fuckers on SCOTUS remember it.
- Messages
- 17,728
Since ICE disappeared th graphic:
In any event, the explanation is stupid. How would they be stopping Intellectual Property via border patrol? And why would we what to stop IP from entering the USA?
Duke Mu
Honored Member
- Messages
- 942
I just hope they can find and read the Constitution again.
Revoking F-1 and J-1 visas are a dire problem, regardless of whether they protested and what they said...whether I agreed or not.
A Google summary:
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects legal non-immigrants students on F-1 visa from false accusation or non-based threats for deportation. You are presumed to be innocent until found guilty by a court. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
- Messages
- 17,728
Mahmoud Khalil’s Lawyers Will Seek Testimony From Marco Rubio
Lawyers for the detained Columbia graduate said that the lack of substantive charges against him requires more information from the secretary of state. They acknowledge they are likely to fail.
Mahmoud Khalil’s Lawyers Will Seek Testimony From Marco Rubio
Lawyers for the detained Columbia graduate said that the lack of substantive charges against him requires more information from the secretary of state. They acknowledge they are likely to fail.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 6,742
That would have gotten your visa cancelled under most presidents.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 6,742
The questions surrounding student visas are far more complicated that that snippet would let on. I'm not sure the Fifth Amendment is even relevant here because a student visa does not carry any property interests or reliance interests. So I think what that says about "non-based threats" means as long as the visa remains valid. But the state department can revoke a student visa at its discretion; they don't need the AEA for that.
So for a student being targeted for political speech, the argument -- at least to my knowledge -- sounds in the First Amendment, and then things start to get weird in con law. That's because the Bill of Rights doesn't always use the language of rights. For instance, the First Am says that Congress shall create no law to infringe upon free speech; but that's not exactly the same as "people have a right to speak freely." The courts have determined those two ideas to be roughly equivalent for our citizenry and legal immigrants, but for non-Americans here on discretionary visas, it's a bit more complicated because it's unclear if they have rights at all beyond the very basic ones against arbitrary imprisonment. The Supreme Court has not, in my view and to the extent of my recollection, been very clear on when foreigners can and can't assert rights against the government in court.
So we're in a situation, potentially, where our rights-based understanding of the First Amendment and the authority-based understanding of it do not converge. It's logical to argue that a) sure, I don't have rights as foreign students; but b) the government lacks authority to punish me for my speech. And that would be a good argument if you were due a day in court to challenge the visa denial. But if the visa gets cancelled, then you have no right to sue in federal court. And I don't think the visa cancellation is justiciable; the argument would have to be raised in the deportation or removal proceedings and then it gets messy because immigration judges are really not who you want to talk to about constitutional rights. They aren't actually judges.
CRHeel94
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 621
I believe in most states that's still a misdemeanor, which in the past has not led to a visa getting revoked.
Had friends in grad school who got busted for DUI (on the first week of school, two guys, same spot, 30 minutes apart by the same cop). Lost their driving privileges, but didn't lose their visas.
When we’re you in grad school?
A DUI today or driving with a revoked license today might receive more punishment than 15-30 years ago.