Posted on 10/15/2025 4:36:14 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
6 far left visa holders who posted on social media rejoicing over Charlie Kirk's assassination during the award ceremony for Charlie yesterday, swiftly had their visas revoked.
Rubio is on the job.
Buh bye suckers!
Love free speech, but why should America tolerate assassination lovers from other countries?
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
“Vance/Rubio 2028”
Yes...with Trump as Advisor Extraordinaire.
I dont see it as a free speech issue. It’s removing people who would also celebrate the death of millions of other American citizens who share Charlie’s beliefs. GTFO!
Revoked as in ICE personally took their visas from their wallets while escorting them to a paddy wagon and then straight to a cargo plane whose engines were running so they could immediately take them out of America?
Revoked by State Department
They can self deport or be carried out.
They should have had 24 hours of less to be deported. I wonder if there is any info on when they’re out of here
Me also greatly and pleasantly surprised, almost shocked by his outstanding work.
“Vance/Rubio 2028”
Rubio/Vance 2028
Free speech has consequences
Funny how the second ammendment does not apply to immigrants or visa holders, but the other ammendment do apply per the law.
While I agree people who promote violence should lose their visa, it appears as though the law of due process applies to them and the court system might agree that it is protected speech.
I’m a realist.
The Supreme Court needs to take away Constitutional Rights of Non- US Citizens. Across the board, not just second amendment rights protection. Free Speech, Due Process, Right to Citizenship if born here, inclusion in the census, .....
I’m posting part of an article on this topic, including a link below. Not saying I agree with this article. Just reviewing the legal arguments on both sides.
https://www.freedomforum.org/non-citizens-protected-first-amendment/
Are Non-Citizens Protected by the First Amendment?
The First Amendment means government can’t restrict the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition (with some exceptions like obscenity, true threats and defamation).
But does that hold true for both citizens and other people who are in the United States, whether as students, workers, tourists or people without documentation seeking to become citizens?
All people in the U.S. — including citizens, foreign tourists and non-citizen residents — are subject to federal, state and local government laws. Even if only traveling for a short time, a person who commits a crime while vacationing in the U.S. could be arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned. That person would have the same rights to a jury trial and a lawyer that all U.S. citizens enjoy.
But do they have First Amendment rights? Are there exceptions to freedom of speech that go beyond what is being said and land on who is saying it?
Everything to know about non-citizens and the First Amendment
The question of whether non-citizens have the same freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition as U.S. citizens isn’t a simple yes or no. That’s partly due to the different ways people may be in the United States.
Here are important things to consider if you’ve ever wondered if non-citizens are protected by the First Amendment.
When non-citizens have First Amendment rights
The First Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law.” In that sense, it shouldn’t be viewed as telling people or corporations what they can do but instead as telling the government what it cannot do. So, it applies any time a federal, state or local government tries to restrict one of the five freedoms.
Non-citizens lawfully in the U.S. are protected by the First Amendment when they exercise the five freedoms. For example:
Religion: A tourist visiting from Canada may attend their preferred religious service and can’t be prevented by the government from doing so or forced to attend a particular service.
Speech: A musician from India may tour the U.S., performing songs critical of U.S. foreign policy without being punished by the government or facing visa revocation solely because of their music’s content.
Press: A person from Kenya studying at Indiana University may work on campus for the student newspaper and has the same free press rights as any other student journalist on campus.
Assembly: Someone born in the Philippines with legal status under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals due to the age they arrived in the U.S. may participate in a public protest advocating for immigration reform.
Petition: A refugee from Haiti may ask the government to extend the length of their temporary protected status and to make it easier for other groups to get TPS and simplify the process for citizenship.
When non-citizens may not have the full protection of the First Amendment
The Constitution does not specify whether the First Amendment applies only to citizens. Rather, those who wrote it talked about “the people.” At the time the Constitution was written, many of “the people” were born outside the young country.
Whether someone is fully protected by the First Amendment can depend on their legal status in the country. Such differences include: (List is in article)
The end of this article is really comprehensive so I felt the need to post it. It’s a real good summary of the history of the law.
“In 2015, the Department of Justice argued in a federal class action lawsuit that unauthorized immigrants do not get First Amendment protections. The DOJ reasoned that the Supreme Court previously suggested First Amendment and other protections apply only to immigrants who enter legally and who have “sufficient connection” to the U.S. To date, the Supreme Court has not ruled definitively on the question. Some legal scholars and federal judges have argued it does not apply to this group of people. Others have argued the opposite, citing the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that opposed restrictions on political donations based on identity rather than content.
Legal scholar and constitutional law professor Michael Kagen wrote in a 2016 Boston College law review article: “As the court explained (in Citizens United vs. FEC), the First Amendment protects the rights of marginalized people to have a voice and does not allow the government to prefer some speakers over others based on their identity.”
What laws and legal cases have addressed non-citizens and the First Amendment?
The question of non-citizens and the First Amendment has come up many times in U.S. laws and before the Supreme Court, including:
Alien and Sedition Acts (1798)
These laws were part of an early attempt to stifle political debate and opposition to President John Adams, a Federalist. They’re considered the first test of the First Amendment and led to multiple convictions of Adams’ political rivals, especially those born outside the U.S. The Supreme Court never ruled on their legality, as they expired in 1801, but those who were convicted under the laws were pardoned by President Thomas Jefferson. He opposed the Federalists and was elected partly due to the unpopular laws.
Can the government turn away anarchist immigrants? (1904)
The Immigration Act of 1903, also called the Anarchist Exclusion Act, sought to deport immigrants with anti-government views. John Turner, from England, was one such anarchist who advocated for union organizing. Lawyers for Turner argued his views were political speech protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court (U.S. ex rel. Turner v. Williams) disagreed, saying Turner held views seeking to overthrow the U.S. government, and Congress has broad power to deport non-citizens. This case indicates there can be some restrictions and actions taken against non-citizens — particularly those seeking to enter the country and those who engage in speech unprotected by the First Amendment — that cannot be taken against citizens.
Can the government deny citizenship based on religious beliefs? (1946)
Canadian James Girouard was denied U.S. citizenship because he refused an oath to fight in the military, citing his religious beliefs as a pacifist and Seventh Day Adventist. He appealed to the Supreme Court (Girouard v. United States), which ruled in his favor, saying his religious convictions protected his right not to swear to fight in the military. The court overruled a previous case from less than 20 years earlier that ruled the opposite way for a different pacifist.
Can the government deport someone over Communist Party membership? (1954)
At the height of the anti-communist era, Congress passed laws effectively outlawing the Communist Party in the country and making it legal to deport non-citizens who were members. The case Galvan v. Press centers on Robert Galvan, who was born in Mexico and came to the U.S. in 1918 at age seven. His wife and four children were all U.S. citizens. When questioned by immigration officials, he said he had been a member of the Communist Party for two years in the 1940s, before Congress passed its anti-communist laws. The government tried to deport Galvan, and lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, citing his First Amendment right to political speech and association. The court sided with the government’s decision to deport Galvan.
Justice Hugo Black, joined by William O. Douglas, dissented, saying it was possible the deportation did not violate the First Amendment. But Black disagreed that Galvan should be punished for being a member of a political party that was “perfectly legal” when he was a member.
Does the First Amendment right to receive information outweigh immigration concerns? (1972)
Known as the “Belgian Socialist” case, this Supreme Court ruling (Kleindienst v. Mandel) affirmed that while First Amendment interests are important, they do not overrule federal authority to deny people legal entry into the country. Belgian journalist Ernest E. Mandel led a socialist publication and sought entry into the U.S. to lecture at Stanford University. He was denied, and faculty and students sued, saying the government violated their First Amendment rights (though Mandel spoke to them by telephone). The court said those First Amendment concerns were valid, but the federal government has broad power to decide who is allowed to enter the U.S.
Can the government selectively enforce immigration laws based on political views? (1999)
The federal government sought to deport eight people who were members of a U.S.-based Palestinian liberation group. They were legal U.S. residents but not full citizens. The group claimed they were being targeted with selective enforcement because of their political views and appealed to the Supreme Court (Reno v. American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee). When challenged, the federal government backed off the political grounds for deportation but proceeded on technical violations of immigration law — including “overstaying a visa and failure to maintain student status” — for six of the people, who were temporary residents.
In his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia addressed claims of First Amendment violations, saying, “An alien unlawfully in this country has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense against his deportation.”
CAN THE GOVERNMENT DEPORT STUDENT-VISA AND GREEN-CARD HOLDERS FOR THEIR VIEWS? (2025)
In 2025, multiple cases of foreign students being detained and moved to deportation proceedings made national news. The two prominent cases of Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk and former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil raised questions about the First Amendment’s protections for students on visas and for green card holders. Öztürk, a Turkish citizen with a student visa, had co-written an editorial for the Tufts student newspaper that criticized Israel’s actions in Gaza and advocated for the university to divest money from Israel-aligned companies. Khalil, a green-card holder married to a U.S. citizen, was a prominent voice for pro-Palestinian demonstrators at Columbia. Both were detained by immigration officials and moved into deportation proceedings. The government attempted to justify these actions involving these two individuals and others under a broad authority both to regulate visas for students entering the country to study at U.S. universities and to deny entry or prolonged stay for anyone engaging in activities aligned with “terrorism.”
A coalition of university groups sued on behalf of a large group of non-citizen students and protesters to stop the government’s actions and attempted deportations, claiming these individuals were targeted for their First Amendment-protected actions. On Sept. 30, 2025, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled in favor of non-citizens’ free speech rights.
The ruling from federal District Court Judge William Young was clear: First Amendment protections are not limited to citizens. He wrote:
“This case — perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court — squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally ‘yes, they do.’ ‘No law’ means ‘no law.’ The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence. … No one’s freedom of speech is unlimited, of course, but these limits are the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike.”
Judge Young said the government violated those non-citizens’ First Amendment rights by targeting “non-citizen pro-Palestinians for deportation primarily on account of their First Amendment protected political speech” — finding the targeting of this speech amounted to viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.
He did not specify what he would require the government to do in response to his ruling, instead saying he will schedule a hearing to determine the proper remedy. He asserted that a mere “cease and desist” order may not be enough to stem future chilling of speech, describing what he characterized as President Trump’s use of “retribution” in targeting what Young found to be clearly protected speech: “The President’s palpable misunderstanding that the government simply cannot seek retribution for speech he disdains poses a great threat to Americans’ freedom of speech.
Judge Young emphasized the need to protect the First Amendment. At the same time, he acknowledged he has no power to constrain the president or other government officials from expressing themselves and cannot prevent public officials from properly enforcing laws passed by Congress, such as deporting people in the country illegally or for other crimes.
The government is likely to appeal, possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The bottom line on First Amendment freedoms and non-citizens
The question of whether the First Amendment rights of citizens and non-citizens are equal isn’t conclusively answered with a satisfying yes or no, especially as it applies to unauthorized immigrants. Judge William Young’s ruling about immigrants in the country lawfully who engaged in protected political speech was clearly and strongly worded, but he is a District Court judge; the Supreme Court has not ruled in a direct way that neatly resolves it.
This article was originally published on Jan. 29, 2024. It will continue to be updated with new developments.”
The US Constitution does not outlaw COMMON SENSE.
It’s not a free speech issue at all. The person with the visa is able to say whatever they want. There is no right to a visa, and it can legally be pulled for any reason at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
Hat tip to Marco Rubio
Some people are confused about free speech things like slander and many other words don’t fit into it.
yay! WE DON’T NEED ENEMY AGENTS “VISITING” AMERICA!
oh, now I have found the regular sized type. sorry about that.
There are thousands of enemy agents in the “immigrant” pool, too. Almost all fighting-age young Islamic men, too.
The easiest time to send them home is before they are given full USA citizenship. Just saying that we sure do hope PDJT’s administration gets on the job ASAP!
How about revoking all student visas from Asia?
Nope.
I know a lot of Asian visa holders, not even one of them supports assassinating political opponents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.