March 31Mar 31 2 minutes ago, Gannan said: A visa isn’t a constitutional right Federal persecution for speech, however is. Which is exactly what happened.
March 31Mar 31 1 hour ago, Gannan said: The first amendment merely means she shouldn’t be thrown in jail for her speech. And she shouldn’t be. No, it’s just not being thrown in jail. The government also couldn’t censor her, shut down her speech, etc… the first amendment also means that the government can’t kick you out of the country simply because they don’t agree with what you are saying.
March 31Mar 31 8 minutes ago, Gannan said: A visa isn’t a constitutional right No one is claiming it is. Everyone understands that there are conditions that come along with maintaining a visa. For example if you are convicted of a criminal activity, the government can revoke your visa. "Saying something that the government doesn’t like” is not a valid reason for revoking a visa. Having a drivers license isn’t a constitutional right either. But the government can’t revoke your drivers license because they saw you tweet about how many potholes you saw in the road and that you criticized PennDOT.
March 31Mar 31 7 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: Federal persecution for speech, however is. Which is exactly what happened. Under what circumstances can a visa be revoked? Are they or should they be completely unconditional?
March 31Mar 31 1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said: No one is claiming it is. Everyone understands that there are conditions that come along with maintaining a visa. For example if you are convicted of a criminal activity, the government can revoke your visa. "Saying something that the government doesn’t like” is not a valid reason for revoking a visa. Having a drivers license isn’t a constitutional right either. But the government can’t revoke your drivers license because they saw you tweet about how many potholes you saw in the road and that you criticized PennDOT. Obama had someone murdered for speech sympathizing with terrorists. No one really cared much. Visas are granted by the government, they aren’t a right. What if a NSDAP was here on a visa? What if said NSDAP was marching in Charlottesville screaming "death to all Jews”? Is that ok? Do we have to let him stay? What if he said 9/11 was a great thing and it should happen again? Is that ok? Im just saying there is an argument for visas being conditional. And I still find it incredulous that out of all the crap Trump pulls, this is what has got everyone the most upset.
March 31Mar 31 4 minutes ago, Gannan said: Under what circumstances can a visa be revoked? Are they or should they be completely unconditional? Crime. What crime did she commit? And even if we accept her visa was revoked legitimately. Do you really think it's ok to mobnap someone in the streets and drive me to bumF for saying naughty things?
March 31Mar 31 1 minute ago, DEagle7 said: Crime. What crime did she commit? And even if we accept her visa was revoked legitimately. Do you really think it's ok to mobnap someone in the streets and drive me to bumF for saying naughty things? So a NSDAP from Europe publicly calling for another holocaust is ok? He stays?
March 31Mar 31 3 minutes ago, Gannan said: Obama had someone murdered for speech sympathizing with terrorists. No one really cared much. Visas are granted by the government, they aren’t a right. What if a NSDAP was here on a visa? What if said NSDAP was marching in Charlottesville screaming "death to all Jews”? Is that ok? Do we have to let him stay? What if he said 9/11 was a great thing and it should happen again? Is that ok? Im just saying there is an argument for visas being conditional. And I still find it incredulous that out of all the crap Trump pulls, this is what has got everyone the most upset. Who did Obama have murdered for speech sympathizing with terrorists? Once again, everyone understands that visas are conditional. That doesn’t mean they can be revoked simply because they said something the government doesn’t like. There are lots of things in this world that aren’t rights. That doesn’t mean the government can take them away because they don’t like what we said. Owning a house isn’t a right. That doesn’t mean the government can come take my house away because they don’t like something I said. Where are you seeing that this is what is getting everyone the MOST upset? I’d say people are far more upset about the disclosure that our defense officials are discussing military operations over unsecure channels and the administration is ok with that. But first amendment violations SHOULD have people upset. Freedom of speech is extremely important. the government taking action against people because they don’t like what they said is very alarming.
March 31Mar 31 If once we we grant someone a visa they can come here and say anything they want against the our government, and our citizens and there is no limit to the amount of violent rhetoric they spew that their visa cannot be revoked… we should grant very few visas.
March 31Mar 31 4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Who did Obama have murdered for speech sympathizing with terrorists? Once again, everyone understands that visas are conditional. That doesn’t mean they can be revoked simply because they said something the government doesn’t like. There are lots of things in this world that aren’t rights. That doesn’t mean the government can take them away because they don’t like what we said. Owning a house isn’t a right. That doesn’t mean the government can come take my house away because they don’t like something I said. Where are you seeing that this is what is getting everyone the MOST upset? I’d say people are far more upset about the disclosure that our defense officials are discussing military operations over unsecure channels and the administration is ok with that. But first amendment violations SHOULD have people upset. Freedom of speech is extremely important. the government taking action against people because they don’t like what they said is very alarming. The American taliban guy. No trial. Was a us citizen. No trial. No due process.
March 31Mar 31 3 minutes ago, Gannan said: So a NSDAP from Europe publicly calling for another holocaust is ok? He stays? Pretty sure that guy would have a hard time getting a visa in the first place. But if he's instigating violence then no. If he's saying "(insert right wing oligarch here) is a swell guy" then as much as that dude deserves a kick in the dick he shouldn't be abducted off the streets by federal agents and imprisoned. This isn't that difficult.
March 31Mar 31 4 minutes ago, Gannan said: If once we we grant someone a visa they can come here and say anything they want against the our government, and our citizens and there is no limit to the amount of violent rhetoric they spew that their visa cannot be revoked… we should grant very few visas. No one has said that. No one has said that someone can say ANYTHING they want. Obviously when speech incites riots, violence, etc. then they are not protected by the first amendment. This applies to citizens as well. This student did no such thing in her speech. She was critical of Israel’s handling of the war and demanded that her university divest from companies that support Israel. In no way shape or form is that an example of violent rhetoric.
March 31Mar 31 1 minute ago, DEagle7 said: Pretty sure that guy would have a hard time getting a visa in the first place. But if he's instigating violence then no. If he's saying "(insert right wing oligarch here) is a swell guy" then as much as that dude deserves a kick in the dick he shouldn't be abducted off the streets by federal agents and imprisoned. This isn't that difficult. So we agree that foreigners on a visa aren’t entitled to limitless free speech without any possibility of their visa being revoked.
March 31Mar 31 Just now, Phillyterp85 said: No one has said that. No one has said that someone can say ANYTHING they want. Obviously when speech incites riots, violence, etc. then they are not protected by the first amendment. This applies to citizens as well. This student did no such thing in her speech. She was critical of Israel’s handling of the war and demanded that her university divest from companies that support Israel. In no way shape or form is that an example of violent rhetoric. The movement she was part of incited violence.
March 31Mar 31 1 minute ago, Gannan said: So we agree that foreigners on a visa aren’t entitled to limitless free speech without any possibility of their visa being revoked. Sure we all agree with an argument that was never made.
March 31Mar 31 6 minutes ago, Gannan said: The American taliban guy. No trial. Was a us citizen. No trial. No due process. Yea he wasn’t murdered because he said things that were supportive of the Taliban. He was a member of Al Qaeda. And what do you mean people were silent about it? There was tons of debate as to whether the president had the right to do that given that Al-Awlaki was still technically a US citizen even though he was a member of a terrorist organization. To claim that Obama had him murdered simply because of his utterances is just flat out false. He was a member of the terrorist organization we were at war with. THAT’s why he was killed.
March 31Mar 31 3 minutes ago, Gannan said: So we agree that foreigners on a visa aren’t entitled to limitless free speech without any possibility of their visa being revoked. As legal residents, they are subject to the first amendment and the legal protections within it. So again, the limits on her speech are what limits we place on speech with the first amendment, like yelling fire in a crowded room. Her opinion piece, wasn't even remotely in the ballpark of meeting that threshold. Do we need to bust out a school house rock episode or something?
March 31Mar 31 6 minutes ago, Gannan said: The movement she was part of incited violence. Yeah no, that’s not how this works. She wrote an op ed that contained no violent rhetoric and no calls for violence. The fact that OTHER people that have nothing to do with her may have crossed the line and called for violence has absolutely nothing to do with her.
March 31Mar 31 10 minutes ago, Gannan said: So we agree that foreigners on a visa aren’t entitled to limitless free speech without any possibility of their visa being revoked. No one ever argued that. And US citizens also aren’t entitled to limitless free speech either.
March 31Mar 31 1 hour ago, Gannan said: The floating out there of a third term should ring alarm bells everywhere But it doesn't. He's been doing it since his first term. Americans are terminally stupid.
March 31Mar 31 47 minutes ago, Gannan said: A visa isn’t a constitutional right Speech and due process are. If you’re worried about the keeping the big dominos from falling, you kind of have to stop the smaller ones from falling first.
March 31Mar 31 12 minutes ago, Gannan said: The movement she was part of incited violence. Using this logic, all Trump supporters could be arrested for what happened on January 6th, regardless of whether or not they were there. Regardless of whether or not they agree with the Capitol riots. But by this logic, just because other people who DID break the law might share some similar views, that means ALL Trump supporters can be arrested for January 6th. That’s faulty logic.
March 31Mar 31 47 minutes ago, Gannan said: A visa isn’t a constitutional right This is the exact same unsound argument made by the MAGA types in my FB feed.
March 31Mar 31 20 minutes ago, Gannan said: The movement she was part of incited violence. What movement are you even talking about and what evidence do you have that she was part of it? You’re taking a very strange position. Also, we have already explained multiple times that SCOTUS has determined on multiple occasions that legal non citizens are covered under the Constitution. The first amendment and due process are cornerstones in the protection against dictators.
Create an account or sign in to comment