[thaumasiotes]

People are arguing that a ban on Muslim immigration violates the first amendment rights of foreigners living abroad. The legal theory goes that the constitution doesn't protect anyone against government action, but rather restricts what actions the government may take, regardless of who is affected by those actions.

By this argument, everyone everywhere has the same freedom of speech under the US constitution that Americans do. It's even the same amendment.

[tptacek]

I don't know what people you're talking about, but as I recall, the legal arguments against the Muslim ban hinged on Americans harmed by the ban --- families who couldn't see their Muslim family members, schools that couldn't serve their Muslim foreign students.

It seems pretty straightforward to observe that Chinese residents --- not to mention British residents --- do not in fact enjoy the First Amendment rights of Americans. In fact, neither do Americans, when they're in China or the UK. If they did, British libel law would be different, would it not?

[learc83]

It's true that constitutional rights don't generally apply to citizens of other countries, unless they are in the US.

> neither do Americans, when they're in China or the UK

But American citizens in other countries still enjoy the same constitutional protections--protections which only apply to actions taken by the US government.

[tptacek]

I guess? My point is just: people living in China do not in any practical sense have First Amendment rights.

[learc83]

I see what you're getting at, but there are many things that the US government would love to prevent you from saying that the Chinese or UK government couldn't care less about.

For instance, if you're a US citizen and a resident of the UK or China, you might want to call the President of the US a big baby on twitter. The UK or Chinese government probably wouldn't have a problem with that, but the first amendment protections you enjoy, even while abroad, is preventing the President from calling up twitter and trying to have you banned.

[pvg]

Are (serious) people really making such an argument? It's trivial to make an argument about what a government can't do without necessarily bestowing broad rights on people the US constitution does not directly apply to. Especially since the bit of the constitution in question starts with 'shall make no law'.

[thaumasiotes]

Yes, serious people are really making that argument.

> It's trivial to make an argument about what a government can't do without necessarily bestowing broad rights on people the US constitution does not directly apply to.

I don't see what you're imagining here. Prohibiting the government from doing something to you is what a right (against the government) is. If the government can't take an action against members of a particular class, then members of that class enjoy the relevant right. If the government can't take an action against anyone, then the class in question is "everyone in the world", and everyone in the world possesses the relevant right.

[pvg]

Can you link some serious people making that argument?

[thaumasiotes]

Yes, that's easy. It would have been just as easy for you -- it's not like criticism of Trump's policies is hard to find.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-965/41835/20180...

> The Bill of Rights consists largely of structural constraints that limit the power of the federal government

> The text of the First Amendment does not limit its applicability based on either territory or citizenship

> The original understanding of the Bill of Rights does not set territorial or citizenship status limitations on its applicability

> Under the Establishment Clause [doesn't apply to freedom of speech, but the other arguments do] of the First Amendment, the proclamation is unconstitutional and void even as to foreign nationals abroad

Can you explain why you think it's a good idea to be so vocally opinionated on a factual issue you're obviously not familiar with?

[pvg]

Sir, this is a Wendy's.

[creato]

> People are arguing that a ban on Muslim immigration violates the first amendment rights of foreigners living abroad.

Which people?

By this argument, aren't all immigration restrictions invalid? I don't think anyone is seriously making this argument.

[munk-a]

> > People are arguing that a ban on Muslim immigration violates the first amendment rights of foreigners living abroad.

> Which people?

Legal people, because it is inline with other comprehensions of how "persons" are afforded rights. Immigration restrictions are not invalid because the right to immigrate (or even technically resettle) are not covered by the constitution. So a presidential order (or governor's order) could be levied to restrict the emigration of people from one region to another - it would possibly run afoul of the terribly broad 9th amendment (basically, you have the right to do anything you should be able to do) but isn't explicitly banned... interesting this would be wholly illegal in Canada which establishes "Freedom of mobility"[1] explicitly.

Laws are fun!

Politicians often make divisive hyperbolic statements with no basis in fact!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and...

[thaumasiotes]

> I don't think anyone is seriously making this argument.

I'm not responsible for what you think, but I'll note that in general it's a good idea to look at what people are saying before deciding what you think they're saying.

> By this argument, aren't all immigration restrictions invalid?

No; for example, if you apply for a visa and check the box saying "I am planning to engage in a terrorist attack against the United States", I'm pretty sure this argument would have nothing to say about denying your visa. It does invalidate plenty of historical restrictions.