[arunabha]

No doubt this is true in this specific case, but does this example extrapolate to the general case?

The original point was that given the US government's openly hostile attitude towards immigrants who simply exercised free speech, would the average highly qualified immigrant be more or less predisposed to want to immigrate.

This is made worse by the fact that there appears to be no goal to all this beyond intimidation and chilling effect. Even if you deported every single Palestine protester it would make a zero impact on the stated policy goals of mass deportation of illegal immigrants. None of the recent high profile protester cases were in the country illegally. They simply stated their opinion, and in one case, in an op ed for the student newspaper.

Note that the US has touted freedom of speech frequently and loudly when chastising autocratic foreign powers. So, when a smart software engineer in Europe sees that the current US president is willing to crush the most fundamental of civil liberties to make examples of a handful of legal immigrants, which will in no way do anything to meet his stated policy objectives, what do you think that engineer is likely to conclude?

[FirmwareBurner]

>US government's openly hostile attitude towards immigrants who simply exercised free speech

Source for such claims please? German and UK governments are even more authoritarian on free speech. You can get arrested for a tweet insulting a politician: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc

>the US has touted freedom of speech frequently and loudly when chastising autocratic foreign powers

So did Germany and Austria and most of western EU. They were buddy-buddy to Putin in the past for their gas, and now they're buddy-buddy with Azerbaijan who's slaughtering Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh because EU needs their gas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict

>to make examples of a handful of legal immigrants

Source for such claims please? How many skilled legal immigrants have been deported or subject to illegal government oppression?

[DiogenesKynikos]

> Source for such claims please?

There have been many such cases in the news recently: Mahmoud Khalil, Rumeysa Ozturk, Yunseo Chung, Momodou Taal...

According to US Sectary of State Marco Rubio, the Trump administration is currently seeking to deport over 300 students, purely for criticizing Israel. None of them has been accused of any crime. The Trump administration calls anyone who protests against Israel a Hamas supporter and terrorist, cancels their visa, and tries to deport them.

[FirmwareBurner]

>There have been many such cases in the news recently: Mahmoud Khalil, Rumeysa Ozturk, Yunseo Chung, Momodou Taal...

Coming to a country to incite domestic terrorism or vocally support terrorist groups, gets you in trouble with the law in any country.

If you move to Germany/France/etc and occupy a university campus in support of Palestine, the police will drag you away and you will get deported.

[DiogenesKynikos]

None of them did anything even remotely similar to "inciting domestic terrorism" or "vocally support[ing] terrorist groups" (though the latter would actually be protected by the 1st Amendment).

If they had been in any way involved with domestic terrorism, then they could be charged, sentenced, and probably deported as a consequence. But what they actually did was peacefully protest, write Op-Eds, and generally speak their minds. That's 100% covered by the 1st Amendment.

The Trump administration hasn't charged these students with anything. It's asserting the right to deport legal immigrants purely based on their political opinions, which is an obvious breach of the 1st Amendment.

[FirmwareBurner]

>None of them did anything even remotely similar to "inciting domestic terrorism" or "vocally support[ing] terrorist groups"

They were political agitators. A visa is a privilege not a right, and may be revoked for any reason, you don't have to commit a crime.

>though the latter would actually be protected by the 1st Amendment

The 1st amendment applies to US citizens, not guests on visas.

Why do you move to a country on a visa and then protest against it? Name me a country who accepts that from its visitors.

A visa to move to a country is a privilege, not a right. If you're protesting the government who gave you that visa and you're not a citizen, then get out, good-bye, nobody wants extra trouble makers, you can legally protest by leaving the country you dislike.

How is this even a conversation? Imagine you invite a guest in your house starting to annoy you the hell out. You'd want them out even though they haven't committed any crimes worth calling the police.

[DiogenesKynikos]

> They were political agitators.

Political agitation is Constitutionally protected in the United States. In fact, it's one of the most important activities that people like Jefferson and Madison wanted to protect.

> A visa is a privilege not a right, and may be revoked for any reason

No, it cannot be revoked for any reason. Revoking visas because of Constitutionally protected speech is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. The government is not allowed to retaliate against people (not just citizens - anyone) for speech.

> Name me a country who accepts that from its visitors .

Every liberal democracy.

> nobody wants extra trouble makers

Nobody wants fascists, but we're not kicking you out.

> Imagine you invite a guest in your house

This isn't your house. It's the United States of America. There are laws and Constitutional rights. If you don't like it, how about you go somewhere more suited to your tastes - somewhere without freedom of speech and due process.