[xyzzyz]

Let’s say I apply for a tourist visa to US, and I get denied. Am I entitled to a jury trial in US to decide whether I get the visa or not?

Let’s say I do get a tourist visa, get admitted at the border, and the second I cross it, I begin openly violating the terms of the tourist visa. Can the government deport me right there and then, or am I entitled to a full jury trial that decides my deportation?

Finally, let’s say that I violate my tourist visa covertly instead of overtly, so that the government finds out only 3 years later. You seem to be claiming in your comment that at that point, I am certainly entitled to a jury trial. If you answered “no, you’re not entitled to trial” in the previous scenarios, what exactly do you think has changed that makes me entitled to it now?

[SauciestGNU]

As I learned earlier today, time in country is legally relevant in this case. Current law is that someone who has been in the country for over 2 years is entitled to a hearing prior to removal.

To specifically answer your questions, I think it's reasonable that countries can deny visa applications, but I don't think they should be able to do so for behavior that would be legally be protected in the jurisdiction a person is trying to enter. I do not think the US should be able to deny visa applications for speech critical of the US government or Israel.

Once a person is in the country I would absolutely want for a judicial fact finding exercise to determine whether a person has violated the terms of their admittance. I would prefer that process to take the form of a jury trial, but practically speaking I will also accept the opportunity for people to appear before a judge as a workable but less than ideal situation.

For your final situation time in country changes things legally and entitles a person to a hearing before a judge. Ideally this would be a trial. Furthermore, it is repugnant to think that visas can be revoked for nothing but constitutionally protected activities, such as writing opinion pieces for a newspaper. I believe a judiciary not captured by fascists would find that such revocations are a violation of the plain letter of the first amendment and fourteenth amendment, and that the US government should not be able to take adverse actions against anyone for purely expressive activity.

[xyzzyz]

> I don't think they should be able to do so for behavior that would be legally be protected in the jurisdiction a person is trying to enter

This is very much not the current practice. The DS-160 form asks you a bunch of questions about things that are not illegal in US, but will almost certainly result in denial of the visa. Not only that, it asks about your family members, and your answers can and will cause visa denial, even if your family members are not applying for a visa with you. This is good and proper: foreigners have no right to enter our country, and just because something is legal for US citizens doesn’t meant it’s desirable, or that we need to extend this right to noncitizens.

> I do not think the US should be able to deny visa applications for speech critical of the US government or Israel.

How about for being a fan of Hitler, glorifying Holocaust, and advocating for changes in US constitution to allow wholesale genocide of Jews and Muslims? None of this is illegal. You are saying that we should we not be able to keep this freak out of our country, right?

> Once a person is in the country I would absolutely want for a judicial fact finding exercise to determine whether a person has violated the terms of their admittance.

When you enter US through a port of entry, a random CBP employee is fully empowered to deny you entry if he decides you violate the terms of your visa, or some other entry denial reason applies. Importantly, you have no right to judicial review of this denial. You can make an administrative appeal, but you are not entitled in any way to have a judge hear your complaint. You are saying now that the second you get admitted into the country, the same process that was due to you before the entry is now insufficient to adjudicate your rights. I don’t buy it, and neither does the law.

> Furthermore, it is repugnant to think that visas can be revoked for nothing but constitutionally protected activities, such as writing opinion pieces for a newspaper.

Why? You can very much be denied the visa for constitutionally protected activities. Happens all the time, in fact. It would be ridiculous if we could deny entry people who glorify Holocaust, but couldn’t kick them out if we find out they do so only after we let them in. First amendment doesn’t prevent us from denying entry to foreigners based on their speech. This is settled law. If we can refuse their entry, I don’t see why it should prevent us from removing them too.

[SauciestGNU]

I appreciate the thought you put into this response, I'll admit that some of my contentions may be a failure of imagination on my part. I think I lean toward assuming admissibility even for freakishly bad speech, but I'm honestly not sure.

However, much like the legal concept that habeas corpus follows the physical body, once a person is in the United States they should be granted the protections that are granted to all persons within the US and subject to its jurisdiction (I'm using "should" as both normative and descriptive, current actions are in part so controversial because they're violating this principle).