[snvzz]

US free speech is not absolute, nor is it freedom from consequence. The consequence for foreign activists pushing foreign agendas may very well be deportation.

No country has an obligation to welcome anyone from any other country, especially those who do not intend to even try and adopt its values and customs, even more so foreign agents who come with the sole intent of association to push the agenda of a party they were members from in their old country into the politics of the new one.

[TheCleric]

Ahh so the constitution doesn’t apply to non-citizens? The Supreme Court disagrees:

    There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law… Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.

[snvzz]

>(protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without)

>due process of law

Is being followed and, if appropriate, the foreign agent will be booted.

Currently, they are quite early in the process still.

[saghm]

Given how many people have been deported this year in violation of judicial orders, and how the secretary of the DHS earlier this year even testified to Congress that they thought "habeas corpus" was a right the president has to unilaterally deport people, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to be trying to get out in front of any potential unconstitutional deportations by arguing against them. If the fears turn out to be unfounded, that's a good thing.

[lovich]

Can you please tell us what the phrase “due process of law” means for you so that we are not talking past each other.

I am fairly certain I disagree with your point, but if I am going to disagree, I want to do so based off your opinions and not a strawman of yourself.

[1659447091]

> US free speech is not absolute

Correct. As its sole purpose is to prevent the Government from restricting speech for viewpoints it does not like from anyone living under that government. Any laws restricting Free Speech have to be narrowly defined and/or viewpoint agnostic; military secrets, sedition, etc. And those restriction can only be created by law, not a mayor's or governor's or president's whims.

Advocacy or speaking to others, including business owners, with viewpoints the government doesn't like is allowed.

It's the main point of Free Speech -- to prevent the government, and only the government, from censoring or interfering/restraining the expression of opinions. Especially if those opinions are not in alignment with, or favorable to, any sitting government.

This applies to both citizens and those who reside in the US. The person in the article is a US permanent resident.

[lovich]

Oh, I guess we should act like all other countries.

The thing that has made me see red the most when talking with the current populist nativist ideologues is how they crow about America being the best but then point to other countries behavior as defense for their own.

I actually believe that America _was_ the best before this crew took over. That is because we had high barriers and filtered for the competent.

I would be all for 100 foot walls around the border if anyone who managed to cross them got citizenship for the achievement. Instead I am getting a bunch of dipshits who largely live on the largesse of tax receipts from my region of the nation and our equivalents on the other coast, claiming how superior they are while they destroy everything that made us great.

If you want to defend this behavior as being pro free speech, then go fuck yourself for trying to pull this 1984 newspeak shit off