[dismalaf]

Believe it or not, immigration authorities (like the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency) have the power to enforce immigration laws.

The author isn't American.

Edit - wait until y'all find out other countries also have borders and laws...

[rootusrootus]

Which immigration laws are they enforcing in this case? And are you also going to suggest that the Constitution does not protect foreign nationals inside the US?

[mothballed]

The Constitution uses the following in regard to protest in the first amendment

   Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It uses this same "right of the people" in the second amendment

    ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In both cases, the right is restricted to "the people." Note in the first amendment, only the final bit about protests is restricted to "the people" the rest is generally protected whether it is "the people" or not.

Note in Heller and elsewhere it was determined "the people" are those who belong to the political class (which is a bit vague, refer to next sentence, but not same as voting class). Generally this is not those on non-immigrant visas or illegal aliens (though circuits are split on this). If you don't have the right to bear arms, clearly you are not "the people" since people by definition have the right to bear arms, which means you wouldn't have the right of "the people" to protest either, no? So it appears since they are not people, they don't have the right to assemble in protest, though they may have other first amendment rights since it's protest specifically that was narrowed to "the people" rather than many of the other parts of the first amendment which are worded without that narrowing.

For instance, speech without assembly isn't narrowed to just "the people." Perhaps this was done intentionally since allowing non-people to stage protests was seen as less desirable than merely allowing them to otherwise speak freely.

Note: Personally I do think non-immigrants are people, but trying to apply the same "people" two different ways with the exact same wording makes no sense. If they can't bear arms they necessarily are not "the people" and thus are not afforded the right to "assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Planktonne]

If you have to work your way round to "they are not people" for the law to be consistent, consider that it might be a bad law.

[traderj0e]

It's not that they aren't people, they aren't the people that the Constitution refers to. There are many rights that visitors don't have.

[Planktonne]

That is one possible (specious and self-serving) interpretation of a document that pre-dates the concepts and laws it's being used to prop up.

How many of the Pilgrims had a valid modern visa?

[traderj0e]

USA was founded well after the Pilgrims. I don't think anyone in 1776, or even in the Pilgrim days, was thinking a foreigner should have the right to vote for instance.

[rootusrootus]

> the people

You could make this argument, but the Supreme Court does not seem to agree, they have consistently said that "the people" is basically everyone here. Even those unlawfully here.

That said, the second amendment does have some interpretation that allows for restrictions on temporary visa holders like the student that is the topic of this discussion. But it also has rulings that support it applying to illegal immigrants.

[mothballed]

> they have consistently said that "the people" is basically everyone here.

This is absolutely false. DC v Heller cites that "the people" refers to members of the "political community."[] Not "basically everyone here." The interpretation of what "political community" means has been split in the circuits. One court in Illinois found it might include illegal immigrants (who have settled as immigrants) or non-immigrant visa holders that were illegally settling here. This is anomalous. Generally they've found the political community to be something approximating those with immigrant type visas, permanent residency, or citizenship -- barring some exceptions from those like felons.

Even if you dig up the most generous case in illinois (I've forgotten the name) which claims some illegal immigrants are "the people", which it has been awhile since I read it -- even they narrow the political community refered to by "the people" to people actually settling as part of the community and not just basically anyone inside the US in a way that would suggest it applies to tourists or student visa holders using their visa in the legal manner.

      What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

[] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

[emmelaich]

> "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

"Peaceably" is important. If you think the pro-Palestinian protests on campus are peaceful, try wearing a yarmulke and walking anywhere near them. Or anywhere on many campuses, on any day, protest on-going or not.

[fshafique]

Search Google images for "yarmulke palestinian protest" and tell me there aren't many Jewish people fighting for a Free Palestine. Every pro-Palestine rally I've been to has had a contingent of Jewish groups in our midst. You'll only get hated on if you show or wave the Israeli flag.

[Pay08]

There are videos of Jews getting harassed and attacked by "pro-Palestinians" all over the internet while they attempt to get to class. Jews have been arrested in the UK "for their own safety" for existing near a protest. Not to mention the rampant ZOG and other related bullshit.

Even if there are Jews at some of these protests (as opposed to random people wearing kippahs), all you're doing is whitewashing violence. Same as Candace Owens and MAGA.

[pjc50]

> And are you also going to suggest that the Constitution does not protect foreign nationals inside the US?

I thought it was settled constitutional law that it doesn't? Moreover, during the war on terror, it was established that the president can freely order the murder of non Americans outside the US.

[rootusrootus]

The courts, all the way to the top, have consistently interpreted the Constitution as a document that circumscribes the behavior of the government, not as a document that grants privileges to "the people" or a subset of that (e.g. citizens only).

[FireBeyond]

Not even remotely. Citizens may be granted additional protections from some things, but the Constitution applies to all persons inside the US.

[oceansky]

Might apply to people outside of US too, given that Maduro is being tried in NY for drug and firearm charges while never having set foot in US before.

[rdiddly]

Apparently they have the power to murder and kidnap American citizens too, or violate their rights if they happen to freely speak or assemble in ways they don't like.

[ramon156]

Did you completely miss the news in January? ICE killed an innocent american citizen. The person responsible never got arrested or jailed.

This isn't about enforcing the law, its the book definition of fascism, and we're letting it happen.

> wait until y'all find out other countries also have borders and laws...

Legal citizens are being arrested based on no evidence. where in your law book says this is legal?