Well, this will wind up in SCOTUS
-
It's an interesting question. What rights do you have on a student visa? Do you have the right to come as a guest and oppose the host country's policies? do you have the right to speak against specific groups of people? To threaten and intimidate them?
You may have those rights, but I think a visa is a privilege, not a right. You're a guest here and any guest can wear out their welcome. behave accordingly.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
A visa can be cancelled at any time it is determined that the holder has violated the terms. I should think participating in an illegal or disruptive demonstration would qualify.
-
A visa can be cancelled at any time it is determined that the holder has violated the terms. I should think participating in an illegal or disruptive demonstration would qualify.
@Mik said in Well, this will wind up in SCOTUS:
A visa can be cancelled at any time it is determined that the holder has violated the terms. I should think participating in an illegal or disruptive demonstration would qualify.
There’s the kicker. If it’s a legally permitted protest, then I don’t think the administration has a leg to stand on unless they can point to specific harassment by the accused. If it’s an illegal gathering, then goodbye. I honestly believe they have the ability to go back and revoke the student visas from the protesters last year. It doesn’t need to be from this date forward.
-
Yeah, but there are probably three questions. Can they revoke them based on what would be protected speech for you and me? And, if they can, what rises to the bar of Hamas sympathy? And third, can the rule be set retroactively ?
-
Yeah, but there are probably three questions. Can they revoke them based on what would be protected speech for you and me? And, if they can, what rises to the bar of Hamas sympathy? And third, can the rule be set retroactively ?
@jon-nyc said in Well, this will wind up in SCOTUS:
And third, can the rule be set retroactively ?
Consider something that's not a "rule" but criminal activity such as "occupying an office," or "obstructing traffic on a thoroughfare." Though never (almost) prosecuted, these are criminal acts. It within the statutes of limitations, I can see someone pointing to those acts as a justification.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@jon-nyc said in Well, this will wind up in SCOTUS:
And third, can the rule be set retroactively ?
Consider something that's not a "rule" but criminal activity such as "occupying an office," or "obstructing traffic on a thoroughfare." Though never (almost) prosecuted, these are criminal acts. It within the statutes of limitations, I can see someone pointing to those acts as a justification.
@George-K said in Well, this will wind up in SCOTUS:
@jon-nyc said in Well, this will wind up in SCOTUS:
And third, can the rule be set retroactively ?
Consider something that's not a "rule" but criminal activity such as "occupying an office," or "obstructing traffic on a thoroughfare." Though never (almost) prosecuted, these are criminal acts. It within the statutes of limitations, I can see someone pointing to those acts as a justification.
That’s my thinking. I don’t even think that it requires the EO. I’m confident that there are provisions within the Student Visa regarding obeying the laws of the United States. If they participated in an illegal demonstration, then they are subject to a review that may result in the revocation of the VISA. I would also suggest that holds true with those hear under amnesty provisions.
-
@jon-nyc said in Well, this will wind up in SCOTUS:
And third, can the rule be set retroactively ?
Consider something that's not a "rule" but criminal activity such as "occupying an office," or "obstructing traffic on a thoroughfare." Though never (almost) prosecuted, these are criminal acts. It within the statutes of limitations, I can see someone pointing to those acts as a justification.
@George-K said in Well, this will wind up in SCOTUS:
@jon-nyc said in Well, this will wind up in SCOTUS:
And third, can the rule be set retroactively ?
Consider something that's not a "rule" but criminal activity such as "occupying an office," or "obstructing traffic on a thoroughfare." Though never (almost) prosecuted, these are criminal acts. It within the statutes of limitations, I can see someone pointing to those acts as a justification.
But they were illegal when the guy did them. The constitution forbids retroactive laws which is more analogous to this situation.
-
It's an interesting question. What rights do you have on a student visa? Do you have the right to come as a guest and oppose the host country's policies? do you have the right to speak against specific groups of people? To threaten and intimidate them?
You may have those rights, but I think a visa is a privilege, not a right. You're a guest here and any guest can wear out their welcome. behave accordingly.
@Mik said in Well, this will wind up in SCOTUS:
You may have those rights, but I think a visa is a privilege, not a right.
A license to drive is also a privilege. How do you feel about protected speech being sufficient cause to revoke your fellow citizens' privileges to drive automobiles on public roads?
-
@Mik said in Well, this will wind up in SCOTUS:
You may have those rights, but I think a visa is a privilege, not a right.
A license to drive is also a privilege. How do you feel about protected speech being sufficient cause to revoke your fellow citizens' privileges to drive automobiles on public roads?
@Axtremus said in Well, this will wind up in SCOTUS:
@Mik said in Well, this will wind up in SCOTUS:
You may have those rights, but I think a visa is a privilege, not a right.
A license to drive is also a privilege. How do you feel about protected speech being sufficient cause to revoke your fellow citizens' privileges to drive automobiles on public roads?
Well, we’re specifically talking about non-citizens, in this case.
However, a case can be made that if you’re revoking student visas over illegal protests, then it should be ALL illegal protests, regardless of cause.
-
Presumably colleges like bringing foreigners over here as they pay more, so while they may be guests, they're paying guests, who tend to get treated better than folk who just show up out of the blue and sleep on your sofa.
Maybe singling out foreigners isn't necessary. Just kick anybody out of college who protests illegally. That'll solve the problem right there.
I was only joking
-
Presumably colleges like bringing foreigners over here as they pay more, so while they may be guests, they're paying guests, who tend to get treated better than folk who just show up out of the blue and sleep on your sofa.
Maybe singling out foreigners isn't necessary. Just kick anybody out of college who protests illegally. That'll solve the problem right there.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Well, this will wind up in SCOTUS:
Presumably colleges like bringing foreigners over here as they pay more, so while they may be guests, they're paying guests, who tend to get treated better than folk who just show up out of the blue and sleep on your sofa.
Maybe singling out foreigners isn't necessary. Just kick anybody out of college who protests illegally. That'll solve the problem right there.
Don't know about all colleges, but Tulane loves them.
-
Presumably colleges like bringing foreigners over here as they pay more, so while they may be guests, they're paying guests, who tend to get treated better than folk who just show up out of the blue and sleep on your sofa.
Maybe singling out foreigners isn't necessary. Just kick anybody out of college who protests illegally. That'll solve the problem right there.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Well, this will wind up in SCOTUS:
Maybe singling out foreigners isn't necessary. Just kick anybody out of college who protests illegally. That'll solve the problem right there.
I’m fairly confident that the vast majority of people approving of the EO would also approve of your suggestion.
-
I wonder how much of this is shock and awe? Just keep throwing so much small crap out there as a distraction that some of the serious stuff gets through?
HAMAS" , I think you'd be on shaky ground.
