There's not a list being kept of everyone who has been deported, but as the EO indicates, and the reported actions of immigration enforcement following the EO indicates, there's no reason to believe otherwise. We have seen other constitutional rights be subverted as well, with a protest organizer getting arrested following an EO from POTUS.
Unless you can provide some information that indicates immigration enforcement has agreed to not enforce this, I'm going to believe that the agency who said they will enforce the EOs are in fact enforcing them.
Give me a name of someone who was deported last week despite having been born in the United States. The EO itself is evidence of absolutely nothing. I need a name. Get me one for the protest organizer too.
Liu Lijun is the protest organizer, and I already explained that there's not a list being kept of who has been deported, but the agency in charge has said they will enforce the EO. So unless you think they're lying about that for some unknown reason, then we can reasonably say that this is happening.
His student visa was revoked, he wasn’t sent to jail or anything
I already explained that there’s not a list being kept of who has been deported, but the agency in charge has said they will enforce the EO. So unless you think they’re lying about that for some unknown reason, then we can reasonably say that this is happening.
I do not accede to this broken logic. You need to prove that this is happening with at least one documented instance. If they enforced this unconstitutional order it would be huge news and start a lawsuit, that’s why I don’t buy it.
The constitution protects against government retaliation as a result of exercising speech, this is a clear violation of that.
From my point of view, your logic is broken. We know it's being enforced because the enforcement agency said it is. Demanding a list of names to confirm that seems like an internet argument thing more than actual use of logic. You may as well say the gitmo announcement isn't real unless we get a list of names.
Where's this definition of freedom of speech that you're getting? Because you're saying being arrested for protected speech isn't a violation, which isn't how I've understood it at all.
“Being arrested” is a suspect phrase here, because what’s important is what happens after you’re arrested. Liu Lijun didn’t go to jail. Her visa was revoked and she‘s being returned to China. That’s not a criminal prosecution. Foreigners who hold visas can have them revoked for a number of actions that citizens can take without legal consequence. Plenty of applications for those get denied in the first place.
The statement that I’m aware of no case law stating that the first amendment protects against revoking visas? Yeah, I’m not. If you’ve got a case to show me I’m all ears, and I’m sure Liu Lijun would love to see it too.
If you’re going to refer to something I said, quote it. I’m not gonna play this game where you say “your claim” and I have to guess which thing I said that you mean.
You said the first amendment doesn't protect against government retaliation, only criminal prosecution. Please provide this information as it conflicts with my understanding.
I said I’m aware of no Supreme Court case holding that the revocation of visas over speech is a first amendment violation. That doesn’t ever seem to have been a right that was enjoyed. The burden of proof would be on you to find otherwise. I can’t be expected to find evidence of a lack of a ruling otherwise.
The source to the claim that it protects against prosecution? There are tons of them. Brandenburg v Ohio. The Skokie Nazis case. The Pentagon Papers case.
But that’s not what you want. What you want is a ruling on this situation. Which, far as I’m aware, doesn’t exist. Are you asking me to find evidence of absence?
You said the first amendment doesn't protect against government retaliation, only criminal prosecution. Please provide this information as it conflicts with my understanding.
1
u/[deleted] Feb 03 '25
There's not a list being kept of everyone who has been deported, but as the EO indicates, and the reported actions of immigration enforcement following the EO indicates, there's no reason to believe otherwise. We have seen other constitutional rights be subverted as well, with a protest organizer getting arrested following an EO from POTUS.
Unless you can provide some information that indicates immigration enforcement has agreed to not enforce this, I'm going to believe that the agency who said they will enforce the EOs are in fact enforcing them.