Should the United States permit to say hatred? Absolutely -that is the essence of the United States. As we treated the defendant on January 6 and under the Biden administration, we cannot start a slippery slope that punishes people just for their beliefs.
Does that mean we should recognize foreigners who hold the convention of professional terrorists and spread them to social media? Absolutely not! Freedom of speech is a right, but no one has the positive rights for foreigners to emigrate. We must discriminate who we will forgive the country.
The United States is already fighting with sufficient homemade anti -American extremist. Why import people who have disgust against universal Western values?
As part of Wider order In the anti -Jewishism, Trump instructed federal government agencies to monitor foreigners who promote hatred and terrorists, and targeted potential removal.
The council on the Hamas on Islamic relations with the United States immediately opposed it and suddenly evoke the US Constitution. “The freedom of speech is the basics of the Constitution that the president cannot wipe out by the President's order,” he said in a statement.
This group compares today's campus protests to past movements, “I once separated, Vietnam War, and a college student who protested in the Apartheid South Africa, a diverse collection of college students who protested the Gaza's massacre war. It is worthy of our country.
Exposure to overseas is not a punishment
One important difference is separated from today's campus protests and those who opposed the Vietnam War. Trump's order is applied to foreigners in the context of the privilege of staying in the country for Americans and foreigners facing fines and imprisonment if they are enforced.
Reputment of foreigners is not a punishment protected by a legitimate process. People can live in their own country without fines or imprisoned. Express of the country is an extension of the sovereignty of the nation, and the United States has the right to set enrollment conditions based on public interest, safety, and anti -American views.
The Supreme Court has confirmed this principle Fong Yue Tingv. UnitedStates (1893), “expulsion of abroad is not a punishment for crime” or “expulsion” was determined to be “expulsion” in the sense that citizens would be expelled as punishment. After all, the expelled individuals remain free in their country.
The judge further stated:
It is a method of returning to his country, which does not comply with the condition that the state government acting within the constitutional authority and in appropriate departments will act. Living here depends on. Therefore, he has not been deprived of life, freedom, or property without a legitimate process of the law.
If Hamas's supporters are in the United States on a foreign visa, he cannot be imprisoned to express his opinion. But we have the right to say, “Return to your country and express your sympathy of your terrorist in a place you are grateful.”
Extract of foreigners abroad is a matter of administrative authorities delegated by Congress. Dew process protection is not applied beyond what Congress has approved. There is no basis for this order.
in Turner V. Williams (1904), the Supreme Court strengthens this principle and said, “It is to have a court's authority to protect the nation from the appearance of aliens, whose race and customs are not desirable as citizens. You can't, or if you already find your own way in our land. “
Yes, you can forcibly repatriate from the perspective
For more than a century, Congress has enacted laws to allow foreign expulsion to express the views of Anakist, Communist, parent Nazi, or terrorists. There are several here:
- Immigration and Nationality Law sections 212 (A) (3) (E) will not accept aliens who have participated in the Nazi persecution and will be forced to repatriate.
- INA's section 212 (a) (3) (F) intends to engage in activities that are considered that the Secretary of State is associated with terrorist organizations and may be in danger of exposing the welfare, safety, or security of the United States. Alien bar sections 212 (3) (F).
- The INA section 212 (A) (3) (D) (IV) is a member of the Communist or other totalitarian party, whether in the country or in Japan you can't.
These provisions will reconfirm the long -standing principles that the United States has sovereignty to determine who can enter and stay in the country.
The official membership of the terrorist group is not the only reason that someone can prohibit entering the United States. Rover entry For those who “support or support terrorists' activities, persuade others to support or support terrorist activities, or persuade others to support terrorist organizations.”
Another law gives the president's expanded authority to non -immigrant visas, including student visas. The administration can refuse visa for some reason and refuse to enter those who have already retained valid non -immigration visas. The law explicitly states Publishing a visa is not “acquiring an alien qualification”. [into] When the United States arrived at the US port, it turned out that he was unacceptable under the provisions of this chapter or other laws. “
Why can't we examine these people better?
If a foreign student expresses the emotions of a professional terrorist, the law obliges their removal. To put it wider, the United States has to do a better job to judge social media activities in foreigners, especially strong terrorists, and local social media activities.
Trump suggested this need Presidential order Regarding the screening admission he signed on the first day of his inauguration. Lax Vetting, along with Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, a terrorist who killed three sailors at the Navy Aviation Bureau Pen Sacola on December 6, 2019, was painfully clear. Saudi Arabia goes to a sensitive US pilot training program.
The United States is already fighting with sufficient homemade anti -American extremist. Why import people who have disgust against universal Western values? In the first discussion on the country's natural naturalization law, Theodore Seijiwick claimed that the United States claimed that only the reputable and valuable characters should welcome. Only suitable. “
Certainly, we all agree that the people who supported the Jewish massacre on October 7 did not meet the standards.
