Stephen, you are arguing against a point no one is making.
No serious legal scholar claims foreign nationals have an unrestricted right to enter the United States. The federal government can, and routinely does, deny visas for security reasons. That is settled law.
The real question is whether we want the United States government to start denying entry based on speech alone, even vile speech, and whether that aligns with the First Amendment traditions we claim to champion.
You can say the Bill of Rights applies only to citizens, but the Founders also understood that our principles are strongest when applied consistently, not selectively. We do not protect speech because we approve of it, we protect it because we refuse to let the government decide what speech is acceptable.
If you want to bar someone for plotting violence or coordinating with hostile groups, fine. But if you start banning people merely for cheering the wrong side online, you are not defending America, you are turning it into the kind of state we claim to oppose.
The strength of a free nation is tested not by how it treats its allies, but how it restrains itself against its enemies.
If you believe all of these people are paid protesters, then you probably believe that Trump is covering up the release of the Epstein files because he’s not in them.
@BasedMikeLee @VasBroughtToX @JDVance What do you call an administration that protects that protects pedos, ignores the constitution and incites a civil war??
@Acyn Follow the money eh? Why don’t you follow the money given to Israel? Or the money given to Epstein? Now that’s where you should be investigating instead of calling democrats terrorists. Your sick
@AGPamBondi@POTUS You’ll go after anyone and everything to distract from what you SHOULD be doing. This administration we cause a civil war to avoid Trumpstein fines